MovieChat Forums > The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations (2009) Discussion > 'Time travel' question in regard to BE3

'Time travel' question in regard to BE3

posted 11 years ago by strider0075
3 replies | jump to latest

Now I've watched the first one and the third movie (can't find the second). I've read the other threads, but something still bugs me. It's the first scene of the 3rd movie. It plays out more like, well actual time travel. Like he's actually there watching the mother get bludgeoned to death. Now while the rest of the movie plays out like the first one (in theory). That first scene really irks me.

I thought the whole idea of the trilogy is that the time travelers can only jump back to a point in their own timeline. It made sense that they could since the ability lies in their own mind and it's ability to actually reconfigure a point in their memory. So at what point in Sam's memory was he watching a mother getting beaten to death?

It just really bugged me. I don't know maybe it was explained how the mechanics changed to the more normal time travel mechanics in the second film. Can someone explain or shed some light on this?

[–] The_Wannabe_Critic 11 years ago

I have only seen the first and third movie, but what I can gather from this movie that is very different from the other two is that Sam can travel through time without him ever having a memory to associate it with.

For example, the one girl that was murdered that Sam had never met before was explained later by Jenna that although he had never met the women before, he would have met her in the near future, which is why she had to kill her.

Another example that justifies that he never had to have met the people or have had been in the situation to time travel was the lady in the park with her son. Every time he solved a crime for that detective, it was because Jenna would read Sam the case file with the location, date and time right before he would jump to that time zone.

I hope this answered your question.

[–] strider0075 11 years ago

It explains the movies explanation, but it still doesn't answer my question (if that makes sense). See, the thing is the other movies were more like paradox free time travel. That the traveller travelled to the past through accessing their personal memory, they didn't occupy any extra space because they were donning the form of their past selves, etc and so forth. This was possible because it was the users personal memory, thus could take control over themselves in the past. Soooo, the movie's explanation of "haven't met them yet, but will" doesn't hold up because at that point and time, there is no memory to access. If there's no memory to access then they can't travel back in time without causing a paradox. Further, it's not explained how the power has evolved from just being the user taking control of themselves, to a sort of "mind-jack" ability where the user can take control of anyone in range apparently (based on the first scene and some of the theories i've heard).

But thanks for trying.

~edit~
I think i should digress on something. When i said "mind-jack" it has to be the only possibility. If he had taken control of himself at that point and time and rushed to the scene, he'd cause a paradox. By leaving his home or where he was supposed to be at that time, he's altering time. Let's say for instance there was someone he was supposed to bump into or encounter and delayed by a couple seconds. He doesn't bump into or encounter them and sets a chain of events into effect that could cause a crime not to happen or happen elsewhere. Using the case in point let's use the mother's case, he could end up taking the cab that someone else was supposed to. This causes another cab to be on the road that's not supposed to be there slowing traffic by a couple seconds to a couple minutes. This could lead to the mother never arriving at her destination on time, thus the criminal never encountering her and attacking someone else or somewhere else. Now if his power had expanded to a mind jack ability (in other words he's taken control of someone else in the area) you avoid this issue. The mother and the criminal meet when they are supposed to, thus the crime happens.

Further, if this is the case that he is running to the crime scene using his past self's body. Then why is the other detective skeptical, Sam should be a witness. The only way to explain that is that he goes to the crime scene, views it, then goes back to where he was at the later point and time to converge the split timeline, then goes to the police to explain what he saw.

[–] NESPlayer 8 years ago

I thought the whole idea of the trilogy is that the time travelers can only jump back to a point in their own timeline. It made sense that they could since the ability lies in their own mind and it's ability to actually reconfigure a point in their memory. So at what point in Sam's memory was he watching a mother getting beaten to death?

The scene is actually consistent with the other scenes and with the rules from the first movie.
It went like this:

When he traveled back to watch the crime, he ended up wherever he has been at that point in time. From there, he simply walked to the crime scene and watched the crime.

Yes, you can only travel back to moments of your own life, occupying your younger body. But when you're in the past, you can take a bus to go wherever you want. It's not like there are invisible walls that prevent you from leaving the scenery. The world still exists in its entirety.

So, even if you haven't been to that concert last Friday, you can still transport yourself back into your last Friday's body and go to the concert.
O.k., if the concert was at a time when you were five years old and it was at the other side of the globe, then you'll have a hard time attending it. But if it happened in your own town at a time when you were an adult, you can go back and just visit it in your past body.

And that's exactly what he did: He transported himself back, ending up in a cafe or whatever. From there, he simply walked to the crime scene.