MovieChat Forums > Travelers (2016) Discussion > Question

Question

posted 8 years ago by teachergirl912
6 replies | jump to latest

So, I thought that they said the conscientiousness could only take over the brain of someone who was on the brink of death? But, I've seen many people get taken over who were not going to die. What gives? Why would they only choose people who were supposed to die, if they can really use anyone? Also, by those "people" simply living and not dying, couldn't that possibly alter the future right there?

[–] teachergirl912 8 years ago

Also, once a host has been taken over, does that mean the new consciousness cannot ever leave? If the "host" dies, will the consciousness of the person in the future die, or will they just end up back in their future body? I wonder what happens to their future body when their consciousness is back in the 21st.

[–] wwoods-3 8 years ago

So, I thought that they said the conscientiousness could only take over the brain of someone who was on the brink of death? But, I've seen many people get taken over who were not going to die. What gives? Why would they only choose people who were supposed to die, if they can really use anyone?

No, they can take over any time at which they've got a fix on the target host's position. They usually do it at a moment a few minutes before the recorded time of death, because ... Squeamishness, since they're killing the people whose bodies they're taking over? Or an attempt to minimize unintended changes to the timeline?

Also, by those "people" simply living and not dying, couldn't that possibly alter the future right there?

Yup.

Also, once a host has been taken over, does that mean the new consciousness cannot ever leave? If the "host" dies, will the consciousness of the person in the future die, or will they just end up back in their future body? I wonder what happens to their future body when their consciousness is back in the 21st.

As I understand it, it's a one-way trip. With the possible exception of those Messengers who only take over a host for a few minutes and then disappear. Now whether the Travelers are copies of future people, or the only version remaining, present or future, I don't know. Probably the latter, or the time-travel program would use multiple copies of effective agents.

[–] teachergirl912 8 years ago

Thanks for the insight. That helps a lot.

[–] webmaster-2388 8 years ago

Also, once a host has been taken over, does that mean the new consciousness cannot ever leave?

That seems strongly implied. Though, we do see situations where that new consciousness itself is overwritten again.

If the "host" dies, will the consciousness of the person in the future die, or will they just end up back in their future body? I wonder what happens to their future body when their consciousness is back in the 21st.

There's a long older thread about this in this forum. Many people seem to have made the assumption that it's a true "consciousness transfer" where the future person dies or whatever, and the past person inherits that unique consciousness. This is generally supported by a few statements made about "misfires": where a transfer fails, and the Travelers treat this as a permanent loss, rather than "they'll just try again with that Traveler tomorrow." Also, Trevor states that early in the program these misfires were 30% and implied that that would be a reason not to volunteer to be a Traveler. If there were no consequences to the future self, this dialogue wouldn't make much sense.

However, a lot of this is put under question in the last couple of episodes, particularly surrounding Marcy and further statements by Trevor. Marcy is "rebooted" with an apparent older copy of her consciousness. Some have argued that the fact Marcy's reboot is presented as unusual is proof that consciousness is not routinely "stored" somehow. But Trevor states that also in the early days his consciousness was removed from his body and then reinserted. Both of these statements imply that a consciousness can be "stored" in some way, and it's not "new tech" just for Marcy. If so, why not store copies of all Travelers indefinitely? Why not "reuse" them? It's left unclear, but I think it becomes significantly harder after the last couple episodes to argue that consciousness of Travelers cannot be copied/stored somehow.

No matter what, I think it's strongly implied repeatedly that the present Travelers -- whether they are the original unique consciousness "transferred" to the past or whether they are simply some sort of "copy" -- cannot simply return to the future to inhabit their old bodies. Many have interpreted various concerns about death among the Travelers to mean that consciousness has been truly transferred, since why else would they be afraid of death, if the "original" was safe and sound back in the future?

The problem with this latter logic is that they know they are changing the past. Their future selves may thus be altered in extreme ways or may not even exist after changes they make. They don't know whether their future selves still exist in the same form -- and thus for the Travelers, the only selves that are "original" are the ones they know in the present. If those versions die, the people they know will die, even if there's some future variant still out there who may or may not resemble them. As for Trevor's statement, it could just be that "misfires" are particularly dangerous to the future consciousness too for whatever reason.

[–] webmaster-2388 8 years ago

But, I've seen many people get taken over who were not going to die. What gives?

It's stated at some point that young kids can be taken over briefly as messengers (which seem to be an automated message, not a true full-blown "transfer of consciousness") without permanent harm to them. This is only done with adults under extreme circumstances, since it seems to kill them.

Why would they only choose people who were supposed to die, if they can really use anyone?

Because it destroys the host's consciousness, effectively killing them. From a morality perspective, I assume the future is trying its best to avoid unnecessarily killing people. Also, by taking over the lives of existing people, they'd likely interfere with future events those people would participate in, thereby resulting in unintentional changes to the future.

Also, by those "people" simply living and not dying, couldn't that possibly alter the future right there?

Yes, that's one of the biggest foundational plotholes of the show, in my opinion. From the "butterfly effect" phenomenon, it's likely any small changes to the past could propagate to major effects over centuries, but most time travel stories play fast and loose with this, so I'm willing to give them a pass on it.

But most time travel stories at least make SOME attempt at explaining away gaping holes in changing history. You'd think that the Director would at least coach the Travelers to live in such a way that they'd minimize changes or something. Instead, they're apparently just instructed to "live their lives" as if their hosts had continued living -- which as you rightly point out would likely result in major changes just from the fact they're still alive.

[–] teachergirl912 8 years ago

Thanks for replying. That helps a lot.