MovieChat Forums > Travelers (2016) Discussion > So here's what I don't get (spoilers), c...

So here's what I don't get (spoilers), can somebody explain...

posted 8 years ago by gogoschka-1
2 replies | jump to latest

...the following to me: In the first two episodes, some characters (travelers) could save certain individuals from dying (like the guy who overdosed and the old cop with the heart attack) - but they refuse to so, supposedly because they don't want to change any future events by letting people live who were supposed to die. Yet only hours later they prevent an event which was supposed to kill thousands.

So how does that logic work: Letting one or two people live is supposed to be a risk that can't be taken, but letting thousands of people live who were supposed to die is less of a risk for future events? Does that get explained in later episodes?

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

[–] meira-hand 8 years ago

They are basically foot soldiers who do not have the full picture of what and how what they do affects the future. They were sent back to create changes that will prevent the collapse of the society and the environment in their future. but this is controlled by the director who sends them specific missions. They follow a set of protocols, one of which is not to kill or save anyone, unless otherwise instructed (see: http://www.showcase.ca/blogs/8006/travelers-protocols-the-rules-of-being-a-traveler). The event they prevented was a mission from the director, not something they decided on their own to prevents the deaths. This is one of the emotional difficulties they have to deal with and it comes up several times during the season.

[–] gogoschka-1 8 years ago

Cool. Thanks a lot for answering 👌

http://www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html