MovieChat Forums > Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) Discussion > Yes, yes I am a time travel movie geek.....

Yes, yes I am a time travel movie geek...

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
29 replies | jump to latest

Apparently, one of the disagreements between Cameron and Miller re: DF was the nature of the time travel they wanted to use.

I haven't seen DF but many of the reviews complained about the plot point in which T800s were still arriving from the future... a future that no longer existed due to the events of T2. So where were they coming from?

I strolled through youtube last night looking for vids that try to explain this issue. The two I watched tried to make sense of it all, but it was clear even they couldn't explain it in logical terms.

Here's how they explained it as best as I can figure out... In the future before it ceased to exist Skynet had sent out a wave of T800s. They were designed to 'land' in different years in the past to ensure that if an earlier mission failed, another T800 would arrive later to finish the job.

The flaws with this plan as I see it...

i. From a tactical perspective it would make more sense to send the T800s to all arrive at the same time. Look how much damage one T800 can do... now picture how much damage a platoon could do. The military and special forces don't succeed by sending in one soldier or member at a time... they send in a coordinated team.

But, let's give the film makers some slack for a second and assume that there was some unexplained reason that Skynet couldn't do it this way.

ii. The other flaw... the biggest one... is that conceptually this plan wouldn't work. The parallel time lines model that Cameron/ Miller use wouldn't allow for a team of T800s to arrive in the same timeline but at different times.

The T800 that arrives the earliest immediately sets up a new timeline. The future of the original timeline no longer exists, therefore the the other Terminators also cease to exist. They have no place 'to land' if that makes sense.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The earliest Terminator to arrive continues to exist as an 'orphan' in a new timeline with a different future than the one he came from. The other Terminators are a part of that wiped-out future than never comes into existence.

DF gets it 'wrong' in that it tries to have machines from divergent futures arriving at a common point in the past. The film makers were hoping audiences would overlook that flaw for the sake of a better action movie.

(Sidebar: No time travel movie makes sense if you examine any of them too closely. Every movie has to make some concessions in logic for the sake of a good story. It comes down to the degree of concessions that audiences are willing to accept.)

The early Terminator continues to exist only because IT'S HIS PRESENCE that creates the new timeline.

I speculate that this is where Cameron and Miller disagreed on time travel. One was fixed on the logical flaws, while the other was focusing on the importance of moving the story forward.

[–] Goliard (1421) 5 years ago

The original Terminator is the ONLY one that works, logically. It presents a closed loop. The not so great part is that Judgement Day is still going to happen; the silver lining is that Sarah (& John) survive, to eventually take back the planet for humanity.

Closed loop. No need for "alternate timeline" foolishness, or logic bombs.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I too am a time travel movie fan , and was thus far under the impression that no time travel movie would stand up to scrutiny and logic, but i think your right.

In T1 , they didnt actually change the future , or the past , so all the usual paradoxes are avoided.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

TDLR version: The first Terminator wasn't necessarily a closed loop. It was a parallel timelines model as well.

Long read version:

Let me qualify that though...

Cameron wasn't thinking of sequels when he made the first movie.

He was going for a very Twilight Zone style ending where we all think: "Whoa! She's holding the photo that Kyle Reese gave her... the one that she'll give to her son, John, who will then give it to Kyle Reese in the future. He'll take it back in time to give to Sarah again... rinse and repeat. Mind blown!"

So, I can't say that you are wrong with the causal loop idea.

But...

... the ending also DOES NOT preclude the idea that we are seeing the start of a new timeline.

Each new timeline changes just a little bit from the previous on... and with enough small changes, eventually they all add up to big changes and a new timeline where Skynet's appearance is delayed as we learn in T2.

The explanation:

i. Causal loops suffer from the paradox problem. I won't go into it... Google will lead you to lots and lots of articles on it.

They would also violate certain Laws of Entropy.

It's the reason that real astrophysicists don't believe such things exists, and instead have embraced the whole 'multiverse' theory... an infinite number of universes and timelines.

ii. Anything which circulates through each time loop automatically invalidates it.

For example, you inherit a watch from your father. You travel back in time with the watch. You give it to your father when he was a boy. He will grow up to give it his son -- you.

Superficially, this seems like a causal loop. But, each time through the loop, THE WATCH gets older and older until it will eventually crumble to dust and fall apart.

So even though each loop APPEARS very similar to the previous one, it isn't. Each loop is different from the previous one on a very small level.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Cameron crafted a pretty airtight script to avoid this problem. Nothing physical appears to be 'circulating' through each loop. The loop seems airtight... truly causal.

Except for the KNOWLEDGE of the loop. Sarah knows the details of when the Terminator and Reese will arrive and she will pass those details -- along with the photo -- on to John. In the future, armed with this knowledge, John will change things up. He'll send Reese back sooner to intercept the Terminator BEFORE it gets there. Skynet will respond by sending its Terminator back at a different time.

And so on and so on...

In other words, the movie we watched was just one iteration of an infinite number of very similar timelines being created.

Eventually, some of these timelines lead to the one we saw in T2. Others lead to very different futures that we will never see. Or ones that lead to the other movies in the franchise (to listen to Miller and Cameron).

So I can't say you were wrong about T1 or Cameron's intentions. But it's open-ended enough to allow for the time travel model used in later movies.

[–] Goliard (1421) 5 years ago

Gonna pare down your response, while trying to be intelligible. Wish me luck:
"... the ending also DOES NOT preclude the idea that we are seeing the start of a new timeline."
Yes it does. That is, unless you want to add in comic-book/fantasist views of physics/logic. The "change the past and create new timelines" model is not something that's rooted in physics; it's the fevered dream of people who read too much speculative fiction. Dunno what your hard science background is, but that's the fact of the matter. Not sure what "astrophysicists" you're referring to. . .I'd love to know. . .but NOBODY I've ever studied with/for has ever believed anything of the sort. There are related concepts, but as for time travel creating new timelines: Nah.
"Causal loops suffer from the paradox problem. I won't go into it... Google will lead you to lots and lots of articles on it."
??? This is exactly what I explained, in my first post.
"It's the reason that real astrophysicists don't believe such things exists, and instead have embraced the whole 'multiverse' theory... an infinite number of universes and timelines."
Some have. Others have not. You know the only thing they all agree on? It's At Best a "theory," rooted in "well, I feel like this is what might make sense." There is NO hard scientific evidence of any "multiverse." Some views of quantum mechanics/string theory SUGGEST it, but the math simply Isn't There. As such, scifi has picked it up and run with it. . .but it is NOT science.
"Anything which circulates through each time loop automatically invalidates it. . .Superficially, this seems like a causal loop. But, each time through the loop, THE WATCH gets older and older until it will eventually crumble to dust and fall apart."
Not sure where you're getting these ideas from, but they have no basis in science. Why do you think the watch would get older? Or that this is some "process" that's infinitely "repeating?"

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Long, long reply here in multiple parts...

> Dunno what your hard science background is

Two degrees... one in physics and one in engineering. My degree is in classical physics though, but quantum mechanics and astrophysics -- the sciences involved in this discussion -- are an area of interest.

> The "change the past and create new timelines" model is not something that's rooted in physics

Well, yes and no.

Right now the problem in the world of physics is that many of the concepts of quantum mechanics don't mesh with concepts in classical physics.

In classical physics time travel violates some of the laws of thermodynamics. In quantum mechancics versions of time travel can be described mathematically... no one knows how this would translate in the real world though, or if it's even possible. Furthermore, even within this field there is disagreement because the math is a function of some pre-supposed assumptions which have yet to be validated.

You are right in that the sci-fi has interpreted the multiverse model to mean that there are an infinity of universes somewhere 'out there' that represent different timelines.

The timelines model as a CONCEPT is rooted in quantum mechanics. It's the idea that no state exists until it is observed. So at any given time there is only ONE universe... the rest are just potential.

There was even a proposed mathematical description that WOULD allow for a causal loop. However, the general consensus right now is the multiverse model is the more 'likely'... but it's all based on the math I mentioned above.

Theory doesn't become 'fact' until it can be proven through experiment. I said only that Cameron's ending suggests one, but doesn't preclude the other version of time travel.

(Not to brag -- okay, maybe a little -- but about ten years ago I developed a theory that would allow for time travel that avoided all the paradox issues. I went so far as to contact a leading physicist in the US about my idea.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I was surprised and flattered that he took the time to respond to me. It turns out my idea had been proposed about fifteen years before. At the time of his reply, it had been rejected as it would have required variations in the properties of spacetime. As far as astrophysicists know right now, these variations don't exist.)

> At Best a "theory," rooted in "well, I feel like this is what might make sense." There is NO hard scientific evidence of any "multiverse." Some views of quantum mechanics/string theory SUGGEST it, but the math simply Isn't There.

The math is 'there' to the extent that it assumes certain conditions are in place. But no one knows if they are so, yes, you are partially right here.

The multiverse is a model and the one that currently is the most 'popular' based on concepts rooted in quantum mechanics. And, it doesn't refer to actual physical universes as I mentioned above.

> As such, scifi has picked it up and run with it. . .but it is NOT science.

Agreed. But we're talking movies and I'm trying to bridge the huge gap between the science and cinema.

My discussion grossly distilled current theories down to very simple concepts as sci-fi uses them. Even my description doesn't cover many other 'problems' that exist in practical terms, but then we wouldn't have any cool movies about killer robots from the future.

> "Anything which circulates through each time loop automatically invalidates it. . . Why do you think the watch would get older? Or that this is some "process" that's infinitely "repeating?"

This example actually comes from an article on time travel from a physicist. It was written for the average layman so no math involved... or needed really.

The movie ends with Christopher Reeve in the past giving his love, Jane Seymour, a watch he that he inherited from an old woman when he was younger. The old woman turns out to be the older version of Jane Seymour.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Superficially, this looks like a causal loop. But, each loop IS different from the first one because, from the perspective of the watch, it just keeps getting older and older as it goes around again and again. Initially the changes are minute... the watch gets a little bit more scuffed. But it would eventually crumble into nothingness with age. At that point, the loop would change dramatically. (Replace the watch with a puppy and you get the idea... the puppy turns into a dog, then an old dog, then a dead dog.)

Similarly Cameron's ending for T1 superficially appears to be a causal loop. And, let's be honest, you and I both know that's what he was going for... that "whoa, mind blown!" Twilight Zone ending when Sarah holds up the photo. He didn't have sequels on his mind.

Cameron might have been aware of the 'Somewhere in Time' paradox when he wrote the script for T1. He is careful to make sure that nothing physical goes around the loop again and again. That way it truly does appear to be a causal loop.

Unfortunately, the one thing that that does go through the loop is the KNOWLEDGE by Sarah (and eventually John) that they are caught in the loop. They will take steps to change things and break out of the loop. The loop will change -- sometimes a little, sometimes a lot -- but it's not causal as the ending of the movie suggests.

There was no way for Cameron the write his way out of this situation because it leads to the dramatic ending. He just crossed his fingers that movie goers wouldn't think that deeply about it.

It goes back to my oft stated comment that NO time travel movie ever stands up to an examination of its own internal logic.

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

Closed loop is a paradox, meaning it's impossible. In cases where you force it, you are just stuck in the loop forever, no more future. As a closed loop story, T1 faceplants, it gains plausibility in time travel theory by assuming earlier timelines before T1, and maintaining continuity all the way through T3. I think kabuki will agree with me on this. The point he brings up does present a problem, I wonder if they maintained a solid time travel theory up until now. I just assumed they would fumble the ball, I didn't think too hard about it, just enjoy the chase scenes.

T3 had a good continuity. But they rewrote the canon so many times, I forget to care. The crucial reason why T2 fails at continuity is they supposedly stop judgement day, that is an epic fail. Judgment day has to be inevitable, or there is no way a terminator gets sent back, which means no one would know judgment day is coming, which means judgment day is inevitable. It's an infinite loop.

[–] Goliard (1421) 5 years ago

"Closed loop is a paradox, meaning it's impossible."

No. No, no, no. T1 works, even though Skynet's logic was absurd. Here's the work:
[A]
1) The resistance wins
2) Skynet sends a Terminator back in desperation
3) The terminator kills Sarah
4) John's never born
5) Skynet wins
6) There is therefore NO terminator sent back
7) Sarah lives, John is born
8) The resistance wins
9) Etc, ad infinitum

[B]
1) The resistance wins
2) Skynet sends a Terminator back in desperation
3) It fails, Sarah survives
4) John leads the resistance
5) The resistance wins
6) Life goes on (timeline proceeds naturally)
The first Terminator describes the events in [B], which works perfectly well, logically. [A] is what would cause a logic bomb, but it's not what happens. . .and in fact, doesn't make sense, from Skynet's point of view. There's no "win" there, in any case.

"The crucial reason why T2 fails at continuity is they supposedly stop judgement day, that is an epic fail."

T2 never asserts that judgement day has been stopped. Only that the latest Terminator has been stopped, and that Sarah and John survived.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Scenario [A] is the 'way' that Cameron intended the first one to end... When Sarah holds the same photo that Reese had, it means the cycle will repeat again and again. It's the one that most T1 fans think happens.

A causal loop supporter would point out that in Scenario [B]:
i. Kyle Reese and the T800 of 1984 are a fixed part of John's history... the very reason he was born. They must have come from somewhere... where did they come from?

which leads to...

ii. If Skynet doesn't send the T800 back and John doesn't send his father back to stop him, that has the effect of changing the past... John is still never born. So the closed loop HAS to keep repeating since that is the movie we are watching.

Though you disagreed with my parallel timelines explanation above, you have, in effect, used that very case for Scenario [B]. I agree with your argument here.

The Kyle Reese that fathers John Connor comes from a different future. Once he appears and creates a new timeline, THAT new timeline is free to evolve separately, as you point out.

Filling in some blanks, so to speak...

In T1 Kyle Reese came from a future where Judgement Day occurred on Aug 29, 1997. The fact that there seemed to be no historical knowledge of a T800 arriving in LA and going on a killing spree, tells me that this is the first iteration of a new timeline.

In this new timeline, a different but similar Skynet tries to stop Connor again (T2). This new Skynet likely read the history books and understood that the T800 that went on a killing spree in 1984 came from a different future version of itself.

Here's the cool bit though. This new version of Skynet is more advanced than the previous version.

What's the evidence? It now has T1000s in its arsenal.

Why/how is it more advanced? Because Cyberdyne now had advanced chips to reverse engineer from the very first Terminator that went back. In the Genesis timeline -- the one the original Kyle Reese came from -- they had to develop that technology from scratch.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This second attempt also fails but it changes the timeline yet again which leads to the events in T3. (I'm ignoring DF).

In T3, we learn that yet ANOTHER version of Skynet came into existence. Judgement Day was delayed, but not stopped.

So the third iteration of Skynet tries AGAIN to change the past by sending in an even more advanced TX. Again, this Skynet reads the history books and learns that there were two previous iterations of itself in alternate futures. More importantly, it learns that every time it tries to tweak the future it comes into existence as a more and more powerful version of itself.

So, it's in the best interests of Skynet to keep trying to change the past. Even if it fails, it "wins".

[–] brux (14736) 5 years ago

Exactly, that is why I really hate and avoid time travel movies. Terminator got in under the wire because I saw it in the 80's when it came out, and it was so good.

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Time Travel Lover,Stephanie Hunt
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=stephanie+hunt%2cvimeo&&view=detail&mid=30D42F76FA37303E2DF730D42F76FA37303E2DF7&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dstephanie%2Bhunt%252cvimeo%26qpvt%3Dstephanie%2Bhunt%252cvimeo%26FORM%3DVDRE

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

So kabuki, are you saying T1 suffers from the same problem since Reese and T800 arrive in the same timeline? I'm not sure how we explain this one, T1 seems like a timeline that's been changed so many times you can't even trace it back. It would be impossible for Reese to shag Sarah in the original timeline, for one.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In the year 2089, Skynet sends back a T800 to kill Sarah Connor. Call this timeline 1.0. Kyle Reese doesn't exist in this future so he's never sent back. In this future, the resistance leader's name is Sam Connor.

ii. T800 arrives in 1984 to kill Sam's mother Sarah. He is successful.

His arrival immediately starts a new branch of time that leads to timeline 2.0. He is a part of the history of this new timeline. He is destroyed by the army, but the reverse-engineering of his technology by Cyberdyne allows Skynet to be developed sixty years sooner.

In future 2.0 year 2029, a new resistance leader, John Connor, comes up with the idea to send one of his lieutenants Kyle Reese back to 1984, to arrive just after the T800 (the one from timeline 1.0) as recorded in history. His mission is to destroy that T800.

iii. Kyle Reese arrives back in 1984, several hours after the T800 arrives. At this point, you have a T800 from future timeline 1.0, Kyle Reese from a future timeline 2.0.

Kyle's arrival starts yet another new timeline leading to future timeline 3.0. in which both the T800 and Kyle Reese are part of the history of that new timeline.

In the process of trying to destroy the T800, Kyle Reese saves Sarah Connor. He tells here about a great man in the future called John. Kyle is killed as is the T800.

Sarah gives birth to a son that she names John.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In the future of timeline 3.0 there is both a new John Connor and a new Kyle Reese.

I've simplified the steps for clarity but you can see what's happening... the Kyle Reese we see in the movie becomes the father of a different John Connor in a different timeline.

I've tried to illustrate how each timeline 'evolves' from the previous one although they all lead to similar futures.

There are still flaws with this model:

i. For example, it's pointless of the Skynet of timeline 1.0 to try to change its past. It will never see the results. Those results happen in a different future 2.0.

From the point of view of Skynet, it simply sent a T800 into the past. It disappeared, never to return.

So what would be the motivation?

ii. The same lack of motivation also applies to John Connor of timeline 2.0. His history is set and any attempt to change it leads to a different timeline 3.0 that he will never know about.

For the sake of a good story though most movies ignore this flaw, or gloss over it like Back to the Future.

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

I can understand John trying to change it, humans are stubborn and some are willing to self sacrifice for a better future.

Skynet on the other hand... it does seem stupid for Skynet to constantly toy with its existence by creating new timelines, but maybe the war was lost and there was no other move, so it was just a trollolol.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Random speculation...

I guess you could argue that, as an emotionless AI, it saw no downside to trying to change the past, even if it threatened its own existence.

Does a machine care if it 'dies' somehow?

The T800 certainly didn't seem to care about self-preservation, beyond completing its mission.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

So, yes, all that you say is true...

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

I think we can get around this paradox you present by assuming the first terminator didn't interact with its environment enough to change the future. That should make it possible to send terminators or humans following each other to a timeline, just gotta do it before the future you're currently in disappears. Maybe one of the terminators buried itself or something and went on standby until it was needed.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The Tony Stark solution...

Some sort of 'temporal' GPS embedded in it, allowing follow-up Terminators to land in the same timeline?

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

I see it as more of a delay. I don't buy the idea that sending a terminator back automatically creates a new timeline, it would have to interact with the environment first, then it would start to warp the future until it destablizes. Minor changes wouldn't be noticed, moderate changes could even be painful as your DNA tries to sync with the new past, inducing a sort of sickness to those most affected in that timeline, but potentially survivable. So in my theory, the time between when the terminator arrives and when it really starts wrecking shit, is the amount of delay you have to send others to the same timeline.

[–] Goliard (1421) 5 years ago

Gonna just reply to all of the above here, with a blanket response: ALL of that relies on some "alternate timeline created by time-travel" theory. Which not only doesn't make sense (for multiple reasons), it has no basis in logic Or science.

I realize we're talking about a wild sci-fi story, yes. So if you're willing to suspend disbelief, fine. I like Superman comics, as well. I just don't pretend they make Any scientific/logical sense.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"it would have to interact with the environment first, then it would start to warp the future until it destablizes."

The nanosecond its atoms and particles appeared in the past, it started to warp the future and create a new timeline v2.0. So, no the other T800s from timeline 1.0 couldn't arrive to meet up with it. This isn't science really, just a flowchart is needed.

But, it's a movie though, free to make up its own rules. Every time travel movie has to bend the strict rules and logic to make sure that the movie is entertaining.

Did you see Looper? It sort of uses your idea... as the past changes, Bruce Willis' memories SLOWLY change to reflect that new past. To my mind, the instant the past change, his memories should have changed too, but then it would have reduced the dramatic impact of the story.

[–] CarterBlunt (1401) 5 years ago

I saw Looper once, just didn't really like it. I guess I never really caught on to the changing memory thing, I just figured obviously he would recognize the house he was living in when his mom was shot, so when he goes and does the exact same thing as the attacker who shot his mom, it just seemed stupid.

I think traveling back in time is illogical from a material perspective. "Traveling forward" is a lot easier to make sound scientifically plausible. Time is simply a result of motion, so in order to set it back you would have to reverse the motion of every atom in the universe, which even if you could do, the atoms in your body would also be a part of the equation, there is no stepping out and hitting rewind. The only way I can reconcile this is with a sort of simulation theory, where backups are made every once in a while that can be duplicated as a copy separate from the original. The question then would be should the original simulation "destablize" as per my theory, to sync with the duplicate simulation, or are they they just creating a parallel past?

But so far, they haven't "created a better future", just kept the same shitshow going on repeat.

[–] brux (14736) 5 years ago

>> i. From a tactical perspective it would make more sense to send the T800s to all arrive at the same time. Look how much damage one T800 can do...

You could make up a reason they could not do that. For instance if one time travel event ends at a certain time and place you would say that there is turbulence at that time and place, so it could take more time and energy and be less error information loss if you avoid that time locus.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes, I already allowed for that in my post. Your explanation works fine for script purposes.