Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
gregday
May 23, 2003

stratdax posted:

To me the gold is the same as the bullet in the wall. Bullet gets shot by an inverted person with an inverted gun in the future (presumably during the final battle in the movie, where they shoot a lot of walls. Let's say 2022 for simplicity). Bullet is chillin' in the wall to some point in the past (Let's say 2015, why not). The lady scientist (I guess the Tenet organization?) finds the wall and cuts it out and brings it to the lab (in 2020). Well now it's in two places at once. They keep screwing around with it while they're not inverted but the bullet is. From the bullet's perspective, in 2020 it's in a wall in a lab, and in a wall in a quarry.

No? Am I wrong? I saw the movie once, in what seems like ages ago.

The bullet is only ever shot once: when the protagonist fires it as we see in the lab scene. It’s just that we see it from the perspective opposite the bullets own experience, so to us it gets un-shot. This seems to be a common misconception among folks who’ve watched it just once. But the events that happen in the movie only happen once. We may get to see it multiple times from different POV’s, like the Oslo fight or the car chase, but what’s happened happened.

It’s like Ives says to the protagonist before the battle at Stalsk-12: There is no first wave. Red and blue teams operate simultaneously.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zachack
Jun 1, 2000




gregday posted:

The bullet is only ever shot once: when the protagonist fires it as we see in the lab scene. It’s just that we see it from the perspective opposite the bullets own experience, so to us it gets un-shot. This seems to be a common misconception among folks who’ve watched it just once. But the events that happen in the movie only happen once. We may get to see it multiple times from different POV’s, like the Oslo fight or the car chase, but what’s happened happened.

It’s like Ives says to the protagonist before the battle at Stalsk-12: There is no first wave. Red and blue teams operate simultaneously.

What comes across as weird once written down is that the bullet (assuming it came from the distant future and not near-term inversion) was made in (say) 2100, bounced around backwards for 80 years, and then is at the lab for the sequence. It's also functionally useless in "forward" time - it can't be fired because it has to wait for the past - but at some point Tenet has to lose control of it so it can move forward to when it got inverted*. That said, this is almost the solution to the gold problem: Sator can pick up the inverted gold if he always picked it up. The future doesn't have to bury the gold, it just has to have a way of tracking it from the past so that they can find and invert the same pre-inverted bars, and gold bars are a pretty reliable way of doing this if you assume they stay as gold bars stored somewhere after Sator digs them up and sells them. The only part that doesn't make sense is digging a hole and putting the box in, as the gold should already be there.


*in theory since Tenet creates itself it's possible that Tenet inverted the bullet in the near future to get it into the lab for it to be fired.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

Zachack posted:

What comes across as weird once written down is that the bullet (assuming it came from the distant future and not near-term inversion) was made in (say) 2100, bounced around backwards for 80 years, and then is at the lab for the sequence. It's also functionally useless in "forward" time - it can't be fired because it has to wait for the past - but at some point Tenet has to lose control of it so it can move forward to when it got inverted*. That said, this is almost the solution to the gold problem: Sator can pick up the inverted gold if he always picked it up. The future doesn't have to bury the gold, it just has to have a way of tracking it from the past so that they can find and invert the same pre-inverted bars, and gold bars are a pretty reliable way of doing this if you assume they stay as gold bars stored somewhere after Sator digs them up and sells them. The only part that doesn't make sense is digging a hole and putting the box in, as the gold should already be there.


*in theory since Tenet creates itself it's possible that Tenet inverted the bullet in the near future to get it into the lab for it to be fired.

Yep this is all right. I was considering the same. If it comes from the past somehow then its all gravy.

But the future people having people in the past to help sator just abstracts away the issue a little.

And you could even go so far as to say protagonist buried the gold for sator, not the future, because he knew it already happened, but that's getting mega contrived.

Lampsacus
Oct 21, 2008

Zachack posted:

What comes across as weird once written down is that the bullet (assuming it came from the distant future and not near-term inversion) was made in (say) 2100, bounced around backwards for 80 years, and then is at the lab for the sequence. It's also functionally useless in "forward" time - it can't be fired because it has to wait for the past - but at some point Tenet has to lose control of it so it can move forward to when it got inverted*.

*in theory since Tenet creates itself it's possible that Tenet inverted the bullet in the near future to get it into the lab for it to be fired.
Yeah see this is directly my poo poo. Not even apologetic about it. Just the idea of a ever-sprawling time-war that may or may not become big enough and loud enough for the general public to become aware of. I like the idea of timey-wimey stuff.

Like if the research lab tech. was well aware that at some point they are going to lose control of the lab somehow and the battle isn't over, but it's not really a case of evacuating it right now but rather a sullen quiet knowing that they will still fight to defend it, she may die, and they will still lose it. It's like certain Western interpretations of the Tao.

This source is called darkness.
Darkness born from darkness.
The beginning of all understanding.

SMEGMA_MAIL
May 4, 2018
Yeah wouldn’t sators inverted car start getting colder every combustion cycle and eventually freeze and lock up if being driven at all aggressively?

Ignoring the whole inverted fuel with regular oxygen thing.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Sir Kodiak posted:

Yes, that works:



Note that this basically matches Protagonist's description:

Protagonist: "Dead drops. He buries his time capsule, transmits the location, and digs it up to collect the inverted materials they sent."

Neil: "Seemingly instantaneous. Where's he bury it?"

Protagonist: "Some place that won't be discovered for centuries."

He just leaves out an inversion step. So it's not even so much wrong as incomplete. Of course, this assumes he has a turnstile, which he wouldn't early on (presumably).

The part on the blue line where “Sator places [buries] the empty capsule” is redundant. He’d just be burying an empty box, then digging it up, just to bury it again.

Otherwise, the chart ‘works’ - except for the fact that none of this is shown, and we’re specifically shown the exact opposite happening with the bulldozer.

We’re also shown that things are much weirder than a few sentences can convey - because if the technician can make bullets fly “towards” her hand just by (somehow) remembering to unpush them, then it’s likely possible for Sator to change the gold’s past and his own future by simply choosing not to (un)bury it.

One way to conceptualize these interactions is that, every time a character sees an inverted thing, they are technically prophesying that thing’s future. When a character manipulates an inverted object, they are altering its past to match that ‘predetermined’ future. So although people try to rationalize it as some blandly deterministic universe where everything is locked in place, we have this additional layer of complexity where everything is in constant flux, because decisions in the present affect past and future simultaneously.

Of course this means, like, that a character can just decide “I was in charge all along” and it will become true until something contradicts it.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Of course this means, like, that a character can just decide “I was in charge all along” and it will become true until something contradicts it.

Tenet is an elaborate riff on Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The part on the blue line where “Sator places [buries] the empty capsule” is redundant. He’d just be burying an empty box, then digging it up, just to bury it again.

No, it has to work like that. This is why you also have to be inverted and use a turnstile afterwards.

Lets say he doesn't "put the box down, then invert, then open it and take out the gold"

How does this work in your view? Think it through. Consider all the consequences.

What you're saying is that Sator should show up and then suddenly the gold bar appears??, and then he puts the gold bar into the box and buries it?
Then that means he doesn't have the gold bar. That's sending a gold bar into the future, not getting a bar from the future.

Or he gets there and the gold bar appears and he takes it out and buries the empty box? Then how did the gold bar appear there if it wasn't in the box in the future?

You're creating a scenario where something has to just "pop into existence" which doesn't work.

Its not redundant because the ENTIRE point of that graph that Sir Kodiak made was to show that Sator has to be inverted to collect the gold, which was the conversation we were having. The chart depicts this very clearly. And that's the only thing that is completely consistent with no paradoxes. Ignoring that to say "Wrong! Redundant!" seem really weird dude; and it isn't accurate. The context here matters a lot.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

we’re specifically shown the exact opposite happening with the bulldozer.

The movie has contradictions. There's no point arguing this over and over and over and over. Either accept it or ignore us.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

We’re also shown that things are much weirder than a few sentences can convey - because if the technician can make bullets fly “towards” her hand just by (somehow) remembering to unpush them, then it’s likely possible for Sator to change the gold’s past and his own future by simply choosing not to (un)bury it.

NO!

The bullet's past DOES NOT CHANGE because the protagonist does not know the future yet!

Nothing can EVER change in TENET. If it can literally nothing works and nothing can ever be consistent. The ONE universal truth of this movie is that THERE ARE NO ALTERNATE TIMELINES.

This is where you guys aren't understanding that the bullet scenario is not remotely the same as the gold scenario. The gold has a paradox that the bullet doesn't.

E: This is literally the point of the bullet scene. Protagonist tries to un-drop the bullet and it doesn't work because he didn't do it in the future. It works the second time because he did do it in the future. You don't get to choose not to do it.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 13, 2021

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

One way to conceptualize these interactions is that, every time a character sees an inverted thing, they are technically prophesying that thing’s future. When a character manipulates an inverted object, they are altering its past to match that ‘predetermined’ future. So although people try to rationalize it as some blandly deterministic universe where everything is locked in place, we have this additional layer of complexity where everything is in constant flux, because decisions in the present affect past and future simultaneously.

If this was true everything that happens in the movie doesn't matter because you can just go back and do it again and change it.

Sator got the gold? poo poo, well, take 2 everybody, lets invert again and go take the gold back.

He still got it? Okay, 3rd time's the charm.

The entire conceit of the movie is the fatalism of once something has happened it cannot be un-made even if you travel through time. That is fundamental.

SMEGMA_MAIL
May 4, 2018
You can also argue some kind of quantum bullshit where knowing is like observing so you can change things only that are unknown to an observer but once someone knows how something happens it’s set in stone.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.
Here are things you can do it Tenet:

Witness a mysterious figure while you're doing a mission, then invert yourself and become that mysterious figure.
Send information to yourself in the past
Exist in multiple places at once (although these are not true clones, they are future and past versions of yourself)

Here's the thing you absolutely cannot do:

See something definitively happen and then say "I'm going to use time travel to prevent that" and then actually prevent it

SMEGMA_MAIL posted:

You can also argue some kind of quantum bullshit where knowing is like observing so you can change things only that are unknown to an observer but once someone knows how something happens it’s set in stone.

Whether the filmmakers meant to or not, this is exactly what they created.

Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 18:54 on May 13, 2021

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zaphod42 posted:

Lets say he doesn't "put the box down, then invert, then open it and take out the gold"

How does this work in your view?

He would just put inverted gold in the box and bury it. That's the same action minus the redundancy.

Whether Sator is inverted or not is fairly irrelevant, since normal people can interact with inverted objects (and vice-versa) without much difficulty.

As for where the inverted gold "comes from", it either pops into existence spontaneously, as the bullets do, or it pops into existence from out of a time machine.

Zaphod42 posted:

NO!

The bullet's past DOES NOT CHANGE because the protagonist does not know the future yet!

Nothing can EVER change in TENET. If it can literally nothing works and nothing can ever be consistent. The ONE universal truth of this movie is that THERE ARE NO ALTERNATE TIMELINES.

ACTUALLY!!!

I did not write anything about "alternate timelines"; I am referring to iterations of the loop. It is possible to modify the loop through actions that change both past and future simultaneously. This should be understandable to anyone who's seen Terminator 2.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

He would just put inverted gold in the box and bury it. That's the same action minus the redundancy.

Sator is GETTING gold, not sending gold. How are you that far off base? That is literally the whole problem. He has to go from no gold to having gold, not the other way around.

If he puts inverted gold in a box, he's sending it backwards. How does he now spend the gold he just put in a box?

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Whether Sator is inverted or not is fairly irrelevant, since normal people can interact with inverted objects (and vice-versa) without much difficulty.

As for where the inverted gold "comes from", it either pops into existence spontaneously, as the bullets do, or it pops into existence from out of a time machine.

Its not, because you know the future of the gold HAS to be that its in the box in order to arrive in the past. You don't always know the future of an inverted object. We've discussed this like 5 times now and you're just refusing to listen to it.

The bullets do not pop into existence spontaneously. Where are you getting that?

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

ACTUALLY!!!

I did not write anything about "alternate timelines"; I am referring to iterations of the loop. It is possible to modify the loop through actions that change both past and future simultaneously. This should be understandable to anyone who's seen Terminator 2.

Okay, this is a semantic misunderstanding then. To me, if thing A happens, then you go back in time and stop it from happening, that's an "alternate timeline"

Back To The Future rules, where you can change something and alter the future, that's "alternate timelines"

There is, as far as I can see, a hard dichotomy here. Either you can't change things (consistent single timeline) or you can (alternate timelines)

Maybe you're working with a definition where "alternate timelines" means "parallel dimensions" or something, but that is not what I mean.

Terminator 2 definitely has alternate timelines. This should be understandable to anybody who understands language. You're just like, not listening, and just keep insisting I'm wrong without actually giving what I'm saying a fair chance. That doesn't make you right.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 00:05 on May 14, 2021

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zaphod42 posted:

Its not, because you know the future of the gold HAS to be that its in the box in order to arrive in the past.

You're going in a lot of directions at once, so let's stick to this specific claim for now.

None of the characters come from the future, so we have no 'firsthand' knowledge of the future from which the gold 'originates'. It could be anything.

The standard view of time is that the past is set but the future is open. The conceit of the film is that this is reversed for certain objects.

So, you know the ending of the story, but you can (re)write how it begins, because you're literally just applying physical forces to some magical anti-aging particles.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

You're going in a lot of directions at once, so let's stick to this specific claim for now.

None of the characters come from the future, so we have no 'firsthand' knowledge of the future from which the gold 'originates'. It could be anything.

The standard view of time is that the past is set but the future is open. The conceit of the film is that this is reversed for certain objects.

So, you know the ending of the story, but you can (re)write how it begins, because you're literally just applying physical forces to some magical anti-aging particles.

Yes you can change how it begins! This is why its okay to collect the gold if you're inverted; then you're only changing the gold's future. That certainly isn't set in stone yet!

However; the problem is if you're forward travelling, your future is the gold's past. So you see the gold at one point, which is your past, its future, and then you take it out at another point, your future, its past, and now you've contradicted what was already set in stone, its past.

Normally with inverted objects you don't know their future, so maybe their future *was* that you were holding them all along, and then dropped them. That works. Except the problem is if the gold isn't in the box, its not there for you to pick it up in the first place. In order to pick it up, you must re-write its past, the past that the gold already experienced and was written. You can't do that by the rules.

So as said, only if you're inverted, then your future is also the gold's future; then you're both free to do anything, including go into a turnstile and invert back, and then continue to go into your future which is now the normal future. See?


That doesn't involve re-writing anything. Its fine.


This however requires you to re-write that which has already been experienced by the gold.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 14, 2021

gregday
May 23, 2003

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zaphod42 posted:

So you see the gold at one point, which is your past, its future, and then you take it out at another point, your future, its past, and now you've contradicted what was already set in stone, its past.

You're writing things very convolutedly just to make a basic assertion like "the past is set in stone!!!". From that assumption, the existence of backwards stuff is taken to mean that "everything is set in stone!!!".

I understand that this is your basic view.

However, if the protagonist takes a bullet that should be made in India in five years, and then keeps it in his pocket for six years, this wouldn't actually contradict anything in the film except some very dubious exposition. He will have simply altered the bullet's origin.

"But he can't do that! He MUST take the bullet to India so it can be made?" Why? The same dubious exposition says he has free will, and this is a fantasy movie about wizards who use spy magic. The bullet can be a magic bullet that has existed since the dawn/end of time.

Megaman's Jockstrap
Jul 16, 2000

What a horrible thread to have a post.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

"But he can't do that! He MUST take the bullet to India so it can be made?" Why? The same dubious exposition says he has free will, and this is a fantasy movie about wizards who use spy magic. The bullet can be a magic bullet that has existed since the dawn/end of time.

I mean it's true, it's a movie, this is not a documentary. But if the Spy Magic doesn't obey any of the Law Arcana then what the hell are we left with? Some well-shot car crash footage played backwards, and some bad action footage also played backwards? Oh and the building being time-hosed (seriously, the building being time-hosed is drat near the price of admission)? Dunno, I enjoyed playing with the rules of the setting because the time travel rule stuff was interesting. The characters and plot sure as hell wasn't.

Android Apocalypse
Apr 28, 2009

The future is
AUTOMATED
and you are
OBSOLETE

Illegal Hen
Seen on r/simpsonsshitposts and was incredibly prevalent to this thread:








SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

I mean it's true, it's a movie, this is not a documentary. But if the Spy Magic doesn't obey any of the Law Arcana then what the hell are we left with? Some well-shot car crash footage played backwards, and some bad action footage also played backwards? Oh and the building being time-hosed (seriously, the building being time-hosed is drat near the price of admission)? Dunno, I enjoyed playing with the rules of the setting because the time travel rule stuff was interesting. The characters and plot sure as hell wasn't.

With any fantasy movie, the question is whose fantasy we’re talking about, and what is being fantasized about.

Annihilation gussies up a retelling of Parsifal with botched references to quantum mechanics and cellular biology. If you put too much detail into your fake science, and make your characters experts, then the errors will just jump right out. In that film, you have to conclude that a big chunk of the film is a hallucination caused by the mysterious space radiation. (The content of the hallucination is determined by the characters’ New Age spirituality.)

So, with Tenet, we do have to accept that some Time poo poo is actually happening in the diegesis - but what we’re seeing is actually incredibly complex distortions of time: folds, ripples, etc. You cannot chart these; it’d look like the surface of the ocean, and most of the effects are invisible. So the real task is to figure out what is really concrete - and the exposition is of little or no help here.

Instead, we can go to the early torture scene. The character’s teeth are pulled out and then perfectly reconstructed, so it’s as if nothing happened - except the memory. This is obviously related to the inverted wounds that immediately disappear into a fold in time, but it’s an image that keeps popping up. Time folds so that Kat and Sator can be back on the boat as if nothing has happened, etc.

SMEGMA_MAIL
May 4, 2018
They weren’t back on the boat as if nothing happened. That was both older them having gone back.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

SMEGMA_MAIL posted:

They weren’t back on the boat as if nothing happened. That was both older them having gone back.

Right; that’s literally what happened in the plot. Yet they’re both acting as if only an hour has passed since she broke the fruit bowl, because that’s how the scene is contrived. Then Kat’s like “surprise I’m murdering you because of a traumatic sequence of events that’s been erased from history!”

As with the torture scene, Kat’s decision to kill Sator follows the same pattern as the bullet hole that spontaneously opens and closes - but without any recourse to “inverted objects” gimmickry. These two scenes illustrate what the film is actually about.

So the the solution is not to futilely chart all the incomprehensible time-ocean fuckery, but to brutally simplify: Protag walks into the airport wearing an expensive suit, then he walks out wearing tactical gear.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

You're writing things very convolutedly just to make a basic assertion like "the past is set in stone!!!". From that assumption, the existence of backwards stuff is taken to mean that "everything is set in stone!!!".

I understand that this is your basic view.

However, if the protagonist takes a bullet that should be made in India in five years, and then keeps it in his pocket for six years, this wouldn't actually contradict anything in the film except some very dubious exposition. He will have simply altered the bullet's origin.

"But he can't do that! He MUST take the bullet to India so it can be made?" Why? The same dubious exposition says he has free will, and this is a fantasy movie about wizards who use spy magic. The bullet can be a magic bullet that has existed since the dawn/end of time.

The bullet and the gold aren't the same. I said that like 2 times.

As I already said, "it works because the movie said so" is basically missing the point. If you don't care if the movie is internally consistent, then we have nothing to discuss. That's fine, but don't keep arguing the logic of it if you don't care about the logic of it.

Zaphod42 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on May 14, 2021

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zaphod42 posted:

The bullet and the gold aren't the same. I said that like 2 times.

As I already said, "it works because the movie said so" is basically missing the point. If you don't care if the movie is internally consistent, then we have nothing to discuss. That's fine, but don't keep arguing the logic of it if you don't care about the logic of it.

I am not ‘getting it’ because you are incorrect and/or failing to convey what you mean.

I am specifically looking at what happens in the story, as opposed to the expository dialogue. That is the opposite of ‘taking the movie at its word’.

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.
If what you say is true, then the Protagonist is an idiot and didn't need to kill himself.

Also, he could go back and save Neil, but didn't because he's dumb.

That's your preferred interpretation?

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Zaphod42 posted:

If what you say is true, then the Protagonist is an idiot and didn't need to kill himself.

Also, he could go back and save Neil, but didn't because he's dumb.

That's your preferred interpretation?

The protagonist does not kill himself. Neil chooses to kill himself because he believes (based on the information he’s given) that embracing his fate will marginally improve the world.

But, yes, the characters are all idiots.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord
I feel like everyone in the movie is fully aware they could do crazy causality breaking things and something crazy would happen if they did but everyone is playing by "please be cool about this" rules. And even the people wanting to destroy everything are going to maybe end the universe want to do it one specific way they think would help them.

I feel like in universe everyone knows they could probably do all the "why don't they just ______" time shenanigans people think of and just really feel like they should not do that and just being cool about staying in their lane for not getting to weird about it the most important thing.

Small Strange Bird
Sep 22, 2006

Merci, chaton!
I know my first thought if I was presented with time-gently caress technology would be "can I cause a paradox?", and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Probably why I'm not being recruited for the Time Police.

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


Right. Remember all the various creeds that members of the organization spout. They have established precepts for handling these various issues that they put their faith in.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson speaks about making sure that your time-reversed counterpart appears in the proving window. The implication is that the machine can eat people. But specifically, the machine eats people who are willing to gently caress with the past, because the attempt to walk into the machine without a counterpart is itself an attempt to gently caress with the past.

Protagonist and his allies make themselves people who can support these long time loops with the dogma that they live by. The machine can generate a pair of Protagonists that will live for weeks or months by doctrines that keep them from changing the past even when given the opportunity to do so. I don't know that they pop out of the turnstile if they don't have something keeping their actions within tolerable limits.

Hodgepodge
Jan 29, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 273 days!
It's not actually entirely physically implausible for any activation of the turnstile which creates a paradox to, from our perspective, simply appear to fail in some manner.

That's roughly analogous to light, from our perspective seeming to always find the shortest possible route while effectively taking every possible route and all but the shortest cancelling out due to self-interference.

Please note that I barely understand this physics.

barkbell
Apr 14, 2006

woof
hey i just watched this and some of the scenes were kinda neat i guess but did they forget to hire a sound guy?

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I feel like everyone in the movie is fully aware they could do crazy causality breaking things and something crazy would happen if they did but everyone is playing by "please be cool about this" rules.

Even though he believes paradoxes are impossible, Neil specifically complains that future people are loving up his timeline with their tomfoolery.

His point is that you can really change a lot in both the past and future without necessarily causing a paradox.

gregday
May 23, 2003

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Even though he believes paradoxes are impossible, Neil specifically complains that future people are loving up his timeline with their tomfoolery.

His point is that you can really change a lot in both the past and future without necessarily causing a paradox.

No, he isn’t 100% sure about the immutability of time and thinks they should try to stop the plan just to be safe.

Terror Sweat
Mar 15, 2009

barkbell posted:

hey i just watched this and some of the scenes were kinda neat i guess but did they forget to hire a sound guy?

Let's have a movie where every single actor is given only exposition to speak, give them the direction that they need to be as soft spoken and flat as possible, make sure 90 percent of the cast has an accent, set the scenes in crowded environments, and then top it all off with a background soundtrack that's slightly quieter than the people speaking.

Add in a bunch of jarring editing cuts and you've got yourself this mess of a movie.

Keep Nolan away from any and all action movies in the future please, do NOT let him even visit the set of a bond movie. Fire any person on the bond set that even talks to Nolan.

Its Chocolate
Dec 21, 2019
wait a second. how did the silver car that reverse-Tenet was driving reverse time? doesn't that only happen normally when something goes through a turnstile, or is shot?

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord

gregday posted:

No, he isn’t 100% sure about the immutability of time and thinks they should try to stop the plan just to be safe.

I think it's the opposite.

He is 100% sure about the immutability of time and thinks they should try to stop the plan because that is/was/will be what happens.

Sir Kodiak
May 14, 2007


If Neil was 100% sure about the immutability of time, they wouldn't need to do all this, since obviously the world hasn't been destroyed. Protagonist points this out to him. So it's instead that Neil very much wants time to be immutable (because that means the world can't be destroyed and they win), so he acts as if it is. He's so dedicated to this principle that he's willing to die for it.

This might also explain why Sator does seemingly impossible things with the gold. He is, in contrast to them, part of a scheme predicated on the mutability of time.

Lampsacus
Oct 21, 2008

Terror Sweat posted:

make sure 90 percent of the cast has an accent
Which accent is correct?

SMEGMA_MAIL
May 4, 2018
I like the “what happened happened but not if nobody knows it happened” it doesn’t totally make sense but it kinda makes everything almost work and everyone’s motivations make more sense.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Its Chocolate
Dec 21, 2019

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Right; that’s literally what happened in the plot. Yet they’re both acting as if only an hour has passed since she broke the fruit bowl, because that’s how the scene is contrived.

no they're both acting like that because both of them are trying to convince the other one that's the time they're from

I looked at other posts of yours ITT and they're really good though. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed how wildly inconsistent the time stuff is

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply