^That's splitting hairs. Yes, the details are different, but they're both premises about people going back in time in hopes of averting a future disaster.
You just explained every show / movie dealing with time travel.
^That's splitting hairs. Yes, the details are different, but they're both premises about people going back in time in hopes of averting a future disaster.
^That's splitting hairs. Yes, the details are different, but they're both premises about people going back in time in hopes of averting a future disaster.
You just explained every show / movie dealing with time travel.
He was told that right at the beginning yes. But he changed his view and wanted to actively stop it. There would be no dramatic tension at all unless we believed he had at least a theoretical chance of succeeding. The movie led you to believe that the claims about it being a predestination paradox and impossible to change might be wrong - that it was, in fact, possible to change. That meant hope for both the character and the audience, at least on the first run through watching the movie.
If, in the original film, they at least TRIED to change history - but failed in the attempt - then that's something, at least. But to never try in the first place? That is unrelentingly bleak and nihilistic, and not something I would ever enjoy watching. To simply dismiss the deaths of billions of people with a hand wave, a sort of "Meh, we can't change things, and should never even bother trying", is almost as bad as killing them directly.
The scientists who invent time travel presumably know how it works, and it is made clear that what already happened is always going to happen.
Well, that's not necessarily true. Science is a process of successive approximations. Just because you know how to do something, that doesn't mean you know everything about it; you have a model good enough to work, but there's always more to learn, stuff you won't discover until you put it into practice and gather firsthand data.
But they apparently had been doing it for some time and would have had firsthand experience and data.
But they apparently had been doing it for some time and would have had firsthand experience and data.
No remotely honest scientist would ever claim to know everything about their work. That's just not how knowledge works. We've been traveling in space for half a century, on and off, and we're still learning new stuff about the effects of space on the human body, developing new types of propulsion and other space technologies, etc. We've had flight for over a century, but aviation engineers are still figuring out new things about the physics of flight and how to improve performance. Discovery is not something that stops.
OK, so the point is? Would the scientists employ their time travel resources on missions that are supported by the experience and evidence they have at hand, or would they employ them any number of other ways, on the principal that they don't know everything?
That doesn't rule it out of course, but given the nature of the film itself did any of us really expect sunshine and lollipops at the end?
The evidence we see during the film seems to me to suggest that the scientists are right and that the past can't be changed.
The point is that just because the character was told time travel was impossible, that doesn't absolutely have to mean that it's impossible. Sometimes characters in a story, even scientists, are wrong about how things work.
That doesn't rule it out of course, but given the nature of the film itself did any of us really expect sunshine and lollipops at the end?
Uh.. yes? Maybe? Cole easily could have succeeded.
And if the scientists were so certain the timeline could not be changed, why did they send Jose and others?
They sent Jose to push Cole in the direction they wanted him to go in.
J.T.B. said:Besides, if things can change then Cole's dream isn't such a big deal.
J.T.B. said:To keep an eye on and try and control the increasingly erratic, disobedient and newly-untrackable Cole.
The point is that just because the character was told time travel was impossible, that doesn't absolutely have to mean that it's impossible. Sometimes characters in a story, even scientists, are wrong about how things work.
But that doesn't address what I was talking about, which was what the time travelers' objectives would be: Information gathering, which they thought would be of benefit, or history changing, which they did not.
Huh? It can be a big deal either way. Cole's dream isn't a Force vision, it's a memory. Obviously if he changes the timeline things would turn out differently from what he remembers.
But why do they really need to control him? What's the worst that can happen, given that we know they sent others like Jose back as well, and thus have other people in place to carry out the mission if Cole simply disappears? By interfering with him they imply that they don't want him to change things.
I think we're talking about two different things. Since you're speaking in the past tense, I imagine you're talking about how the movie was done.
Presumably so he won't interfere with their activities in the past. It was implied that the time traveler "volunteers" lose their minds and eventually "don't come back." The street preacher may be an example of one who's "gone rogue."
That was my point. How does his interference matter if you can't change anything? Why is a time traveler going rogue a problem, when they can just send another one?
Even if they can't change anything, they can still learn and relay information back to the future. That's what the whole answering machine thing was about, and they even showed decisions being made because of it.That was my point. How does his interference matter if you can't change anything? Why is a time traveler going rogue a problem, when they can just send another one?
They're also all criminals (or something; I honestly had a hard time understanding what was going on in the future), and they have to know that they need to continue doing their job in the past or suffer the consequences (ie, having someone else come back to "correct" their behavior/mission). Else volunteering would not only be equivalent to being released from prison, but being sent to a relative paradise to boot.
That was my point. How does his interference matter if you can't change anything? Why is a time traveler going rogue a problem, when they can just send another one?
He can still interfere with their work.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.