MovieChat Forums > Somewhere in Time (1980) Discussion > Time Travel and the WATCH completely exp...

Time Travel and the WATCH completely explained!

posted 18 years ago by BringBackWriting
38 replies | jump to latest

I have problems with a few things in the movie but the watch is not one. I don't understand why people get so hung up on the watch or time loops. I can only attribute it to one dimensional thinking. It can easily be explained by putting it into proper perspective. Putting into perspective in terms of the characters we watched when they met in 1972 at the premeire of Richard's play. Both Elise and Richard were living their SECOND LIVES, i.e. SECOND TIME LOOP. WE NEVER WATCHED THEM LIVE THEIR ORIGINAL LIVES IN THE MOVIE!

The movie we watched showed Richard's RETURN trip to 1912. The watch was simply part of Richard's outfit he put together in the 1980 of his FIRST TRIP to 1912. For anyone with a headache at this point I will give a timeline:

The timeline starts BEFORE THAT DEPICTED IN THE MOVIE. This is crucial to understanding about the watch!

TIMELINE:

1. (FIRST LIFE) In his original life in 1980 Richard is disillusioned with his life, career etc. He takes respite at the Grand Hotel where he becomes fascinated with a picture of Elise on the wall. He researches the photo of Elise, reads about her life but NEVER MET HER 8 YEARS EARLIER at the premiere of his first play. He never met her because at that point SHE HAD NEVER MET HIM. So Richard who is fascinated with Elise through her photo and career history ONLY remembers his professor from college who believes one can travel back in time. Richard follows the professors book for traveling back by assembling an outfit which included a watch appropriate for the period and a date upon which to travel back in time in order to meet Elise at the Grand Hotel. Unfortunately Richard was careless and left the modern penny in his jacket which took him away from Elise yet left her with the watch and memories of him.

2. (SECOND LIFE: THIS IS WHERE THE MOVIE STARTS!) Elise now living her SECOND LIFE and possessing the watch left by Richard's FIRST TRIP to 1912 pines away for him for 58 years until she puts enough information together to be able to meet him in 1972 at the premiere of his first play. This Elise meets Richard, says "Come back to me." and gives him the watch. The movie plays out and Richard sees from the hotel registry that he did indeed visit 1912 which emboldened him to MAKE HIS SECOND TRIP TO 1912 which ended his life in 1980. Elise meets Richard in this AFTERLIFE and they make their journey together. This is where the movie ends.

To buy into my explanation one must embrace the concept of a time loop. Time loops that are distinct based upon specific input.

FIRST TIME LOOP: We can theorize about the FIRST life of Richard after he met Elise. We know in her first life Elise died never having met Richard. However in Richard's first life he met Elise. We know that Elise fell in love with him (hence the second time loop) and that he "left" her yet we know nothing of the specifics other than the watch. We do not know what happened to the Richard of this time loop. Did he die in despair as in the movie (second loop)? Or did he go on with his life in 1980 assuming that was the year he traveled back from initially? WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.

SECOND TIME LOOP: This is the entire movie and nothing more.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] victord 18 years ago

Sorry to burst your bubble, but people only live once, not twice. Unless you're James Bond of course. So your theory makes no sense at all. If someone lived twice they'd come back and change so much history there be one heck of an space/time anomaly. Just think if more than one person did this! Best to accept this movie for what it is, a great period romance, nothing more.

[–] BringBackWriting 18 years ago

Typical one dimensional thinking completely ignorant of the time loop. The way I explained it works perfectly.

[–] tomtac 18 years ago

Your theory makes complete sense.

Scientific American had a great article on time travel theory, about 20 years ago. The "one loop/multiple loop" possibilities figured prominently into it.

Like another thread the two of us have written in, I would not accept this as the only explanation. There are multiple possibilities.

This really is one of them. There could be a 1912 in which Elise did not meet this future guy. Plus a 1972 in which Richard was not approached by her.

To those who don't grasp the concept of a "second life" ... let's say a person from 2061 pops back 60 years and stops the 9/11 attacks. Each one of us would then be living in a second timeline, a "second life", in which the War on Terror never happened. Within each timeline ... one life. But overall each would have two lives. In the "first life", war in the midEast. In the "second life", maybe no war in the midEast.

The question of "why history isn't changed all the time if time travel is possible" is solved by extra time lines. One argument would be "If time travel is possible, then why wasn't the eastern Mediterranean, the afternoon Jesus died, a huge seething mass of billions of time travelers?" The answer would be "When they traveled back, those time travelers did indeed create new timelines, and in some of them the eastern Mediterranean is indeed a mob of Jesus mourners."

Under this theory of yours, the SECOND TIME LOOP is made up, partly, of Elise's Third Life. Who knows what she did with the watch? By that time it was at least 68 years old.

Good theory.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BlueGreen 16 years ago

So your theory makes no sense at all. If someone lived twice they'd come back and change so much history there be one heck of an space/time anomaly.

LIFE itself is a time/space anomaly.

Ever heard of Hugh Everett?

[–] Enrique-8 15 years ago

Victord...what was the purpose of your pointless post? Sorry to burst your bubble? sheesh

Enrique Sanchez

[–] acand187-1 18 years ago

Check your palates. Get them tested.

[–] mcurtis50 18 years ago

So, which "life" are we watching in the movie?

[–] eightezzz 17 years ago

Thanks for the explanation BringBackWriting, makes perfect sense to me!

everybody's working for the weekend

[–] tomtac 17 years ago

If I've read BringBackWriting correctly,
the movie is Richard's second life,
the 1972 scene is part of Elise's second life,
and the 1912 scenes are Elise's third life.

[–] mtrusello 17 years ago

Tomtac: Correct!!!

BringBackWriting: Brilliant!!!

[–] johnmichael-2 17 years ago

I like the Harry Potter explanation of time travel better. Time travels normally, but you're able to send yourself back in time by a certain means (in this case, it was by thinking really hard and "suggesting" yourself back in time). Since Richard went so far back it was before he was born, there were never two Richards walking around. But had he only gone back, say, 10 years, there would have been him and his own self 10 years younger.

As for changing time itself. Richard doesn't change time. Before he travels, he sees hints of him being back in time. But when he goes back, he wouldn't be able to change those hints, even if he tried (which he didn't). He would HAVE to stay in room 416, he would HAVE to arrive at 9:18.

Alfonso-lover
We have got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen.

[–] NellieKaye 16 years ago

This theory makes sense to me, and I completely understand how the loops come into play. But something bothered me about the picture that she took in the first timeline - did that mean that she wasn't smiling when he first saw it then? Because now we know that when he went back in the second time loop, it was HE that made her smile.

[–] tomtac 14 years ago

Aw, nuts. That -is- a problem.

The movie clearly wants you to think that the smile with which he fell in love, was her smiling at -him- in 1912.

Well... to keep the theory going, one would assume that she smiled that way, whether he was there or not.

And had a productive inspiring career, whether he had appeared or not.

:-(

[–] autumnfan 16 years ago

Oh yea! That clears it up!!

[–] barryfleckmann 16 years ago

Huh? The Time Loop? Is that ANYTHING like the Time Warp?

"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mjprogue 16 years ago

This entire argument is pointless. Time travel is NOT possible and is nothing more than a plot device for fiction. By trying to analyze the whys and whens of this movie, you completely miss the point of a beautifully crafted piece of work.

Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, the film is made in such a way that we can accept the premise without a second thought and just get swept away in the story. The director and everyone else managed to craft a movie whereby our suspension of disbelief was completely blown away by the beauty we were witness to.

Very few time travel films pull this off. The only other instance I can think of where a non-comedy managed to make me buy the whole time travel angle was Terminator...the movie was so much fun I just didn't care. Same here...except it was more the power of the emotions I was witness to than any sense of fun.

By the way, this theory about time loops is the most eloquent argument I think I've ever read as to why time travel simply can not be. Living a complete second life? Nope. IF time travel happened, changing any aspect of the past would either be impossible (what mechanic would enforce this I can't even fathom) or would result in a disaster of epic proportions...also unfathomable.
Butterfly effect anyone (not the movie...the principle)?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davidmsaunders 16 years ago

That watch must be pretty fed up after getting to 1972 for the 3rd time running! It would look three times older than it should! Poor old thing...

[–] davidjanuzbrown 10 years ago

I know it is 6 years later, but 'Time Cop' was excellent.

[–] jdmcmamc-1 16 years ago

I must disagree with the OP. This is a work of fiction and therefore the mechanics of time travel are based on the author's rules, not the physical reality of what time travel would entail. The story clearly uses a concept of time where nothing can be changed because any time traveler who goes back in time was there the first time through. It is not accurate from a scientific perspective, but that is not the standard this story must be held to. The watch is a romantic plot device that brings them together and has no begining or end. Here's why: The only reason Richard attemted time travel was because his old professor explained how to do it. The only reason he knew to ask Finney was because he saw the book at her house. The only way he got into the house was by showing the woman the watch. (To go a step further, he only went to the house - as opposed to library research - when he recognized the photo of her as an old woman and knew there was some personal connection, and he was not able to hypnotize himself UNTIL he has the physical proof of his signature in the guest registry.) In the "First Life" of the OP's timeline, he would not have known to go to Finney or even have thought of time travel as a possibility (he didn't get the idea on his own in the "second life", why would he have the first time?) Further proof is in her photo. What drew him to it was not "her". It was the look. It was meant for him. Without Richard to smile at, that picture would probably have been a staged, chin-up profile with the fan in front of her and would not have inspired his quest.

Don't get me wrong, I like the OP's time loop theroy and agree with the logic behind it. For years I thought along those lines trying to solve the "Where Did the Watch Come From" riddle. But there is no answer. The watch has no begining and no end - it exists solely to bring Richard and Elise together across time in the paradox-immune space-time continumn of the author's creation.

[–] darcycharm 16 years ago

Sounds good to me jdmcmamc-1!

"and then it all went to hell, like all kisses do" -RPattz

[–] julie5050-1 16 years ago

Entropy. makes the watch impossiable

[–] mradam-3 14 years ago

jdmcmamc-1 is describing the concept of the Predestination Paradox, the past already set by time travelers from the future. And he is right. It's a common sci-fi/literary plot device used many times since probably the 1950s (also in 'The Terminator'), and it's supposed to be confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_paradox

[–] tomtac 16 years ago

Oh, well then! Uh ... Actually, I was originally going to explain exactly why you are wrong, but I see reasons why some of what you are saying is correct.

Part of it is that I at first thought you were saying it was pointless to try to figure the watch out, because this is "based on the author's rules". The reasoning would be that we indeed go along with the author's intent, including some "suspension of disbelief", as they call it. -- But then we notice some things that don't make sense, and that can ruin it for us, so we start thinking up explanations that can make the whole thing work again. That is why we noodle our brains over things like whether a working watch could exist in a time loop.

But I also agree with your point -- this is a made up piece of pretend, a story, a work of fiction; it is not a physics experiment. Looking the whole thing over as a member of the audience, and even looking it over again from the viewpoint of the author, it is obvious that he intended the watch to be given from the man to the woman, and also from the woman to the man. (And if that causes some of the viewers to spend extra time thinking about the film puzzling that out, so much the better.) Whether or not it could actually work out that way in the real world is really and truly beside the point -- after all, we are talking about time travel, not only that but time travel by hypnotism in the name of love -- beside the point from the point of the author.

But, I say again, from the viewpoint of a viewer like myself, questions like "How old is the watch -- 50 years, a million years, infinity?" are necessary to losing myself in the author's world.

[–] bodiddley555 16 years ago

from Jdmcmamc: "The watch is a romantic plot device that brings them together and has no beginning or end."

Very well said.. thank you Jdmcmamc! I hadn't really considered the multiple plot ties to the watch that you point out.. other than the most obvious one. This was truly an exceptionally well written story. I much prefer your explanation and agree with the notion that this author need not be held to a strict standard that conforms to accepted scientific time travel theory. It appears to me your explanation is much more in keeping with the author's intentions. Having said that, I also very much enjoyed reading the original post.. which makes perfect sense, and was most enlightening. Good thread!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] smerph 12 years ago

The watch is *not* an annoying plot-hole. It's there deliberately to represent the circular nature of their relationship and, if you want to get really cheesy, their love which has no beginning or end.

If you really want to explain away the watch, you can surmise that Elise lost the watch in the 1920's and found a replacement (actually the same watch) in a shop. But this is obviously not the intention of the film-makers so I only suggest this if it *really* bothers you.. The watch has no beginning or end for a reason. I've seen the watch referred to a "jinn" when the film/book is referenced in science books.

There is just one timeline. History isn't changed, it is just fulfilled. And to the OP laying down the law on Time Travel theory; I suggest you go and read a book on it. This kind of theory is given just as much weight as any other.

You give a nice version of events, but it's absolutely not the writer's intention for the work to be seen this way. It is was it is.
_____
In case I don't see you ; good afternoon, good evening and good night!

[–] tomtac 12 years ago

(Hi, smerph.)

There are two ways of viewing a question like this.

For example, "Why didn't Sherlock Holmes stay dead after he died by falling off whatever cliff or waterfall he fell off? Why did the next book start with him miraculously surviving?"

Well, it obviously depends on whether some character is asking the question of Dr. Watson, who was Holmes's partner and who supposedly chronicled the stories in the newspapers at the time ... or if a reporter is interviewing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the actual author of the fictional books.

Watson: (something like ...) Not only did a branch grab Holmes halfway down, but he landed on an alligator in the water, which broke his fall.

Doyle: (something like ...) Of course, I wanted him dead. But there was such an uproar I had to revive him some way.

The "Doyle" answer is of course pretty concrete and understandable. But the "Watson" answer has to make some sort of sense for the readers to enjoy the work.

So, if you want to talk "the author's point of view" ... yes, you are exactly right, the watch is a symbol, and Richard Matheson wanted him to give it to her and her to give it to him, and it's pretty cool that it circles around. I love Matheson, and he never gave a damn that he wasn't a Hard SF writer, and I wouldn't want him any other way.

But, I am also one of those folks that want to submerse MYSELF into the story, and I will always check out "the character's point of view", the internal consistency of the story. So the "Watson" question is "This fellow traveled back to 1912 and then died, and there's this watch -- where did it come from?" Without a good answer, well ... in that sense, the watch is something with which to be dealt.

I know that, for viewers that just accept the story as is, this discussion sounds silly. But I think they should be glad that we others are really as into the story as they are.

So, the discussion is about "a good explanation for it. Not THE explanation, just something that works". .... While "what the author intended" is a wonderful thing to try to grasp, that is not what we're onto.

(God's blessings ...)

[egad. posted that at Sun Jun 23 2013 16:18:55, which was around the time Richard Matheson died. I will miss him dearly, couldn't he had whipped out one more novel before he left? tomtac June 25.]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]