MovieChat Forums > Men in Black³ (2012) Discussion > Movies That Got Time Travel Right

Movies That Got Time Travel Right

posted 13 years ago by Mr Nuff
205 replies | jump to latest

Twelve Monkeys

...and that's all I can think of. Don't get me wrong, I loved this movie, but I think they left quite a few holes in the time-travel plot. Any others?

[–] ZAROVE 13 years ago

While not a Movie, 7 Days is the only TV show that I know of that got it technically accurate.

[–] Fojos 13 years ago

Technically accurate... time travel? Really?

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

Yes.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] fiete5 13 years ago

No they dont. Not even close. First off... He travels back in time but his other self doesnt exist. So: *meep*. Still a good show though.

What about Quantum Leap?

[–] rex-reyesiii 12 years ago

Bruce Willis was the Kid right? from the beginning of the movie?

[–] Defenseman13 12 years ago

lol, he was the kid, dummy. ANd just because you didn't see him on screen doesn't mean that another self doesn't exist.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/

[–] fiete5 12 years ago

I was talking about "Seven Days" and not "Twelve Monkeys", honky...

[–] dsl46016 9 years ago

Hehehehe.... "honky".... :D

Better to die laughing, than to perish in boredom.

[–] TheGreatNebber 13 years ago

As time travel isn't possible (or at least according to our current scientific understanding) then it's impossible to get it 'right' in a movie.

However in terms of films where the consequences of time travel seems accurate and plot holes are kept to a minimum try a Spanish film from 2007 called Time Crimes (Los cronocrímenes). Also Back to The Future makes a fair stab I think.

MIB3's time travel logic is seriously flawed but then going to the movies is about a certain amount of suspension of disbelief.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] princewingdog 13 years ago

I loved Frequency. Also the fact we are both from Colorado is ironic

[–] melanion 13 years ago

How is that irony?

[–] eifler121 13 years ago

It's not what you would've expected, and although it may not have been irony before, the fact that you don't get it just made it irony.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mythbustfan 13 years ago

how about timecop, minus the part were if a future person and their past self's touch they merge into one blob and die

that one dealt with a lot of time paradoxes

also phildelphia experiment

terminator franchise

a low budget movie starring fred ward called timerider: the adventure of lyle swann. that one not only dealt with the usual time travel story but a different type of "grandfather paradox" in which the time traveller unknowingly became his own great great grandfather

biggles: adventures in time

Ich bin ein berliner, I am a jelly doughnut, JFK june 26, 1963
if you don't like this sig, tough

[–] sigmaoctanusIV 13 years ago

The Terminator Franchise has the biggest plot hole ever.
John Connor creates himself. Or is a 100% different person than the one we see in T2.

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

For the best write up I have read about the time travel in the Terminator movies, check out this site:

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

And it's not the time travel in the Terminator movies. The causal loop is, for the first film. After that, they got "creative". But it still started out as a causal loop.

MJ Young just fudged his very own theory. But he himself said it was just for fun, and acknowledges there is a causal loop inherent in the first film.

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

Yup, it's one of the reasons I like that site. He's done it all for fun, but his theory isn't too bad.
___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] mjyoung-2 12 years ago

There use to be a joke that if you posted my name on an Internet forum I would appear.

Well, here I am, and let me thank the person who alerted me to this mention, however belatedly.

I'm pretty happy with Terminator, even with the fourth installment; there's an updated analysis of sorts at The Examiner, indexed at http://www.mjyoung.net/time/examiner.html#terminator, which covers the whole series at least briefly.

Apart from Terminator, the ones I like for fewest mistakes include--
--Back to the Future part I (the picture thing is goofy, but most of it works);
--12 Monkeys (it's hard to find flaws here);
--Flight of the Navigator (their concept of the impact of relativity on how far Davey could have traveled in a year is wrong, and there are some "huh?" moments, but the time travel impact itself is interesting)
--Somewhere in Time (except for that accursed watch)
--Happy Accidents (it probably leads to a temporal disaster, but we don't mind that it does)
--Time Traveler's Wife (well, some of it is a bit odd, like why he doesn't remember some things, but overall very interesting)
--Los Chronocrimines a.k.a. Timecrimes (really hoping that the American remake is half as good);
--11 Minutes Ago (tough to unravel and really fascinating, but a lot of fun, too--and you have to feel sorry for the groom, the only person who realizes one critical fact and everyone else thinks it's because he's drunk).

I'm finishing up a series on Midnight in Paris, which as time travel goes is pretty good, although risky at several points. You'll find all of these analyzed on the web sites. Oh, I also liked Time After Time, but haven't seen it in twenty years and couldn't do an analysis without getting a copy.

--M. J. Young

http://www.examiner.com/x-15701-Time-Travel-Films-Examiner Time Travel Movie Examiner

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 12 years ago

Just so you know, I'm a HUGE fan of yours. Your time travel analyses are some of the best I've read!

Glad you could stop in!

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] mjyoung-2 12 years ago

Thank you. I'm about half a year late, I guess, but better late than never.

On the subject of Men in Black III I saw it in the theater and did a preliminary analysis http://www.examiner.com/article/men-black-iii-quick-temporal-survey Men in Black III quick temporal survey a few months back; as I was attempting to budget my next time travel movies purchase to include it, it appeared in my Christmas stocking, so I'll probably turn my attention to it soon--although I'm almost ready to run an analysis of Meet the Robinsons, which is even more disastrous temporally but certainly very entertaining, and will come first.

--M. J. Young

http://www.examiner.com/x-15701-Time-Travel-Films-Examiner Time Travel Movie Examiner

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 12 years ago

Oh cool, thanks for the link. I'll give it a read. And I'm looking forward to the new stuff too!

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] Final_Hitokiri 13 years ago

John Connor creates himself

No. Kyle Reese is not the same person as John Connor.

There is definitely a time paradox there though, since the orignal John Connor wouldn't be fathered by Kyle Reese.

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

Kyle Reese fathers the idiotic John Connor. The first (unnamed) father of John Connor creates the John Connor that is able to stop the machines.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

WTF are you talking about? The first and only father of John Connor is Kyle Reese. Weren't you paying attention?

What scenes show or describe a separate (unnamed) father of John Connor? Prove your bullshït. And saying there must be an unnamed father is not good enough. Where is he?

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

WTF are you talking about? John had at least 2 fathers. The first one and then the stupid Kyle Reese that turns John Connor into a drug addict. Did you not notice that?

The FIRST John Connor (seen in the intro to T2) was a strong military man. The OTHER John Connor (seen in part III) was a drug addict. Big Difference.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

"John had at least 2 fathers."

Where? Explain the scene or description of that other father.

It's common to use different actors for the same character. Being a drug addict doesn't mean that's all he ever was. There is only one John Connor.

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

There was atleast 2 John Connors. One fathered by an unknown father, and one fathered by Kyle Reese in a second timeline.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

You said that already. I asked where in the films. You stuck?

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

I'm stuck? Your stuck.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

Come on. Can't you bring something more? WHERE in any of the movies is a second father or second John shown or suggested?

It only gives more credit to my case if you can't answer simple questions. WHERE is the other father or other John in any Terminator movie? I ask you. Instead of replying like you're 5, try putting some effort and maybe a scrap of intelligence into it.

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

You have to think outside the box. John Connor removed his first father from the picture when he sent Kyle Reese to save his mother. From that point on, Kyle Reese was the father and John connor was a screwup from that point on.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

John Connor removed his first father

SCENES please. Who said the "first father" was not Kyle Reese?

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

You are asking a question you already know the answer to.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

You don't know about causal loops (Predestination paradoxes) in movies. They've been around since at least the 1950's, and have been used many times in science fiction.

The causal loop allows Kyle Reese to be the original father, because his time trip departing from 2029 made it so that he was ALWAYS in 1984, and originally fathered John. The writer James Cameron said this was the case.

You're thinking classic Back-to-the-Future style time travel. This doesn't use that concept. So YOU need to think outside the box.

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

YOU need to think outside the box. There is always a first. Kyle Reese was not the first father.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

You didn't even bother reading my post. Yes, there is always a first. And the first was Kyle Reese.

[–] AriaOfTelengard 13 years ago

Alright man, you win.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

It's not about winning. Do you know what I'm talking about? Think about it. You go back in time to (for example) 1984. That means that back in 1984, you were there. You were ALWAYS there. By that I mean you were always part of 1984. Not a second new 1984. Not a new timeline copy of 1984. The original, the one and only, 1984. To me, this is the only true way time travel would work. Why would you travel to a second or copied or duplicate 1984? When you travel around the world, you don't have to travel to copies of Europe, or a duplicate of Mexico. You just travel to the one and only Europe or Mexico. Same with time travel. You travel to the one and only version of that time.

It's a causal loop because causation (one event causing another) happens in a forward direction of time (an earlier event causes a later one), but also a later event can cause an earlier one. Kyle Reese originally fathered John because Kyle was originally in 1984.

It's hard to think about, and it may hurt the brain, but that's why it's called a paradox. It seems to contradict conventional logic.

[–] kingzayd 12 years ago

It's not hard to think about.

The original timeline, before any time-travel took place had a John Connor who sent Kyle Reese back in time to save his mother. For John Connor to have existed in the original loop, he had to already have a father. In the original timeline this could not possibly be Kyle Reese as he didn't exist in 1984.

When he does send Kyle Reese back, the causal loop is established, as a result.

[–] chris_sewell26 11 years ago

You tried your best, mate - I agree with you on this one.

[–] chris_sewell26 11 years ago

It annoys me that people aren't getting this - so many seem to think that John Connor originally had a different father

A time loop is an endless loop – it has always existed and will always exist. No new events change time to become a loop. A circle is just a circle – it was not a straight line until someone made it into a circle.

All time exists simultaneously, end of discussion! Lol.

[–] adam_evans14 13 years ago

Donnie Darko still confuses the *beep* outta me. Love it though, even though i dont hundred percent get it

[–] mjyoung-2 12 years ago

The reason Sarah's child had a different father originally is tied up in the theory of time involved. You'll find some of that explained in http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15701-Time-Travel-Movies-Examiner~y 2010m2d11-Terminator-part-2nbsp-Sarah-Conners-child, but the critical point is that for Kyle Reese "always" (in a metaphysical sense) to have been the father of Sarah's child, we would have to be in fixed time, and if we're in fixed time then neither the future nor the past can ever change, and they both do, so we have to be in some other theory.

--M. J. Young

http://www.examiner.com/x-15701-Time-Travel-Films-Examiner Time Travel Movie Examiner

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tchevyz71 13 years ago

I've never understood the Terminator time travel. I've had someone do a good job of explaining it, but I still can't wrap my head around it.

Isn't Donnie Darko about right?

[–] Jogilius 13 years ago

An even better one than John Conner creating himself is Fry from Futurama being his own grandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrandgrand...father. That was simply hilarious! :)

Blogs:
entertainment-evolution.blogspot.com
inacompleteworld.blogspot.com

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

The Predestination movie beats everything in that departement.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

[–] lilengel-872-556321 10 years ago

That's incorrect, Kyle Reese is John Connor's father

[–] SpaceMountainMike 9 years ago

John Connor creates himself.

The Terminator also created itself. Cyberdyne found the damaged chip in the factory which they reverse engineered to make a Terminator.

_______________

My iMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

[–] anonyanonymous 13 years ago

Ich bin ein berliner does not mean what everyone says it means.
JFK did not say he was some form of pastry.

[–] vilasi 13 years ago

Primer

[–] Red_Hooded_Avenger 12 years ago

how about timecop, minus the part were if a future person and their past self's touch they merge into one blob and die

Time Cop got nothing right with time travel. The blob thing you brought up is just ridiculous. I mean, wouldn't you die from touching anyone in the past? If not, then touching yourself (no pun intended) should be fine.

Now, their ideas for time traveling, you start inside of a large machine, but arrive out of it? Also you're able to arrive in thin air, or in other parts of the world? C'mon! I know it's just a movie, and it's suppose to be an action movie because it has Van-Damme, but they could have done better with their story.

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!

[–] Loquacient 12 years ago

how about timecop, minus the part were if a future person and their past self's touch they merge into one blob and die

The reason Timecop really got it right was because it took into account the need for velocity during a time shift. Think about it: You need three things for time travel. Once you have the ability to travel through time, you also must have the ability to travel through space (instantly), or else just traveling a few minutes (of time only) would leave you off of earth and stranded in space. Finally, having time traveled and teleported to a specific location on the spinning earth's surface, you have to adjust for inertia, because if you just appear standing still while the earth beneath your feet moves at around a thousand miles per hour, you'd have some pretty serious road rash.

But it's really a lot more than that. If you time travel to the same spot on earth but 12 hours later or before (assuming you've flipped over 180 degrees and instantly reversed velocities), to place you with your feet on the ground has to take into account not only the earth's rotation, but its revolution around the sun (67,000 mph), the solar system's revolution about the galactic center (500,000 mph), the galaxy's movement through empty space (1,350,000 mph), and so on. We cross a lot of space in a very short time.

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

Awww, you beat me to it. ;)

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] Mr Nuff 13 years ago

Time travel isn't possible, but that doesn't mean it can't be made believable in movies!

I'd forgotten about Terminator and Primer. Those are excellent.

A lot of people have mentioned Back to the Future, but I think the way Marty's relatives slowly disappeared in photographs was a prime example of Bad Time Travel.

[–] tchevyz71 13 years ago

I guess I don't get how the terminator timeline works.

Reese knocks her up, so then what happens to the original John Connor, does that timeline cease to exist and now timeline B is the new future?

It's fun to watch these movies, but if you think about them too much, it ruins it for me. I can't make sense of it.

[–] mradam-3 13 years ago

Reese knocking up Sarah created the original John Connor. There is no other John Connor, just like there was no other 1984 without Kyle Reese in it. It's simple in concept, but hard to accept. Stop thinking about Back to the Future and changing the past. Kyle Reese went back and set up the past for the first time, and only time.

The proof is in the photograph. Kyle talks about it to Sarah before we ever see it. "You just seemed a little sad... I always used to wonder what you were thinking about at that moment." or something like that. We see the photograph when Kyle has it in the future war, and it is burned up. At the end of the film, that very picture is taken by the little Mexican boy, and we find out she is sad because she was thinking about him, Kyle Reese himself. That little irony makes it clear that it was done intentionally. And it means that, even in Kyle's time, in the future war, before he takes his trip through time, Kyle had already been there in 1984 to fight the Terminator, conceive John with Sarah, and die, making her sad, while he looks at her not knowing this reason. It already happened.

[–] d-adrian-williams 13 years ago

what about the butterfly effect? i think rthat was a great time travel plot
forget no2 aint watched that cos looked cheap.

[–] PizzaDaHut 13 years ago

Time travel is possible but we can not accomplish it as of yet (At least going into the future). Carl Sagan's show Cosmos did kind of prove this. It was only fractions of a second but it was done. If you were to take a jog around your block at the speed of light by the time you got back you would be the same age but everyone around you would be older. Going back into the past is not possible.

[–] Buddy_Dakota 13 years ago

That's called time dilation, and I don't think people actually refer to it as time travel. But you're right. If you have two objects, where one of them moves at a higher speed than the other, the fast moving object will age slower than the slow moving object. But none of them would feel that time progressed any faster. Time will also move slower the lower you are in a gravity field. Meaning if you stand on the ground, and I on top of a skyscraper, time will go by slower for you.

[–] hollyyggirl 13 years ago

So, your saying people that live in the mountains are older than everyone else?
Dont move to Denver.

[–] Buddy_Dakota 13 years ago

Technically, yes. But the difference isn't noticeable.

[–] Stang5150 13 years ago

Here's how I see time travel:

Time and space are like creating a vinyl record. The music (time) is cut into the record (space) and cannot be undone or rewound. Once time has imprinted onto space it is unchangable. There could be a way to go back into time to "observe" the past but there is no way to actually change the past. You can play a record over and over but you can't change the music.

Ehh.... or something like that.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] causewayking 13 years ago

Time travel is in no way possible. Mostly because time itself does not exist. Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months and years are just ways for man to keep time. They have no relevance in real science. The only time travel that is possible is to freeze yourself and get thawed out in the future.

[–] blade025 13 years ago

"As time travel isn't possible (or at least according to our current scientific understanding) then it's impossible to get it 'right' in a movie."

Bingo. It's hilarious to see people here explaining the plot holes of time travel..

[–] mole02 13 years ago

Actually, time travel is possible, both into the past and the future. That's already been scientifically determined. The only reason it hasn't been done yet is because we haven't yet achieved the ability to move beyond the speed of light, as time, light and space all travel at the same velocity...

[–] thunderztorm 13 years ago

So where's the future people?

[–] jjpete7 13 years ago

At the sports book in Vegas.

[–] [email protected] 13 years ago

Actually, time travel is possible, both into the past and the future. That's already been scientifically determined.

Perhaps it is, perhaps not. Depends on whether our understanding of the internals of black holes is accurate.

The only reason it hasn't been done yet is because we haven't yet achieved the ability to move beyond the speed of light, as time, light and space all travel at the same velocity...

That statement is so far detached from physics that it's not even wrong.

[–] marcuserenberger 13 years ago

This is actually scientifically incorrect. Time travel is theoretically possible, humans just don't possess the technology to achieve it.

[–] Red_Hooded_Avenger 12 years ago

As time travel isn't possible (or at least according to our current scientific understanding) then it's impossible to get it 'right' in a movie.

Time travel is possible, and has been proven to be possible in theory by Stephen Hawking. The probability of time is really slim. People claim to want knowledge, and to live forever, but our tax dollars go more towards the science of destruction than science we can actually benefit from.

But Hawking's theory only proved the possibility to travel forward in time, and it isn't anything like what Hollywood puts up on the big screen.

However in terms of films where the consequences of time travel seems accurate and plot holes are kept to a minimum try a Spanish film from 2007 called Time Crimes (Los cronocrímenes). Also Back to The Future makes a fair stab I think.

I myself will check out that title. I do like the film The Time Machine, even the remake, as it seemed to have a more believable story and theory of time travel.

I also agree with your comment about BttF. One movie I had always had a hard time accepting, since I was a kid, was Time Cop with Jean Claude Van-Damme. Apparently, that writer believes you can change your destination while time traveling.

Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!

[–] mrpancakez 12 years ago

"As time travel isn't possible (or at least according to our current scientific understanding)"

Yes it is; well travel into the future is at least.

Time dilation provides a means of travelling into the future by going very very fast. For example, someone on an advanced spaceship that could travel a good fraction of c, left earth and came back two years later, time on earth would have have passed a lot more so the traveller has only aged two yeivars whilst people on earth ages 20 years (for example.)

This is a known fact. Time travel into the future is possible, it is only an engineering and money issue but it is possible.

Watch this is you dont beleive me.

http://www.seti.org/weeky-lecture/how-build-time-machine

[–] chris_sewell26 11 years ago

First of all, according to Stephen Hawking time travel is theoretically possible (especially into the future).

Secondly, I love the Back to the Future Films but the second one got time travel wrong; you cannot travel into the future and meet your future self as you have taken yourself out of time for the period you travel forward.

Think of it like this: if in 2013 you get in a time machine and travel forward 30 years you have effectively plucked yourself out of 2013 and dropped into 2043 – you are therefore no longer there in 2013, ageing, to meet your (30 years older) self in 2043. For you, only second will have passed, but for everyone else it would be like you had been missing for 30 years.

[–] creaturefeeture 13 years ago

Primer, lol.

[–] huzdaman 13 years ago

This will sound sarcastic, but I loved Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and their rules. They would need something, think of it, and say "Remember to go back in time and put the keys here", and they would be there. I thought it was clever, and haven't seen that time travel plot device used quite like that.

don't know if I'd consider it 'right', though. I guess the original Butterfly Effect comes close. It explores the 'many outcomes' of going back and changing things better than some.

[–] kittykatrebellion 12 years ago

I agree 100%

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

Time Crimes.

One of my all time favorite time travel movies. It's got a great plot and the time travel is pretty consistent throughout.

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] yankeeplayer004 13 years ago

Chrono Trigger is the best Time Travel game of all time and would be an awesome movie so I vote that

[–] sanddragon939 13 years ago

Twelve Monkeys, The Time Traveler's Wife, The Terminator are all movies with minimal time travel related issues, largely because they employ the 'fixed time/circular loop' theory of time-so if you can get over the predestination paradoxes, they make perfect sense logically.

The Back to the Future movies are highly entertaining, and from a simplistic perspective, maintain their internal logic well, but the time travel theories start to come apart when you examine them too closely.

I quiet like The Butterfly Effect movies as well...as outlandish as the central conceit is, within the rules of the movies, all the timeline alterations make perfect sense.

[–] Mr Nuff 13 years ago

Time Traveler's Wife is another great one, but I think BttF's time travel was pretty bad and inconsistent.

The Butterfly Effect (at least part one) also had issues. For example, when Evan pierces his hands to give himself stigmata wounds, wouldn't his hands have healed in the 10-20 years that had passed when he went forward in time?

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

The Time Travelers Wife was great, the book being even better.

Yea, as much as I like The Butterfly Effect, there are a few inconsistencies in it, that bit with his hands being one of the bigger ones.

Mainly because even if he did decide to do that, its not like the wounds would suddenly appear. And even if he had scars, the guy he was showing them to would have always seen them since the timeline was rewritten.

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] bbark1 13 years ago

Hot Tub Time Machine....
Just kidding, but I think Star Trek First Contact did a great job....along with the Terminator and Back to the Future.

Now as far as books, The Time Machine and it's sequel The Time Ships (by H G Wells, and Stephen Baxter) are outstanding.

And in TV the Babylon 5 episodes Babylon Squared and War Without End are good.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jconn426 13 years ago

Yeah, but why did Kirk forget how to function in the 20th century? He and Spock both spent at least a week or two, maybe three, in 1930. They held down jobs and paid for food, rent, and electronic parts with hard currency. Why'd he suddenly blank when the 1980's bus driver insisted on "exact change"? Cute joke, yeah, but I always hated when writers would either ignore or be ignorant of concepts and incidents that other writers had already established when dealing with long-running characters.

===
And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

[–] MightBiteYa 13 years ago

Though the film adaptation simplified it quite a bit, the novel "The Time Traveler's Wife" was a great example of a complex time travel plot with very few inconsistencies.

[–] slarts2000 13 years ago

I thought "Somewhere in Time" got it right, in its own way. In a very simple, romantic fashion. I think it was the director of the movie that explained that he did not want a scientific or technological way to accomplish the time travel, including the use of a time machine.

[–] clydeerwin 13 years ago

The Time Wars books by Simon Hawke were the best in so far as covering all the bases and addressing all the usual problems. I highly recommend reading the 1st three in the series. The first one is called The Ivanhoe Gambit.

As far as movies go, 12 Monkeys stands out as does Time Cop with the above mentioned exceptions. I recall liking this new Sourcecode movie but I don't remember if I was cool with its time travel mechanic or not. Need to rewatch it.

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

I'm with you. The idea of someone willing themselves back in time is awesome to me.

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] slarts2000 13 years ago

Cheers! I think most people would love to have that kind of time travel capability. Sadly, Christopher Reeve being one of them after his tragic accident...

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

Yea...I'd imagine.

The movie the Butterfly Effect had a similar idea, but to much different effect.

But yea, being able to will yourself back is interesting to me.

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] mythbustfan 13 years ago

I always liked an 82-83 tv series called voyagers, it only lasted one season

it was about time travellers using a compass like device to travel through time to correct history's mistakes

the first episode had them go back to ancient egypt to find moses in the river stuck in some reeds, they freed his basket so that he could float down the river to the princess' waiting arms

I always wondered why couldn't "correct" time instead like going back in time to kill baby hitler?

Ich bin ein berliner, I am a jelly doughnut, JFK june 26, 1963
if you don't like this sig, tough

[–] MrGoneJediKnight 13 years ago

I haven't heard of that, I might have to look into it. Sounds like it could have been cool.

___
Our Universe is ruled by random whim, inhabited by people who laugh at logic. -Dexter

[–] Mr_Head 11 years ago

I really liked that show also. Too bad the star died (that's the reason I hear they cancelled it).

To your question, killing Hitler as a baby wouldn't be correcting time (no matter how much it might have been the right thing to do). If they could have gone to Hitler's time (it's been awhile, but I don't think he had control of his jumps... if I remember correctly, until the end of the show, his time compass was broke and he couldn't "aim".... sorry, I went off on a tangent....)....

Let's try this again....
If they could have gone back to baby Hitler's time and killed the future bastich, that would have caused a Red light to flash on the time compass, meaning that time was broke.

And to play Devil's advocate, possibly killing Hitler ahead of time, could have caused a worse future. Maybe someone worse than Hitler would have came to power.

Just a thought.

Aaron *Brother Head* Moss