MovieChat Forums > Project Almanac (2015) Discussion > The first time David sees himself at his...

The first time David sees himself at his own birthday question


So when David spots himself at the start of the film, is that part scene where he goes back to destroy the machine? so when the original gang go to find it, it shouldn't be there correct?

reply

Even more problematic is the fact that in original time line the father left the house with the central unit and was then killed in a car wreck. How did it get back into the secret vault after he was dead?

reply

I'd have to re-watch it to be sure, but that sounds right. If he does leave with the case, it's a problem.
The only explanation is that the presence of his older future-son causes him to leave it there. Because we know that since the whole thing began with the discovery that future David was at his younger self's birthday, which means there does not exist a timeline wherein David's father leaves that party without first confronting his future-son. That confrontation alters the father's intentions every time. This perpetuating the time-loop.

reply

I opened a separate thread about this.

I can see one solution to this. There is a cut in the video when David's father carries the box. A balloon obscures the view for a moment, then the video cuts to a different angle, now Ben talking to young David.

Teen David and Ben must have met during that cut. So Ben gets the phone call, picks up the case, goes down to the basement, opens the floor locker, then teen David arrives, they talk, David sets the fire, Ben gives the watch to young David and leaves.

That, or there are two time machines, one in the basement, one that Ben takes away with him. And a third, that's the first one from the future.

reply

It was only the blueprints they found, I think. They built the machine themselves

reply

He may have changed his mind at the moment. Also, they figure it out because in the video he's reaching for the mysterious light-switch. But he doesn't do that at the end, nor would he have any reason to.

reply