MovieChat Forums > Time Lapse (2015) Discussion > Narrow minded

Narrow minded

posted 9 years ago by Fanjita
20 replies | jump to latest

Having just watched this film and seeing some of the posts on here saying Callie was stupid for believing she could change the past seems to be slightly narrow minded when it comes to the topic of time travel and similar things which aren't based in reality.

Let's say for example the point where Callie kisses Jasper in the original time line she backs off from the kiss before Finn turns around. Finn doesn't see the prolonged kiss and is indifferent to the event that has just happened, Callie in this time line is annoyed at Finn's lack of care and so writes a note to say kiss Jasper for too long. Camera takes the picture and then that time line ends and a new time line begins where Callie sees the picture about the long kiss.

At the end external events stopped her from changing the picture from being blank and so the timeline carries on and never gets stopped. I don't necessarily think it's wrong to think the characters in the film can change the past by destroying their current timeline, we only see in the film the final timeline play out which makes the viewer believe the future is predetermined, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Interested to hear opinions on this.

[–] bobbykanae 9 years ago

She wasn't stupid she was insane... What sane-minded person kills their loved ones regardless of time travel?

Nowhere in this film is the timeline ever changed. It's consistent and every photograph we ever see actually comes to pass. If anything the film makers made this a "bullet proof" time travel movie in terms of time-travel paradoxes (with the exception being the origin/how it works going backwards...). But while could be seen as the movie is trying to say the future is pre-determined, what's it's really saying is the ability to see the future isn't worth what it will cost you..

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

Well, I don't know if "narrow-minded" would be the applicable expression, but we know that they can effectively change the past, because Jasper does so repeatedly. That's how he wins his bets.

So to think that the ultimate point is that they cannot do so is obviously wrong.

"We gotta get outta here." "I know, I can't stand this music!"

[–] bobbykanae 9 years ago

They're only effectively able to change the past to match the photograph.

But the photograph shows the crime scene, so thinking she can get away with murder after seeing the future holds a crime scene, then trying to replace that future with a "don't let Finn find you" (which is not what the photograph shows) indicates her lack of understanding of the future. But again, she's clearly crazy at the point all this is happening so "understanding" doesn't seem to figure into it.

Have you ever known a truly crazy or legitimately insane person? They don't have a grasp on reality nor do they think straight.

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

The photograph doesn't just happen spontaneously. Jasper sets it up.

He writes a message to himself. His past self, the day before, now has information his future self gave to him, information he could have had in no other way. He uses this information, in the past, to win bets.

He changes his own past.

No reason Callie couldn't have done the same; she just messed it up.

"We gotta get outta here." "I know, I can't stand this music!"

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobbykanae 9 years ago

Except past Jasper always sees the future so he knows he posts those bets in the future.

You're coming from the conception that a "future Jasper" never had any future photo to go on, so an "origin Jasper" changed his past by creating the first photo. That's a much larger "time travel paradox" conversation, but in this type of film, in this type of paradox, it just seems safe to say there never was an "Origin Jasper". The only Jaspers that ever existed were the ones who saw the future and were doomed to repeat it.

I only say this because we never seen an "origin" timeline. Some other time travel movies play with origins and alternate futures but this film explicitly tries to escape that time travel discussion by sticking to a determined future.

I do want to go all aggro nerd here so I'd like to just remind people it's about the story - probably most importantly is that when Callie believes she can change the future she's already seen, she destroys her life. I mean, that's the entire point at the end of the damn movie so it's funny to see people try to 'see it differently'

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 9 years ago

It all starts with him setting up a photograph.

"We gotta get outta here." "I know, I can't stand this music!"

[–] Fanjita 9 years ago

Sure, but the reason why we see that she can't change the future is because we are shown the final timeline. We don't know for certain how it works, for example in the origin timeline the first photo would have no results but 24 hours later they think: ok let's try writing down some winners from today and then see what happens on the next photo - new timeline starts.

Obviously this is not necessarily the case and everything was predetermined from the beginning, but I don't think there's anything to say this can't be the case and people arguing against this here are just repeating the same points.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

There a few things to look for when trying to determine if a movie is showing a timeline that can be changed or one that is fixed:

1) Does the film show anything change? If so, then the timeline can be changed. If not, it's inconclusive.

2) Does the film show any Bootstrap Paradoxes? If so, then the timeline is fixed. If not, it's inconclusive.

So, for #1, Time Lapse never shows anything changing. So, that's inconclusive.

For #2, Time Lapse does show Bootstrap Paradoxes: Finn's paintings. They don't exist unless he sees the photo from the future. They actually emphasize this at one point, when he doesn't get to see a future painting and can't paint a thing.

So, from #2, we know Time Lapse shows a fixed timeline that cannot be changed.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

#2 can be explained though because he already knew that he wasn't a painter. He explains this when he shows Jasper the ring he bought a year ago. Based on this he has already decide not to even try painting.

When he sees the photo of the future he has painted something but doesn't decide to paint what he saw in the picture until he believes he has to. In the initial photo we don't actually know that he painted what he saw, but because he decided to painted it after seeing it it came to be that he only painted what he saw. This means that he could have been rewriting previous timelines in which he had bought the paintings he was seeing.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

The opening scene is Finn trying to paint, so you're saying he's not trying to paint makes no sense.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

The opening scene is Finn trying to put brush to canvas in an effort to look like he's trying. The reason he can't paint anything on his own shows this. His "painter's block" is a subconscious expression of his conscious belief of "knowing" he isn't a painter/artist which is imposed on his subconscious during his waking states.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

Well, that's a lot of unnecessary speculation, but okay.

Now about buying all the paintings. Several potential issues here.

They show Callie apologetically getting him brushes, even though they know they're short on cash. They may not have enough to buy art. Sure, they end up getting a copy in the photo, so they don't need to spend the dough in the long run, but this is every day. And if the camera stops working, they're on the hook for the money.

Then there's the question of why would Finn copy another artists' work? He can't sell it as his own work. And if he's not a painter, why do it at all?

And just because you have a photo of a painting by another artist, that doesn't mean you can paint it exactly the same to make them indistinguishable. While there are great forgers, Finn never comes off as one. And he'd have to forge each painting In a day.

Lastly, what artist are they buying these paintings from that has paintings of time spirals, dog racing, money, Callie in a tight red dress, Callie nude, a crappy drippy skull, and a Thorium coil? It seems weird there's a guy out there essentially painting the story of the movie. Maybe he's also got a camera.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

It's not like they're buying fine art or art from a well known/moderately known painter. The first picture he likely bought for a few dollars. The first painting in the picture is the one that gave him enough confidence to paint, just not enough to paint something different (plus the whole "we have to do exactly what the picture shows or else..." belief).

As far as selling his paintings we never see anything, from what I recall, that indicates he was actually even trying to sell them. Sure we don't see them after he paints them but we don't see any monetary increases after their painted either. Finn also said he wasn't painting for the money so even if they were originals we have no idea of whether or not he'd sell them anyway.

The movie implies that he can, and does, do just this to satiate the need for them to match the photo exactly.

Time spirals and dog racing aren't that far fetched, but those are also early paintings (iirc). The drippy skull is explained as a warning from their future selves and the thorium coil is a hint from future Finn to past Finn which makes Mr. B die in his storage unit so that future Finn can escape.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

We see Finn unable to paint when he doesn't have a photo showing him what he's going to paint, so I don't buy your theory that he painted all the paintings on his own, just so he could send a picture of the painting to his past self to replicate.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

That isn't even close to what I've been saying.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

Well, that's good. It didn't make any sense anyway.

[–] orangy_blue 9 years ago

I've been reading lots theory concluding that timeline can't be changed. I think they are wrong, and Fanjita is right. What we are seeing is the final version of a manipulated timeline. So it seems it can't be changed, but in reality, it was looped many times [by Callie] for the final outcome.

Take Edge of Tomorrow, if they never show the loops and just the final outcome, Tom Cruise would do everything completely out of character and in a non-logical sense. He went from a dead-beat to a superhero overnight with all the info about aliens out of nowhere. (turns out its due to multiple time loops)

In this movie, Callie did 3 things out of character with no logic. She kissed Jasper, posed nude, and bought a nude artbook. Has anyone ever asked, "Why"? Why would she do those things, she wouldn't.

...unless its due to multiple time loops where she sends herself message at 8am to give the desired outcome for 8pm. Therefore, if her final note had stick, Callie could have avoided the bad outcome in that final day.

[–] carl_johnson-1 9 years ago

Finn's paintings show the timeline is fixed. Without photos of them, he can't paint anything. We see this in the film. Even thousands of iterations of a blank portrait doesn't get him there, since he's the same him at the start of each loop, looking at the same blank photo.

[–] seanafields 9 years ago

Forget about Finn's paintings - when Callie first found the camera, there was a picture in it of herself with a sign that said, "Knock over the coat rack." Without a fixed timeline, what would we suppose happened in the "original" time line to cause her to write herself that note?

Although, I think the filmmakers screwed up a bit at the very end...

The last picture Callie takes off the camera is the apartment with police "crime scene" tape across it. The last scene of the movie is the camera taking what should be that picture, but there's no police tape...

EDIT: And now I've changed my mind:

Callie was putting up the sign for the 8:00pm photo, but it wasn't that late yet - that's why it was still light out. When the camera went off, it was taking the photo of the coil painting that Mr. Bezzerides had seen several days earlier.