7 reasons this movie was written by a drunken brain damaged 6 year old. - The Tomorrow War (2021) Discussion

[–] richmeng (48) 4 years ago

Did you watch the "Pitch Meeting" for this movie on YouTube by ScreenRant? Ryan George covers all that in his pitch meeting to himself.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

He covers some of it, not all. But the movie was so dumb I still had to make this post to cleanse my nervous system of the stupid.

reply

[–] chilone (18316) 4 years ago

Time travel movies/stories ALL have problems. Let it go and just enjoy.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

Hmm, ok, I'll bite:

tell me the problems with timetravel in Predestination or 12 Monkeys.

reply

[–] JoWilli (21627) 3 years ago

Predestination was a weird movie. slow to start but then got weirder and weirder.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 3 years ago

True.

But to me the most enjoyable part of the movie was the slow start, the story of how he become the agent was the best segment.

Anyway, I was asking about problems with how the time travel was conceptualized in Predestination because I cannot find any. A perfect loop with no faults, in my opinion. Same with 12 monkeys, the movie.

Travelers was quite close to that as well.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

I noticed most of that stuff but still enjoyed the movie.

I mean, while watching Terminator I wondered why Skynet didn’t send the terminator back in time to kill John Connor’s great-great-great-grandfather (any one of them) when they wouldn’t have anything close to the technology to defeat him. But I didn’t let that ruin the movie for me.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

hmmmmy yeaaaahhhh, it was the 80s technology that kept Sarah Connor alive, and not the guy that the resistance sent back in time to protect her. Reach harder.

Did you notice that the terminator used the phone directory to track down Sarah Connors? There were no phone directories when people didn't have phones.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

Yes, it was 80s technology that kept Sarah Conner alive. Kyle Reese came back naked, and had to use the weapons of the day. And cars to get away. And it was a modern-day industrial press that eventually killed the terminator.

And thanks for pointing out another plot hole. All-powerful Skynet, the most advanced computer ever built, had to look up Sarah Conner in the phone book? That didn't ruin the movie for me either.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

All powerful skynet didn't have the foresight to keep a database on everyone's family history just in case they needed to later send a terminator back in time to kill someone. What a HUGE PLOTHOLE (reach).
And they didn't have to foresight to think about the possibility of the terminator getting crushed inside an industrial press. I mean WHO COULD NOT HAVE SEEN THAT COMING: But then if they sent the terminator back in time to the year 2000 BC (with no record of family trees, and of course having no idea what the knock on effect of interfering so far back in history would have on future generations (if you go back 10 generations, that person will have thousands of descendants, not just ONE, lol) possibly preventing the birth of the guy who invented Skynet,
And of course, the terminator could have been destroyed by shoving it into a Volcano. In fact, that almost definitely would happen, skynet should have had the foresight to sent termintors back in time to plug up all active volcanoes...PLOOOOT HOOOOLEEE DUUUUURR!!!

lol.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

There would be no need for Skynet to keep a database of family history. They could just incorporate existing databases at the time it took over.

Use of the phonebook was a ploy by the writers so the audience could see the Terminator causing mayhem without killing off the main character. But it makes no sense that a sophisticated computer would have to resort to that. Which is basically the same kind of thing you complained about in your OP.

Not sure where you're getting 2000 BC or volcanoes from, other than an attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Let's say the terminator was sent back to pre-Civil War days. What was around back then that could possibly kill it?

Of course, that would make for a pretty boring movie. Skynet searches government records and determines that John Connor's great-great-great-great grandmother was living on a farm in Virginia. The Terminator and Kyle Reese show up there. Kyle tries to protect her with pitchforks and muskets (and even searches in vain for a nearby volcano). Then he tries to get away on a horse and buggy, but is easily caught by the Terminator and quickly dispatched. Then the Terminator wrings Grandma's neck. The End.

Such a movie would never be green-lit, because no one would watch it. All I'm saying is things like this are done for the sake of the plot, and make the movie more exciting to watch. For example, in this movie, it made very little sense that the U.S. Government, after forcing thousands off to their deaths, wouldn't take seriously the opportunity to stop the invasion before it started. Especially since Dan had the backing of the people who had come from the future. From there, it would be easy to get the whole world on board, since a publicized effort to kill the invaders early would calm the rioting.

But if the writers had gone in that direction, the audience would've been denied the exciting final battle. In my opinion, those kinds of decisions didn't ruin the entire movie for me.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

You seem to be unaware that the internet did not exist when Terminator movie was made. I hardly see it as a plot hole that the writers did not foresee the internet existing. Even now, family histories are not something that is generally accessible information. Never mind where they were living at a particular point in time. If the resistance had not sent someone back to protect Sarah Connor, she would absolutely have been dead at the beginning of the move. The conventional weapons were of little use against the terminator as we saw. If the terminator could be killed by a press, it could also have been killed by dropping a large rock on it. Your argument is absurd.

If you go back to 1800, you are going back about 10 generations, considering most people who successfully had offspring had about half a dozen kids back then, if you put 6 to the power of 10 into your calculator, you will get 1.7 million. That means you will be removing 1.7 million people from existence, not to mention all of the people that won't exist because of the knock on effects of those people not existing.

These are of course examples of you reaching to a ridiculous extent in order to make excuses for a crappy movie. I am talking about plot holes that both me and my friend immediately notice WHILE watching the film. The scene where the Terminator is crushed in a press happens at the end of the film. So you could not possibly have seen this as a plot hole in the movie regarding the premise of the film, since it only happens in the final scene. Unless you spent the whole movie thinking "what if the terminator gets crushed in an industrial press? Shouldn't sky net have thought about that when they sent the terminator back to the 80s??". Sounds totally plausible.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

If you go back to 1800, you are going back about 10 generations, considering most people who successfully had offspring had about half a dozen kids back then, if you put 6 to the power of 10 into your calculator, you will get 1.7 million. That means you will be removing 1.7 million people from existence, not to mention all of the people that won't exist because of the knock on effects of those people not existing.

Your math is off. According to the first website below, 1800 was between 6.7 and 8.8 generations ago. And that's for today. Back in the 1950s when Linda Hamilton (and presumably Sarah Conner) was born you would lose at least two of those generations. Add to that pre-Civil War would be around 1850, so shave another two generations off of that. So we're talking about five or six generations, not ten.

And yes, the birth rate was higher in 1800, but the death rate of children was higher back then. And the birth rate dropped to 3.5 by 1900.

Which is all meaningless, since you're presuming Skynet would care about how many people it took out of the timeline. It's goal was to stop John Connor from existing. Any of the people the Terminator randomly killed trying to get to Sarah Connor could have been crucial to the creation of Skynet.

https://genealogypals.com/how-many-generations-ago-was-america-founded/

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

I said about 10, and the exact number doesn't matter. Even if it's only 1000 descendents, that is a lot of fucking wild variables that could eliminate Skynet's own existance. The tidiest way would be to kill his mother, or kill John Connor himself when he was a child and defenceless, both of which Skynet attempted. If I only had one or two shots at it, that is definitely what I would do, considering both had a near 100% chance of success without anyone being sent to protect him or his mother. And as I already pointed out, there was no internet back in 1985, there is no reasons that records of family geneologies would have survived the war, and it is entirely possible that Sknet only new his mothers name. In fact given that the Terminator was going through the names in the phonebook, it is entirely probable..

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

there was no internet back in 1985

How old are you? Do you actually think record keeping by the government began with the internet? You never heard of the IRS, or the Census, which was mandated by the US Constitution? You don't think all of that information hadn't been moved to computers by the 1980s?

And I've already explained why the terminator was going through the phone book. Without that written into the script, the audience would be deprived of the terminator showing off his killing abilities.

So let's see, you're complaining about there being two of the same people in one timeline in this movie, but you're okay with the logic of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence computer the world has ever seen having to look up phone numbers in a phone book.

No consistency at all.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

What is your reading comprehension age?

"And as I already pointed out, there was no internet back in 1985, there is no reasons that records of family geneologies would have survived the war,"

which part of this sentence made you think I was saying that no records were kept before the internet? The part where I said they would have been destroyed during the war? Lol.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

"which part of this sentence made you think I was saying that no records were kept before the internet? The part where I said they would have been destroyed during the war?"

What part of this didn't you understand?:

"There would be no need for Skynet to keep a database of family history. They could just incorporate existing databases at the time it took over."

It was an artificial intelligence. The most powerful computer ever built. All it had to do was see a database once and it would commit it to memory.

The war happened later. Maybe you should re-watch the movie.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

And no, the records were still not entirely moved to computers by the 2000s. The very first commercial computers were developed in the mid 70s. After ten years I would be suprised if governmental bureaucracies had them at all, and they certainly would not have invested the vast resources necessary to transfer them to computers when computers were still barely a thing. There would have been no practical reason. They first started transferring NEW census information to digital databases in the 2000s using handwriting recognition software.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

"The very first commercial computers were developed in the mid 70s. After ten years I would be suprised if governmental bureaucracies had them at all, and they certainly would not have invested the vast resources necessary to transfer them to computers when computers were still barely a thing. There would have been no practical reason. They first started transferring NEW census information to digital databases in the 2000s using handwriting recognition software."

Now you're just making stuff up.

From this article: https://time.com/4271506/census-bureau-computer-history/

Exactly 65 years ago, on Mar. 31, 1951, the U.S. Census Bureau signed a contract for the first commercial computer in the U.S. and thus entered a new era. When UNIVAC—the Universal Automatic Computer—was dedicated a few months later, the New York Times called the machine “an eight-foot-tall mathematical genius” that could in one-sixth of a second “classify an average citizen as to sex marital status, education, residence, age group, birthplace, employment, income and a dozen other classifications.”

Until then the Bureau’s data had been handled with help from an electric counting machine first developed for the 1890 census. Advances in computer technology during the Second World War made for faster processing speeds—a development of particular interest to the Census Bureau, given the volume of data associated with regularly counting the U.S. population.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

It depends on your definition of computer. Strictly speaker the first "computers" were women who were employed to do tedious calculations. An abacus can be called a computer.

The first semiconductor circuits were developed in the 1960s. So what we today recognise as a computer. There were earlier computers that used vacuum tubes that were the size of a room and could be used for certain basic operations. What the link you posted is referring to is the tabulation of information. Not the storage of information on a database, which would have been first possible after the advent of semiconductor technology. They were still using paper records. The fact that machines were used to COUNT doesn't help a terminator find John Connor's ancestors.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

"The first semiconductor circuits were developed in the 1960s. So what we today recognise as a computer. There were earlier computers that used vacuum tubes that were the size of a room and could be used for certain basic operations. What the link you posted is referring to is the tabulation of information. Not the storage of information on a database, which would have been first possible after the advent of semiconductor technology. They were still using paper records. The fact that machines were used to COUNT doesn't help a terminator find John Connor's ancestors."

You just can't admit you're wrong, can you? Your previous post was proven 100% wrong, and now you're trying to change the definition of computer.

And you didn't read the article. The machines that were used to just COUNT were the ones the Census used BEFORE they acquired the UNIVAC in 1951. The article also mentions that data was stored on magnetic tape, so yes, a type of database was used. And as the computer was upgraded through the years programs would be written to convert that data to the new format. (I know this because I worked in IT for 40 years, and performed that type of work myself.)

So we have John Conner living through the census of 1990, before Skynet became sentient. With that data, along with DMV databases, an intelligent Skynet could easily match up John with his mother, and determine exactly where she was living in 1984. It's ridiculous to think a computer that powerful would need to look in the phone book to find Sarah Connor.

But I'm glad that Cameron wrote it that way. Because I enjoyed seeing the Terminator demonstrate how deadly it was.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

I didn't think of tape. But that would also not have survived a nuclear war. So it's the same thing.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

"I didn't think of tape. But that would also not have survived a nuclear war. So it's the same thing."

Huh? That makes no sense at all. Skynet came online and became sentient in 1997. No one was using tape for computer storage by then. All of that data would've been converted over the years onto the latest storage medium, which was hard disk drives in 1997.

And once Skynet became sentient, it decided that humans were the enemy and started a nuclear war. Wouldn't you think that this supremely intelligent entity would gather as much information that was available on its enemy before the bombs fell? And yes, computers were interconnected in 1997, and with Skynet being the smartest and most powerful computer of them all, that access would certainly be within its capabilities.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

As I already pointed out, James Cameron not being able to see into the future is not a plot hole. At the time the movie was written, they didn't know that the internet was going to exist. And there would be no reason to for skynet to keep census information, since they could not have foreseen that they would have to send a terminator back in time. it was also made clear that this was a latch ditch attempt by Skynet when they were about to lose the war. They may well not have even had time to search for information on John Connor's history, which is why the terminator only had his mother's name.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

We're talking about a fictional story, created by a writer. As a writer, you make decisions along the way, trying to create the best story possible. Sometimes that means you sacrifice logic for good action.

Logically, it makes no sense that a computer as powerful as Skynet - one that reached sentience - something that has never been accomplished in the real world, even almost four decades after this story was written - is so incapable it has to manually look up addresses in a phone book. If you're going to create a fiction computer that is that powerful, denying it that ability doesn't follow logic.

But, from a screenwriting point of view, it makes complete sense, and was the right decision. Logic should lose to good story every time. Not only do we get to see the Terminator kicking ass, it pushes the plot forward by warning Sarah Conner she may be in danger.

Many of the items you listed in your OP can be argued against, like you're arguing against this issue with Terminator. Yes, they don't make logical sense, but it comes down to whether or not one enjoyed the movie. If one did, then those issues are overlooked. If one didn't, then those are listed as the reasons.

Take, for example, Back to the Future and its sequels, considered by most to be the pinnacle of time travel movies. Here are some of the issues that haven't stopped people from enjoying the movie:

1) Why don't George or Lorraine recognize Marty? He was probably the most pivotal person in their lives, bringing them together.
2) In 1885, why didn't Doc use the gasoline from the Delorean he had stashed in the cave? Or why couldn't he just make some gasoline? (Kerosene was being refined at the time.)
3) When the Doc in 1955 discovered that the Doc in 1885 had been murdered by Tannen, the Doc in 1885 should have known it too, because the Doc in 1885 was an older Doc than the one in 1955.

(continued)

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

4) When Marty appeared in 1885 and they needed gasoline, why didn't Doc just go to the Western Union office and alter his letter to Marty, telling him to bring back some gasoline? Or send a letter to himself, telling him to bring back some gas.
5) In the timeline where Doc was committed, how does the time machine still exist? It should have disappeared just like Marty's siblings in the photograph.
6) When Doc diverts the lightning strike from the clock tower into the Delorean, he's effectively setting up a lightning rod, which would have spared the clock tower from being stopped. That sets up a future where Marty would not be aware of when the lightning would hit.
7) When Biff stole the time machine, how did he know he had to take it up to 88mph to get it to work?
8) After all the warnings from Doc about not meeting yourself, Old Biff sat next to Young Biff in his car and nothing happened.
9) When Marty returns to Lone Pine Mall and sees the encounter with the terrorists unfold, he sees himself jump in the Delorean and go back in time. Only thing is, that Marty grew up with the good version of his parents. What would he be doing back in 1955? Possibly screwing up what the original Marty had fixed?
10) The movie states that other timelines still exist, even if new timelines are created. That means there's still a timeline where George is dead, Doc is committed, and Lorraine is married to Biff. Kinda depressing.
11) When Marty wrote the letter to Doc warning him about the terrorists, why didn't he tell him to place some extra plutonium in the Delorean, so the next time Marty could just return right away? And when Doc knew the terrorists were going to show up, why didn't he change the time or place of the experiment?
12) And seriously, that thin Sports Almanac contained every result from every sport for 50 years?

Yowzer! That movie must've been written by a drunken brain damaged 6 year old!

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

If you want to find an actual plot hole in the Terminator movie, it is the fact that only flesh can be sent back in time, yet the terminator is able to go back because the robotic skeleton is encased in flesh. That makes no sense at all, but at least the writers attempted to justify that no other objects or technology were sent back with them. It is only relevant for the opening scene, and the time travel process is left mysterious anyway, as it happens in a future which we never see. It doesn't affect any internal logic of the story. This is an example of suspending disbelief.
Imagine if John Connor slipped on a banana skin and died before he was ever able to help Sarah Connor, and she just killed the terminator all by herself? Therefore rendering the whole plot about him travelling back in time to protect her pointless. That is what happened in The Tomorrow War when they killed the aliens without using the toxin. It was dumb, obvious, and contradicted the very story they were supposed to be telling. Everything up to that point had been about buying time to develop the toxin to kill the aliens, right? In fact all they needed to do was look at the claw, work out where the spaceship was and blow it up. How are you missing this?

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

"How are you missing this?"

I'm obviously not 'missing this.' I saw the same gaps in logic that you did. Even the ridiculous one where he had one student who was fixated on volcanoes, and it turned out later he needed an expert on volcanoes. Made me cringe.

But my point is, I still found the movie enjoyable. Just like I found The Terminator enjoyable, while overlooking gaps in logic that might've ruined that for me. (Not saying that this movie was as good as Terminator, but it was still enjoyable.)

Since time travel is impossible anyway (at least so far), when I watch a time travel movie I accept the rules of time travel set up by the author. One of my first thoughts in this movie was why didn't they go back in time and stop the invasion when it first started? But then they explained the rules and I rolled with it. I'm still not clear how the grown daughter's timeline fits in with the story. What happened to Dan the first time that caused him to come back from the future and give up on his family? Or did he not go to the future in her timeline, and going to the future this time is what inspired him to go after the origin of the invaders?

But like someone else said, because time travel is itself a paradox, pretty much most time travel movies have problems like this. If you're going to enjoy time travel movies, then you should be prepared to roll with them. Otherwise, you're just annoying yourself by watching them.

One of my favorite time travel movies is Somewhere in Time. The way time travel is achieved in that movie is off-the-charts ridiculous. But that doesn't stop it from being (in my opinion) a great movie.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

I accept the rules set up in any movie. The problem is when the movie ignores its own rules and logic. Then it just becomes boring, because there are no stakes and anything can happen at any time. Either you can go back in time and change the future or you can't. The whole premise of the film was that they had to fight the war in the future. It's called "The Tomorrow War". But then when they lose the war in the future, they go back in time and prevent it in the past. Which rendered the films very own plot entirely pointless.

reply

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 4 years ago

I accept the rules set up in any movie. The problem is when the movie ignores its own rules and logic.[/quote]

Then why did you say this?:

[quote]Why even bother trying to explain why they can only build just one portal to the past. "we didn't have time". or something. Riiiiiight.

That was a rule set up in the movie. They had just one portal, and the two ends of the portal moved along in each timestream at the same pace. And after we get to the future, we see why there's only one portal. They're under constant attack, and they can barely keep the single portal operational.

That's an aspect of the movie that made complete sense. They set that rule and stuck to it.

It sounds like you're not accepting that rule.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

1. Agree. The odd people leftover from the future should have died when the connection to the future broke.

2. Don't Agree. In the future they were barely surviving so they couldn't make 100's of wormhole jumplinks they were just about keeping the one link open.

3. Don't Agree. The main plan wasn't to win the war, they needed canon fodder to make sure they could keep surviving the attacks, create a toxin to kill both the male plus the female white spikes & send that toxin back to the past to eliminate them when they first appeared.

4. I think your totally confused on this & need to watch the movie again - he dies 7 years after the present not the future self & the present version travels to the future where he's already dead by then, so that wouldn't change anything in the future or create a paradox, just his present self now realises his mistakes & becomes a full family at the end to change his future.

5. Agree/Disagree. yes anyone could have brought the toxin back but why not the Colonels father, who would do his best more then a grunt solider or civilian & trustworthy. plus was he part of the plan initially to take back the toxin or whether that was just an extra once he survived the initial white spike attack in the laboratory.

6. Agree/Disagree. the world is in disarray, people sent to there deaths into the future with no hope, the link to the future was cut, anti-war protests turned into full scales riots, governments around the world were busy with other things then believe 1 guy had the world saving toxin, so they wanted proof, which is easy to understand if they had to go into Russian territory & cause word war 3 anyway - still why the government didn't send a small fact finding mission was abit odd.

7. Agree/Disagree. they could blown the ship but one could have escaped, also there had to be a final act otherwise it would have been simple easy end, then you everyone would have complained nothing exciting happened in the end.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

"7. Agree/Disagree. they could blown the ship but one could have escaped, also there had to be a final act otherwise it would have been simple easy end, then you everyone would have complained nothing exciting happened in the end."

You seem to think that there are only 2 possible ways that the movie could have ended. The writers just needed to write better, and give a plausible reason for them taking on the alien ship by themselves. Here, I will do it for them, just by thinking about it for 30 seconds, without this being my fulltime job, without being paid hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and without any experience in screenwriting:

They go to the crash site to confirm the location of the ship so that they have evidence to convince the world leaders to take action. However, when they go to the ship, one of them accidentally triggers an alarm system on the ship, which causes the aliens to come out of hibernation.

See how easy that was?

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

you do know the white spikes were cargo, so why would an alarm wake them up, so if that alarm accidently triggered they could have killed the real alien pilots who made the ship in flight?

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

You do know how writing works? the white spikes can be whatever the writers want them to be, it wouldn't have to be an alarm, it could have been opening the ship door which let oxygen into the ship and caused them to wake up etc. etc. etc ET CETERA.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

the last act could have been totally different as you say, but as yet you haven't come up with one where it would be any better?

least the writers used the toxin they brought from the future to give it an end that didn't work and they used plan b.

you can't just through one idea and then think your idea of the film would be better, you need to make a full third act that matches the rest of the film if you can come up with a better idea.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

You think a third act that renders the toxin totally pointless matches the rest of the film. WHHHAAAT??

I came up with 2 plausible alternatives in a matter of seconds. You think it is a problem to write a better ending if this is your full-time job?

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

no you just brainstormed 2 changes but didnlt really create a final act - choose a part of the film where you think it went wrong and create a step by step guide of how you would have done it better not just throw 1 idea and then just keep saying etc etc.

lets see your full better end idea?

yes the toxin did work (which they didnlt even know as that was only on a computer not in real life situation) but they didn't have the time to use it and the white spikes being effect killers matched the rest of the film and them resorting to suicide made perfect sense.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

I gotta agree with him. A lot of the major plot holes in this film can be fixed with very simple script changes.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

There's a difference saying you could alter this movie alittle to make it flow better but thats not the same as saying it's written by brain damaged 6 yr old, if that's the case with this then then most sci-fi action movies are.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

The alarm was triggered by the aliens waking up, not the other way.

They were interconnected, maybe even telepathic creatures, when first was injected with the toxin it woke up and that woke up the others.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

but would that been better then them all waking from the scream of others?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

It's not the scream, it's the pain and the death of the first that wakes the others. When they are in stasis they are asleep and they will not wake up on external factors. But the pain/death on one creates a signal that it's strong enough to generate a reaction and wake all the others up.

We are shown that they sense the others and are even telepathic ... or something

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

apologies, i missread what your first reply meant.

what change are you purposing that will make the film better?

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

"4. I think your totally confused on this & need to watch the movie again - he dies 7 years after the present not the future self & the present version travels to the future where he's already dead by then, so that wouldn't change anything in the future or create a paradox, just his present self now realises his mistakes & becomes a full family at the end to change his future."

I am not confused about anything. I understand both concepts of time travel, and the movie switches between the two concepts depending on the scene. If there are multiple timelines, then there can be no paradoxes by people travelling back in time when a younger version of themselves exist. If there can be paradoxes, then the very fact that chris pratt travels to the future to meet a version of his daughter who was the result of a past where he never travelled to the future is in itself a paradox. But if you can't work this out by yourself, I suspect no matter how many times I try to explain it, you still won't get it.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

there wasn't multiple timelines only 2 timelines.

First timeline was Chris Pratt,his wife and daughter and Chris dies 7 years after and daughter become colonel while the white spikes nearly kill humanity - they create a time-machine.

from that future they send the army back to the present where there is a second timeline deviation that they travel from here to the first timeline - back and forth.

not really hard to understand.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

"there wasn't multiple timelines only 2 timelines."

Jesus. Lol. I get why you enjoyed the movie. Never min. Lol.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

you can overthink any ideas, but then do you enjoy any films?

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

I am not overthinking. I have to think in order to force myself to suspend my disbelief in order to enjoy the film. I am not looking for these plotholes, they bludgeoned me over the head when I was watching the film How can I enjoy a story with a plot that is incoherent? If I only care about CGI actions scenes and am not interested in the story at all.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

actually you totally are over-thinking it.

I'm pretty sure you looking for plot holes to make you hate a movie you probably didn't want to like in the first place.

I'm a glass half full rather then half empty if there was big plot holes then I would see them.

this movie isn't perfect by a long shot but its not a total stinker you make it out to be either.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

I agree that overthinking a movie is silly, but in this movie, simply thinking creates massive plot holes. Remember how in Prometheus, Charlize theron dies because she chose to run straight away from a falling donut when she could have lived if she simply took two steps to the left or right? This movie does shit like that at several points.

If the audience came come in and solve your plot conflicts in about two seconds, you need a bit of a re-write. If ever a script needed an outside party to come in and fix the silly shit, it's this one.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

Prometheus was crap from the start to end, so i wouldn't even put that movie on this level.

Where are the massive plot holes?
what are your easy solutions to them then?

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

Lol the literal definition of multiple is 2 or more of something.

And what he's saying is there can't be paradoxes in when multiple timelines are in place. Like in Endgame, Tony stark could have straight up murdered his father in 1970 and blasted his pregnant mother for good measure. This would have made him a deranged lunatic, but it would have done nothing to his own existence or timeline.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

if you want to take it literal then it was only 1.5 timeline as it only changed from the time the future people appeared anything before that was always the same.

actually i assume that's wrong about endgame - they could only change certain thing without it affecting there future timeline - if he killed his father/mother then he would not have existed and disappeared in the future, but that was never explored.

Here Chris Pratt is changing the past and we know the daughter wont become a colonel and there will be no war with the white spikes - but that was expected.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

actually i assume that's wrong about endgame - they could only change certain thing without it affecting there future timeline - if he killed his father/mother then he would not have existed and disappeared in the future, but that was never explored.

Nebula literally killed her past self, so yeah it was explored. Separate timelines don't effect one another.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

but that was 2 separate timelines.

it would be like muri in the future getting killed by white spikes wouldn't effect little muri when she grows up to that age she wouldn't exist then aswell but she would as its a separate timeline - not a paradox.

If nebula went to her original timeline and killed her own parents then she would have died in both timelines unless there was 2 branches of timeline with her parents - but as there was already 2 separate timeline with 2 adult nebula in there one could die from one timeline while the other existed in the timeline.

the main paradox in that would have been there was 2 nebula in 1 timeline and that should have created a world end moment but that didn't.

This movie had a simple timeline compared to endgame changes anyway.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

But if the war with the white spikes doesn't happen that means that it's a different timeline.

The fact is: you cannot change the past, period. Or they send the toxin in the past and change it.

So, they kill the aliens in the present means no war in the future but with no war in the future there is no way for them to create the toxin and send it to the past. SO the toxin doesn't exist, aliens are not killed and the future war happens. The whole causal chain is fucked up.

It's almost like a double loop, but the movie is not constructed around that, like let's say Dark ...

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

it was a new branch of a timeline.

its like which was first chicken or the egg - every timeline movie has one of those paradoxes - not just this one.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

Which makes it terrible writing.

And there is NO mention in the movie about timelines ... plus they don't jump just in time but between timelines as well?

When they sent people to the future ... to which timeline do they send them to? And why? Why would Pratt from one timeline care about what happens in the other timeline???

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

timeline movies are terrible writing.

And there is NO mention in the movie about timelines ... plus they don't jump just in time but between timelines as well?

Do you want to be spoonfed everything or could you work that out yourself?

When they sent people to the future ... to which timeline do they send them to? And why? Why would Pratt from one timeline care about what happens in the other timeline???

did you even watch the movie? from present to future back and forth to one destination through a wormhole - its explained in the movie. its there future kids they want to help - that the way the timeline would have turned into if they didn't defeat the white-spikes in the mountains.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

Did you just forget the 3rd timeline when they kill the aliens?

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

First timeline was Chris Pratt,his wife and daughter and Chris dies 7 years after and daughter become colonel while the white spikes nearly kill humanity - they create a time-machine.

from that future they send the army back to the present where there is a second timeline deviation that they travel from here to the first timeline - back and forth and they kill the aliens.

where is there 3rd timeline?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

the 3rd timeline is the one with no aliens in the future ... too hard?

But the first timeline (the one that creates the wormhole) cannot exist if Pratt doesn't die when he was supposed to die, removing Pratt (and all others) from the past fucks up that timeline. So it's not just a new timeline, more like a parallel reality.

They didn't explain any of this shit so ...

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

which is the the second branch of timeline.

from that future they send the army back to the present where there is a second timeline deviation that they travel from here to the first timeline - back and forth and chris pratt comes back to with the toxin and they kill the aliens.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

I see you expanded your comment - so i will reply to your second half of the addition aswell.

But the first timeline (the one that creates the wormhole) cannot exist if Pratt doesn't die when he was supposed to die, removing Pratt (and all others) from the past fucks up that timeline. So it's not just a new timeline, more like a parallel reality.

They didn't explain any of this shit so ...

the wormhole is from a future where chris has already died - it goes to the present where chris is still alive - so no inconsistency there - that wormhole leads to place where a new branch deviation has occured.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

The default position is that altering the past alters the future. Endgame went to great lengths to explain that this wasn't the case. This movie did no such thing. Which is terrible writing. MAYBE they assumed everyone watching the movie had seen endgame and would assume that time travel works the same in every movie from now on. Which is terrible writing. So either way, terrible writing.
It also begs the question, since the future that the people were travelling from the present to fight a war in was now actually a branched timeliine that was not their own future (it had to be, since those people were not warned about the invasion by other future people), why were there going to fight there and die? Everyone should have been doing everything they could to prepare for the war in their own timeline instead.

So yeah, terrible writing.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

so your matching this movie up against a movie that setup multiple timelines and will have multiverses.

This movie setup a simple single time travel and kept within those limits - just because you want load of timeline and some super intelligent limits and regulations - this movie is not made for your because your watching an action movie with time travel expecting oscar documentary with full scientific explanations.

everyone went to save the future but as I've said before that ws just canon fodder to get a toxin back, what do you not understand about that? considering you want intellectual it seems you don;t understand basics.

your own writing writing of the story is terrible and would make for a really bad syfy movie.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

Do you agree that in any time travel movie, it is a given that altering past events alters the future? I mean this seems a no brainer. Yet this clearly was not the case in the film. This is DUMB AS FUCK. Not regular dumb movie dumb, but hilariously dumb. That is IF there is only one timeline. Which you seem to be adamant that there is.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

o.k, depends what it alters - if i go into the past and buy food will that effect the future, no.
If i go into the past and kill a whole class of people then yes it will alter the future but depends what those people did as to how much it affected it the future - if they lived single lives and did boring dead end jobs then would it affect the future much.

there are plot holes that you never mentioned rarely mentioned which i think that could have been explained better.

if a guy went to future and died - what happened if he was suppose to have kids in the future?
they did say they choose people who died but they should have chosen guys/girls who never had kids and wouldn't have been effected.

why did the future people still survive in the present after the time travel connection cut.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

His daughter clearly had no memory of him travelling to the future, despite his standing there right before her. Clearly informing people in the past that an alien invasion was going to happen in 20 years would have altered the future. That should be obvious. But it was never even addressed.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

or she was giving very little away as she didn't want to be emotional in front of her death father.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

But she gave a lot away though. She talked about how he was distant throughout her childhood and left the family 7 years later, and later died. But she forgot to mention the time travel stuff? weird.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

not really, she was a colonel who spoke very little of emotion enough to make him happy but very little about the job at hand which included talk of time travel. also she was 7 when he travelled in time for a week - not like he hand been going back and forth every weekend while she grew old and he kept telling her about about that all her life.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

Seems like the time travel thing would be kind of important though.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

for you it seems like it is an issue but not for a movie that covered most of what was needed and kept it simple for an action/sci-fi time travel movie, no.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

Future Muri did not live in a world where time travelers appeared when she was 9 years old. That was obvious. If they had, the alien sneak attack that she speaks about happening in 2048, would never have been an sneak attack. It would have been common knowledge for the 20+ years leading up to it.
This movie is 2 timelines. Honestly, the closest similar example is DBZ with future Trunks. His future is basically fucked, so he travels back in time, creates a new timeline where the future is safe(er), and goes back home to his still very fucked future.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

i've said many times there was 2 timelines linked by a wormhole.

First timeline was Chris Pratt,his wife and daughter 7 and Chris dies 7 years after and daughter become colonel while the white spikes nearly kill humanity - they create a time-machine and send people back to the present.

The future people come to the present where there is a second timeline deviation from the time they come to the stadium that they travel from here to the first timeline - back and forth.

so any knowledge of time travel will exist in the second timeline not the first as that timeline will always be muri growing up and becoming the colonel and fighting the whitespikes and getting killed while her dad come and goes from that present.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

It's impossible to have two timelines. (Unless is marvel mambo jambo ...)

Anyway, 2 things humanity will NEVER achieve, although we fantasize a LOT about them: time travel and faster than light travel.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

This a time travel movie

There is 2 time lines.

What are you even on about?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

Can you explain to me what exactly is a timeline? Are there more than one timeline at the same time, like parallel? (Because apparently they are, since they connect one timeline with the other).

Is it a different universe that spawns from the original based on what? And how are the energy and matter for the second universe created and from what?

And how? What exactly generates the split?

DO a dissertation and explain these little things that are not that clear about timelines ...

IMHO the whole "multiple timelines" is a non-sense bullshit.

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

when i see your mom next - i'll ask her to write a dissertation for you - is that good enough?

reply

[–] Goliard (1451) 4 years ago

You are, of course, absolutely correct. . .but I've found it's bootless to argue w/people who like to discuss these things on message boards. Even if you're not a physicist, simple logic shows that treatment of time travel in movies is completely absurd. Very, VERY few times is it presented logically. This movie is particularly egregious. Ah well.

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

"I think your totally confused on this & need to watch the movie again - he dies 7 years after the present not the future self & the present version travels to the future where he's already dead by then, so that wouldn't change anything in the future or create a paradox, just his present self now realises his mistakes & becomes a full family at the end to change his future."

I think you are totally confused: most of the people send to the future died in the future ... so their lives couldn't continue in the present. Even the main char will lead a different life which will NOT lead to his death.

But the whole movie is full of grandfather paradoxes ...

"7. Agree/Disagree. they could blown the ship but one could have escaped, also there had to be a final act otherwise it would have been simple easy end, then you everyone would have complained nothing exciting happened in the end."

So basically a plot device, hot that far from a plot hole and usually a sign of bad writing ...

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

I think you are totally confused: most of the people send to the future died in the future ... so their lives couldn't continue in the present. Even the main char will lead a different life which will NOT lead to his death.

But the whole movie is full of grandfather paradoxes ...

yes, those who went to the future died and as i said there was a new branch of timeline created from when the future people appeared in the stadium- like muri will no longer be a colonel now as there was no future war going to happen.

So basically a plot device, hot that far from a plot hole and usually a sign of bad writing ...

not bad writing but choosing an easy option which was fun and enjoyable - same as alien's they could easily not had newt fall into the pit and then ripley, bishop and corporal hicks would have survived because they had to create a plot line for ripley to come back and save the day and fight the alien mother - lazy writing or what?

reply

[–] asom (6894) 4 years ago

still lazy/bad writing.

there's a huge difference between having an internal logic problem and an event that even might be improbable still is within the story logic and could happen (Alien).

reply

[–] 123 (543) 4 years ago

i don't mind as long as it isn't way over the top and super inconsistent.

the bigger problem i see with the movie is everything happens in the movie relates to chris pratt, his wife, his daughter, his father, his friend, his new bad ass fighting friend, his school student - nothign happens without someone not related to him.

reply

[–] Mephariel (58) 4 years ago

None of those are even the biggest problems.

1. Sending soldiers back without any training, orientation.
2. Sending middle aged, old people back. Asking them to shoot creatures moving at the speed of a wild animal.
3. Asking them to immediately assemble for a risky rescue mission rather than a headquarter for briefing.
4. Holding the toxin in his hand in a vial rather than a protective secondary container. Also, the toxin suffers from no
degradation from heat, time travel, etc.
5. Not immediately assembling a group of soldiers to store the toxin and keep them prepped for time travel. Instead, some
crazy speech about trust.
6. The world government not seeing Pratt's return as their final hope. Instead, they ignored his return.
7. Only one kid knows anything about volcanoes.
8. Deducing the origins of the alien ship as if the entire world couldn't have speculated that sooner.
9. Sneaking into Russia on a plane. The entire final battle. Could have just dropped or rig explosives.

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

I know, but I got tired after number 7.

reply

[–] jhodess (87) 4 years ago

10. Too many black people and female soldiers to ignore.

reply

[–] brux (14840) 4 years ago

This is why I despise and usually will not watch anything to do with time travel. It cannot be done. There are too many contradictions. And it especially cannot be done in a movie.

There are a couple of time travel movies I was entertained by, like the Tom Cruise's Edge of Tomorrow ... ridiculous, but well done and with a sense of humor.

reply

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

I like the ones who don’t take the science part seriously, just use the concept as a metaphor for redemption and second chances. My favorites:

Back to The Future
About Time
Big

Agree with OP. This was the sloppiest plot and an insult to any audience. Even the dolts and gapers who like Marvel flicks deserve better

reply

[–] alienzen (1931) 4 years ago

There is no time travel in Big. what movie were you watching?

Even the dolts and gapers who like Marvel flicks deserve

awwww....thanks! :)

reply

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

Yeah right about Big. Guess that one is more “age travel”.

Am enjoying the Manifest series on Netflix too. Totally preposterous time travel and psychic abilities premise but still vastly more entertaining than Tomorrow War.

reply

[–] ace2 (607) 4 years ago

All these points are true, but I would categorize them as bad planning decision making. Which is still better than inconsistencies or impossibilities which I view as even worse.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 4 years ago

1. That was not on purpose. They went to the past with the intention of returning to their original timeline. How their remaining in the past effects things remains to be seen, but that's the sad consequence of the aliens winning the war in the future.

2. Why would they need a second portal? Either their plan works or it doesn't. Creating a third timeline is pointless.

3. Exactly how many people could you send to the past, and when would you send them, and why? If the entire planet was unable to withstand the invasion, how would sending a few thousand soldiers back in time make a difference? The only way to succeed is to get something to the past that can end the war before it starts, namely the toxin.

4. It works exactly as it does in Endgame, if that helps. By opening the wormhole, the future people created a branch in the timeline. Nothing anyone does in the past has any effect on the future at the other end of that wormhole. All they can do is create a future in which humans win; their own fate is sealed.

5. It only doesn't make sense to you, because you either aren't thinking or are unable to grasp the story. She brought him because she trusts him, and because she wants to see her father again before she dies. And, he has the training and knowledge to help her in her quest to find a toxin that will kill the queens.

6. Who decided what? Governments? What are you talking about here?

7. They created the toxin because they did not know where the aliens came from, or how they got to earth. They were preparing the people in the past to fight the aliens when they appeared. It was only after Chris Pratt figured out that the aliens were already there, but frozen, that they were able to locate and kill them. The future people were operating under the assumption that at some future point hundreds of aliens would secretly land on earth.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

4. It works exactly as it does in Endgame, if that helps. By opening the wormhole, the future people created a branch in the timeline. Nothing anyone does in the past has any effect on the future at the other end of that wormhole. All they can do is create a future in which humans win; their own fate is sealed.

This is what bugged me. In the movie, everyone in Chris Pratt's present are all doom and gloom because their world was going to end in 30ish years, and I'm wondering wtf am I missing, because as far as I can tell they have a 26 year head start and a major tactical advantage over the enemy. These people should be jumping for godamned joy in this scenario, as they were handed one hell of a Deus Ex Machina. Yeah it sucks that the future timeline couldn't be saved, but for them, this alien attack basically got downgraded from global catastrophe to local nuisance we almost have 3 decades to prepare for. Toxin or no, this would be very winnable for humanity.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 4 years ago

Have you seen how people have spoken and behaved during the recent pandemic? Now magnify a new strain of the common cold to vicious alien monsters who are going to wipe out humanity and tell me how optimistic you think people will be.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2637) 4 years ago

You realize that in the metaphor you just created, we'd be the future people living in the shitty time. Imagine how the global pandemic would have played out if the world had a 6 month heads up from the future and could plan accordingly.

Although as I think about it, in 2019 we had one asshole with an army of devoted followers that could easily convince a huge portion of the country that people popping out of portal in the middle of the World Cup was a hoax and not to believe a word they say, so yeah I guess people could manage to still fuck that up! I stand corrected.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7436) 4 years ago

Your response proves me right. You can't even discuss this without bringing politics and rage into the conversation. If we had reason to believe killer aliens were en route, the world would become even more chaotic than it is now, and no one would be optimistic about preparing ahead.

reply

[–] Goliard (1451) 4 years ago

Ehh. I'm more optimistic than you. . .if things were really THAT dire, I honestly think people would pull together. Regardless of WHO was "in charge," or how terrible a job they were doing.

There's a BIG difference between a pandemic and an ELE alien invasion.

reply