Jack273:
light099 This is for you and others

No one is saying that a movie is a universal truth. All the guy that have been arguing with you have been saying is that it is a movie, a sci fi movie at that. The 'fi' there stands for fiction. It is fictional. Yes we know that most of these guys do consult physicists and the rest to try to make it as accurate as possible but at the end the writer still has the final say. It is his movie and so he makes the rules. What we as viewers and critics are just trying to do, the whole purpose of this argument, is to make sure that Nolan did not break his own rules. I'll still state it again, his own rules not the rules of science, quantum physics, or whatever.

Just like you said, there are always flops and shortcomings but not in the rules of Science but in the rules of the movie itself. Let me give an example, in a movie where the main character have the ability to teleport in the blink of an eye. If towards the end of the movie he is killed by a bomb in a room after he watches the bomb count down from 10 to 0 seconds, we can say there was a flop. Not because the guy can teleport and it is not scientifically proven that humans can teleport but rather the flop is why should a guy that have been teleporting through out the start of the movie not be able to teleport to safety in the final battle. So we point out flops based on the rules of each movie and not on the rules of Science which is universal.


I think this is the major problem of your whole argument, you're judging the movie outside the rules of the movie. How can you judge a sci-fi movie on the bases of whether it is realistic . A fictional movie can never be realistic, even a sci-fi movie, it can't follow all the rules of Science most especially when it comes to concepts like time travel where even the experts do not agree.


Your first sentence here is right. They can say anything because they make the rules. Your second sentence is where you're getting it wrong. It doesn't have to be logical or follow reality. It just have to follow the movie's own rules. Now let me tell you another important thing you seem to be missing. The writer, Nolan, himself is not the one talking in the movie, it is actually each character that is talking. I kept saying the rules of the movie but the truth of the matter is that there were no rules stated in the movie . Take a look at the movie very well all you and I have been calling rules are just the opinions, whether educated or not, of the various characters. That is why even the 'major rule' you're basing your whole argument on, What's happened has happened, was first started by probably the most confused guy in the movie, who as the movie went on kept on contradicting his statement (I'll explain the contradictions). Yes he is a physicist, yet he was very much as confused as the rest.


How can you claim that what Neil said at one point of the movie is the rule of the movie and what he said at a later time, which ortega004 screenshoted is a flop and wrong claim? Even if Nolan himself was the one that said it was a flop and wrong claim, maybe at a press conference after the movie, I'll find it hard to agree with him. You cannot accept one evidence from a source and reject other evidences (whether contradicting or not) from that same source and make a valid argument. It just goes to show that you're biased and have already made up your mind to pick the statements that you like and nothing anyone else says can convince you otherwise. I believe this is true so I won't even waste my time or your time trying to convince you.

Sorry for the long post, just two more things I have left to say.

I can't claim to understand the concept of inversion. Which is the major reason I started following this thread and enjoyed your argument with the other guy on whether oxygen and other things need to be inverted or not. I still do not understand it even at this point because the both of you kept giving it different meaning and going into the physics of it. I'm not a physicist although I did take it in secondary school and year one in the University. My point: I know nothing about inversion and you guys argument is not helping matters but I still read and enjoyed everything.

One thing I do know is time travel, not the real life physics version of it, but the movies Science fiction type. This is because unlike you I've seen so many time travel movies. From all the movies I've seen, I've come to the conclusion that there are two major types;

1. The one where you can't change anything: This is the one where if you go back to the past to stop something from happening, you soon find out that nothing was changed. In fact, your going back is what might even cause that thing you try to prevent from happening. Just like when the Protagonist went back despite Neil's warning only to end up handing over the device to the bad guy. You might be tempted to think that this means the Tenet movie falls under this category especially since the protagonist finally agreed with Neil that "What's happened has happened" but I'll soon explain why we can't conclude just like that.

2. The one where you can change things: This is the one where you can go back in time to kill Hitler and be successful. The funny thing is that this is actually the most common one yet half of your argument is based on it not being possible because of that famous quote from Neil. ortega004 have already tried to explain this to you. The Flash, Heroes, Heroes reborn, Legends of tomorrow are examples of series that fall under this type.

Now for the explanation why Tenet could be in any of the two categories and not necessarily the first one like you thought. In fact by the time I'm done explaining this last part, if you are truthful to yourself and open your mind, you will come to the same conclusion as I have that Tenet actually falls under the second category where What's happened has not happened or put in a different way, What's happened did not happen. Confusing right? I'll explain.

First I'll start from the future. Let me ask you a question, please try to answer it honestly. Who do you think is smarter, the future or the past? By smarter here I mean who have more knowledge about the doomsday device. Let me even assume that the past is smarter what about the scientist that invented the device. Shouldn't she know better that what's happened has happened? Why will she invent a device, the future which she belongs to, will try to use it to destroy the past and she will be so scared that she will have to convert it to a physical form so it cannot be copied. Still that was not enough, she went on to split it into various parts, hide them in the past and still killed her self so she will not be forced to make another one. Now why will such a smart scientist go to such extremes if Neil (a physicists from the past) was right about What's happened has happened? Why will she do all this. Try to answer this question honestly without bias.
The best we can actually assume is that she doesn't know for sure which is why she did all this just to be on the safe side. This is exactly what ortega004 have been trying to say. The people from the future will not also have tried to use the doomsday device if they believed Neil's statement. They would have just done what you said in one of your replies here that they will go back to the past and live the rest of their lives. This shows that they believed that the past and therefore the future can be changed.

Lets even assume all the people from the future are mad and know nothing about physics or time travel including the brilliant scientist that invented the device. Lets assume they all just panicked and decided to try the impossible despite knowing that what's happened has happened. Even if we take this blind leap of faith, what do we say about Neil and the whole Tenet organization whose mission statement is to prevent what might have been. Why will such an organization even exist in the first place if Neil was right about not being able to change the past? Why will they prevent what might have been if what has been will always be? Why will Neil later state that it is not a reason to do nothing? Why will he say at the end of the movie that 'we have just saved the world now we can't leave anything to chance'? Why will he say this and leave to go back knowing fully well he was going to die if he goes back? This means despite everything that has happened, even Neil himself did not believe his own statement that what's happened has happened. No one in the movie believed that and they all showed it in the way they acted at different times including the first person to make that statement that you're taking as the rule of the movie.

They had a whole organization specially formed that proved your fundamental argument wrong ie the past and future can be changed but the organization does not want that so they do everything to stop anyone trying to change anything. This is similar to either season 3 or 4 of DC's Legends of tomorrow where the Legends go back in time to restore history back to default.

I do hope I've been able to convince you because I don't know what else to say. The only conclusion we can draw from the movie is that while the future believe that they can change the past, the past and the Tenet organization believed that they cannot and that was what they taught Neil who is one of their agents. The only flaw in this and the movie at large (which you did not even point out) is that if the organization really believed that, then why create the organization in the first place to stop something that can never happen? Now who is the mad one, the future that are trying to change things because they believe they can or the past and the whole Tenet organization (that you claim based on Neil's first statement alone believe that what's happened has happened) that are trying to stop something that they believe cannot happen in the first place? It is either the future is wrong with their we can change things mentality or the past with their they cannot change things mentality. The truth is non of them know whose theory is right because it has not been done before. The future are willing to try just in case they are right while the past and Tenet organization which you claim know better do not actually know. That's the whole point of the organization, they can't leave anything to the chance that what they taught Neil which you've been arguing is the rule of the movie is right. If they were so sure, they won't need to form the organization.

In conclusion, if you study the movie very well, the real idea/concept of the movie is that they all, both the future, the brilliant scientist, the past, the Tenet organization, Neil the physicist, the protagonist and even Nolan himself do not know if it is possible to change the future by changing the past Now if all these people do not know how can you claim to know and not only that but claim to come to that conclusion by watching the movie? It just goes to show that you're actually talking based on your own believe and not from the movie. The whole movie is based on the idea that no one knows for sure, everyone of the characters including the writer just have their own believe. That's why the movie and the organization is called Tenet. Tenet means An opinion, belief, or principle that is held as absolute truth by someone or especially an organization.

The only thing we know for sure based on the movie is that we never get to find out who was right about changing things being possible, whether the future or the past because the organization was good at their job which is preventing anyone from changing the past. As far as I'm concerned everyone in the movie believed it was possible that's why the future tried it and that's why there's even a Tenet organization created just to stop such from happening and in a larger sense that is why the movie even existed in the first place. It is just like Terminator all over again only that in this case they always succeed in stoping the future hence nothing ever change giving us the impression that whats happened has happened. I would have gone further to explain how changing the past works but I've already typed too much. I even forgot to recommend the Terminator movie franchise for you to know how changing the past works. My favorite is The Flash series, they explain a lot in the series.

At the end of the day the movie is titled Tenets which literally means unproven beliefs. So you're entitled to your beliefs but if you're going to analyze the movie on a public platform, you have to keep your Tenets aside and only say things that the movie mentioned without ignoring anyone in the guise of flops or wrong claims especially since it was not stated anywhere in the movie that they were false claims and also because it was stated by the same guy you took the so called 'rules of the movie' from.

[b]In summary
- It is a sci-fi movie and they make their own rules which do not have to agree with the rules of Science or any other movie that have been or will be produced.

- The movie it self have no rules. What we call rules are actually the opinions of the various characters and it is clear that the future and the present have different opinions on whether what's happened has happened. If this was not true there will be no point of the movie in the first place. If any of them was even wrong it would be the past because while the future acted according to their Tenets, the past acted contrary which we can say mean that they also agree with the future.

- The whole point of the Tenet movie is that non of them (both past and future) are sure if they can change the past or the future. That was why when the Protagonist asked that won't the future destroying the past cause the future to be destroyed as well? Neil replied that they don't believe that. Neil himself was not sure (that's why he kept contradicting himself both in words and actions) cos he worked for an organization that prevents people from changing the past. Its like someone that doesn't believe that ghost exist should now be willing to die trying to prevent ghosts from taking over. It is either he is lying to himself or just confused and like I said, Neil was the most confused person in the film and I think the reason is because he was a physicist but the movie doesn't follow the proven laws of physics neither does his job. He was torn between two worlds so he kept on contradicting himself.

- You cannot take one or two words that Neil said and make it the rule of the movie while you ignore the rest of his contradicting words (in the name of flops and wrong claims). You can't do that and make a valid argument. What makes one statement a rule and the other a flop/wrong claims?

- You need to watch other simple time travel movies. You cannot skip nursery, primary and secondary school and expect to go to the university without having problems. You can't skip addition, subtraction, division and multiplication and start performing integration and differentiation without mixing things up or getting confused. Start from the less confusing movies.

- Why will the future try to do the impossible unless they believe it is possible? Why will the past and the Tenet organization try to stop them if they believed it was impossible unless they don't know for sure what's possible? Think about these things and draw your own conclusions after all this is Tenet.

---

Please note that I'm not one to argue or exchange words with someone online because it is tiring, my phone is not good, I'm a slow typist and I prefer to just type everything once like I've done. I hope you're able to read it all and draw your own conclusions and please check out other less confusing movies on time travel in other to broaden your database. I highly recommend The Flash Tv series as a starting point because it is my favorite. To end this long epistle, I'm going to quote the first thing that was said in the Tv series, yes I still remember it despite watching it in 2015 because like I said it is my favorite.
"To understand what I'm about to tell you, you have to believe in the impossible." - The Flash s1e1.

This is the only way to watch any sci-fi movie, you must believe in the impossible and know that the only rules are the ones the movie state as the rule and even at that, most of them are just the opinions of the characters and can change at anytime.

Tenet - Believe in the impossible and quoting Neil himself, 'don't try to understand it' because he doesn't understand it as well.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for this.. You literally said everything I've been trying to explain to him... Maybe he'll understand it better now..
Typing for long is honestly stressful especially when going back and forth on the same issues.
Hope you enjoyed the movie though? It's Def one of the most mind blowing concepts I've seen in a long time.

Jack273:
light099 This is for you and others
I can't claim to understand the concept of inversion. Which is the major reason I started following this thread and enjoyed your argument with the other guy on whether oxygen and other things need to be inverted or not. I still do not understand it even at this point because the both of you kept giving it different meaning and going into the physics of it. .

Don't know if you've found clarity on inversion yet.. Here's a great article you might find helpful if you're interested.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2020/09/tenet-time-inversion-meaning-christopher-nolan/amp/

ortega004:


Thank you so much for this.. You literally said everything I've been trying to explain to him... Maybe he'll understand it better now..
Typing for long is honestly stressful especially when going back and forth on the same issues.
Hope you enjoyed the movie though? It's Def one of the most mind blowing concepts I've seen in a long time.

You're welcome.
Yeah I enjoyed it. I've only watched it twice though and can't wait for the third watch maybe by April.

ortega004:


Don't know if you've found clarity on inversion yet.. Here's a great article you might find helpful if you're interested.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/observer.com/2020/09/tenet-time-inversion-meaning-christopher-nolan/amp/

Thanks for this. I'll check it out.

Jack273:
light099 This is for you and others

Great post. This is a very long post. Never knew my debate with ortega004 would make you go through this typing stress. That is why I also took my time to read EVERYTHING. Thanks for this post.

It is his movie and so he makes the rules. What we as viewers and critics are just trying to do, the whole purpose of this argument, is to make sure that Nolan did not break his own rules.

There are two rules - movie rules and basic logical rules. Situations determines which of these two rules is applicable. Using your example, a guy who teleports in a jiffy, suddenly became unable to escape a 10 secs countdown bomb. No matter the movie rules, that is a logical flop. We see this kind of flop in movies all the time, used by screenwriters to achieve the plot. But peradventure as a spectator, you were so much engrossed in what the movie says, you came here to strongly defend and claim the teleporter doesn't have the ability to escape the bomb since the movie says so, whereas I maintained it's impossible for a swift teleporter to suddenly become unable to teleport to safety in the final battle, within a whole 10 secs.
This example and scenario above is a good description of TENET and this debate.
If a movie says Jane eats 24 hours a day. No matter the movie rules, this claim is logical wrong. Nobody can eat 24 hours a day, at least Jane would do some other things, even if it's just pooping to free her stomach for more food. So it's not about what a movie claims or the movie rules, some basic logical rules always remain valid.

That is why even the 'major rule' you're basing your whole argument on, What's happened has happened, was first started by probably the most confused guy in the movie.

I didn't base my argument on this Neil's line because he said it, rather I only accepted it as evidence from him because that is exactly what the entire TENET movie stands for and how TENET universe operates.
ortega004 mentioned something he called "closed loop" universe. This two words is where the whole secret and working of TENET is. Time travel universe in TENET movie is a closed loop universe. That settles it all.
"Closed loop", this is the simple certainty in TENET that erases every other uncertainty. This is why I can 100% say what happens in TENET, it's how the movie universe works, it has nothing to do with my opinion or what I believe.
You already said the future is smarter than the past. So, if I from the past, a third party spectator of TENET, with few things I watched about TENET tech can 100% say this or that, would the smarter future generation which invented this tech no longer know their invention or how it works? That's logically impossible. It's their tech, it's their world, they created it, they know it more than I do, they know much more about this whole thing which I could not see in the movie.
The movie portraying uncertainty or opinions is just like the swift teleporter who suddenly becomes unable to escape the 10 secs bomb. It's a flop, and this flop was intentionally put there by Nolan to justify his plot. TENET is a masterpiece but imagine how invalid the movie would be if the plot comes out sincere to say the future already knew the result of everything. If so, then why waste 2 hours shooting the movie?
So, it's the job of Nolan to include those 'false' uncertainties in his movie to justify the plot, but it's your job as the spectator to know if some things are reasonable and logical. Know when to follow the movie rules, know when to follow logical rules.

The only flaw in this and the movie at large (which you did not even point out) is that if the organization really believed that, then why create the organization in the first place to stop something that can never happen?

Exactly, this is the simple thing I've been pointing out. Except that unlike you said, it's not just the organization alone, the future and main characters already know what would happen, any scene which portrays otherwise is a logical impossibility.
What is a closed loop universe?
Imagine TENET universe as a football pitch, each linesman as the timeline and players (home and away) running in opposite directions as the past and future events (forward and inversion).
Imagine the TENET universe as a two-way traffic lanes with cars moving in opposite directions at the same time.
Also imagine TENET as an organization with many offices, with workers and clients moving in and out of the offices. Take each office as a time or period on the timeline.

In TENET closed loop universe, everything 'overlaps' together on the 'timeline'.
Take for example if some terrorist 50 years from now came back in time to blow up the White house on 15th of Jan, 2021. Although it would take 100 years before this event would really happen, nonetheless because it happens on 15/1/21 timeline, we would have witnessed the terrorist attack yesterday.
Everything occurs on the concerned 'timeline', regardless if it's a present or future event on the timeline.
From the White house example, if there was explosion on White house yesterday. It means that future attack succeeds, but if by today nothing happened to the White house, it means no ill happened to the White house on 15/1/21.
If someone goes back to your past to kill you but you're still alive today, it simply means the person failed. Your being alive means you succeeded.
If you want to go back in time to prevent the birth of Shekau, don't even bother, his existence today means he survived, assuming you were able to prevent his birth, this timeline would have shown it, he wouldn't have been alive.
That is how TENET universe works. All you have to do is pay attention to the timeline, that would give you all the certainty and confirmation you need before you make any move. It doesn't matter if you want to invert yourself or the whole universe, just check your targeted timeline to know the result before you make any move. So, there isn't anything like uncertainty in TENET.

Jack273:
The only flaw in this and the movie at large (which you did not even point out) is that if the organization really believed that, then why create the organization in the first place to stop something that can never happen?

(This post is just in addition to my first reply to you)
You already got the whole point I've been making the moment you said the above while ortega004 already got my point the moment he mentioned "closed loop" universe, the problem is you're both still caught in Nolan's web. Think outside the web, think outside his box.
Take for example in a family movie, a happy couple had an albino daughter who's now 30 years old. But during the course of the movie, the couple claim they don't know their daughter was albino. The mother claims her daughter was secretive and reclusive who's always in her room alone, while the father claims he's always busy, as a result didn't spend enough time at home to know his daughter very well. These above claims in the movie is utter balderdash and no where logically possible. If I as a spectator know your daughter is albino, how won't the parents not know their daughter is. That's impossible.
No matter how busy they are, at least, let's say if it's just one day in a year, they would definitely see their daughter. They gave birth to her, nurtured her during infancy, so how would parent claim they don't know their daughter is albino? That a total impossibility.
It doesn't matter if they claim so in the movie, we know it's impossible.

TENET is a "closed loop" universe, with this I as a spectator can 100% say the outcome of any event in the TENET universe, once it had already happened in a timeline. How then would the smart future, real owners and inventors of this tech and TENET universe suddenly turn around and claim not to know the outcome of events? That's no way possible.
It doesn't matter if they claim so in the movie, we know it's impossible.

What are movie flops?
We've been talking about flops/fails, but what are they?
A flop is a mistake which undermines the validity of a whole movie or part of it.
But is a flop always a mistake? Not really. Many times these flops are intentional or necessary in order to achieve the plot or part of the plot, perhaps when the screenwriter couldn't think of a better way.
Take for example there's a beautiful girl crush in you neighborhood you wanna hit on so bad, but it hasn't been successful yet, fortunately for you, you got yourself a very expensive, charming ride, this would definitely increase your chances with your crush. In order to achieve this, you need to flaunt your new ride in the face of your crush. So, even when there's no reason to drive out, you're always driving about in your neighborhood just to make sure your crush sees you. The more you do these 'unnecessary' outings, the more the chance of your crush seeing you in your ride. The 'fake/unnecessary' outings is a good example of a flop, but it's necessary in order to achieve your aim or get your target.
Assuming you're a designer of lady wears, sometimes when you have a concept of a new creative design, you'll have to add some 'unnecessary' designs on the wear just to achieve your concept.
Some times James Bond create some unnecessary scenes just to flaunts his gadgets. Without these unnecessary scenes, he won't be able to flaunt these new gadgets to his fans.
Flops are necessary ingredients in life, we all commit these 'flops' everyday in order to achieve some stunts, especially when we're very desperate.

Movies are no exception. Many times in movies, a very strong villain who has been invincible throughout the movie suddenly becomes weak in the final scene and gets killed by the main character. We all laugh at this flop but if not for it, how would the bad guy die and how would the good guy win?
Sometimes in a bomb scene, everyone else dies but the main character manages to escape. This is an 'unrealistic' flop but how would the main character survive till the end of the movie without the 'unrealistic' survivals?
TENET is a masterpiece but this best movie of all time would have been invalid if some things were not twisted. So, there needs to be the 'unrealistic' lie to justify the plot. We have to overlook it and enjoy the beautiful movie, but that doesn't change the 'unrealistic' lie into the truth.

Jack273:

Thanks for this. I'll check it out.

This is my third reply to you, and here I'd be explaining inversion, entropy and some other things. Most online web pages won't give you the complete and comprehensive explanation. That's why I decided to explain myself.
To start with, you tried linking TENET title with the word 'opinion' in your initial post. Although that's the dictionary meaning of the word but funny enough, every TENET fan has individual opinion for what this title stands for, you can clearly see the writer of the webpage ortega004 gave you also explained what the title TENET means. In fact, the word TENET was used in the movie different times and guess what, it meant different things each time it was used.
If Nolan named his movie 'TENET because it's subjected to different opinions, that means each of his movies should have been named 'TENET' because each of his movies is always subject to different debates and opinions.
All the same, lets assume the movie was really named TENET because it's subjected to opinions, we've clearly seen that the plot, mechanics and concept of the movie is certain and calculable, so the issue of opinions or uncertainty no where comes into play.

Now to inversion. What is inversion?
Inversion simply is the flip or reversal of something or it's arrangement.
Take for example, if you split your body longitudinally along the middle with an imaginary line, you'd discover what you have on the right side is exactly what you have on the left. But it isn't just the same thing, you'd discover there is also 'symmetry'. The 'symmetry' was so because of inversion of one half of your body.
Two things are necessary in inversion - It must be an exact copy, and that exact copy must flip in the opposite direction of the other.
XY is the inversion of YX. It is an exact copy and it also flipped.
The word "TENET" itself could be somehow considered as an inversion TE - N - ET. Even if you invert the whole TENET, you will still get TENET
Your left hand is an inversion of your right hand. It's exactly the same and it's also flipped/mirrored.

What is time inversion?
Year 2021 is moving from January 1 to December 31, but imagine we started this year from December 31 and headed toward January 1, that's time inversion.

What is inversion in TENET?
Inversion is the name of the time travel concept in TENET movie. Each time travel movies and school of thought has it's unique way of depicting timeT but as for TENET, it describes it's own concept as inversion.
In TENET's inversion, the direction of time for a particular inverted object or objects is flipped or mirrored into the opposite direction. Assuming we're in TENET world and someone inverts today, he'd start going back in time to yesterday, 15th, 14th, 13th back into 2020, 2019 and previous years. He flipped time for himself to the opposite/backward direction, while the rest of the world keeps moving forward in time.

So how does inversion work, and how does it achieve time travel in an object?
Well, TENET inversion flips the direction of time for an object/person by inverting the entropy of that object/person. But that is still not completely explaining it. So, what is entropy?

Entropy
Entropy itself is one big debated, confusing topic but I'll try to explain as clear as possible.
Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system.
Entropy is also the measure of unavailable energy in a system.
These two definitions are different but I'll link them together.
In life, things typically tend from orderliness into disorderliness as the available energy decreases with time.
Assuming you through a ball up and then leave it alone to bounce, the height of it's bounces gradually reduces and it eventually stops bouncing.
From this example, the bounces of the ball gradually became un-uniform/disordered as the initial energy you used to throw it up depreciates. So energy became unavailable for the ball to bounce as each moment of time ticks.
This means entropy works in the direction of time or as time moves forward.

Take another example, a building crumbling down into pebbles from an explosion. Now imagine it happening the other way round. Imagine pebbles and dusts suddenly raising from the ground and assembling together into one entity to form a building. If you ever witnessed that, you would be shocked and be like, WTF was that?
There is a usual way events flow in life (and not otherwise) that has become part of the instinctive way we perceive life.
When you pour liquid milk from a tin into tea cup, the milk will definitely flow down from the tin into the cup, but if the milk came up from the cup into the tin, then you'd be shocked, you might even run out for safety because that is strange.
In the flow of life and time, there's a direction for events, and that has also formed part of our instinctive perception of life.
There is always the cause before effect. Parents give birth to babies not the other way round. There's direction events flow in life and not the other way round.

From the previous building explosion example above, if you're watching a video and you see pebbles assembling together in a moment to form a building. Your instinct is going to tell you the video is playing backwards. That is how we're always able to know when a video is been played forward or rewinding backward.
That means entropy gives direction to time. It's one of the arrows of time. It's one of the criteria we use to know if time is going forward or backward.
In a 'macroscopic' world, time is asymmetrical, that is, it has a direction it flows with events and not otherwise. If events ever flowed otherwise, it would give the impression that they're happening backwards in time.

But then, does effect before a cause necessarily mean entropy has been reversed? Not really.
And then, does reversing entropy necessarily mean going back in time? Not really.
In the movie of Benjamin Button, his entropy was reversed because he was born old and grew younger with time, but was Benjamin going back in time? Obviously not. He still moved forward in time with the rest of the world.

So, inverting entropy is NOT automatic going back in time. That simply explains that inverting people in TENET wasn't the real reason why they go back in time.
People go back in time in TENET simply because it's a time travel movie, the entropy part was only there to 'define' the kind of time travel that would occur and then to make the time travel look more scientifically sophisticated.
Take for example, you want to travel, but there are different options of transportation, you can trek, ride a bike, fly a plane, a boat or even teleport.
The main thing was that you traveled, the medium of transportation only 'defined' the process of the journey.
This is another thing about TENET ortega004 has been getting wrong. Instead of deriving some obvious logical facts, he goes online to base his logic on some wrong notions he got online or from Nolan. That's why he comes here making funny arguments.
Even if Nolan said TENET isn't a time travel movie, at least we have eyes to see for ourselves.
If a screenwriter and producer says his movie is an action movie but after watching, there wasn't any fight, or shooting or combat in the movie, just funny scenes that cracks up the spectators. Do we call that action movie or comedy movie? Even if the director maintained it's action movie, the whole world isn't blind to see it is rather a comedy movie.
TENET is obviously a time travel movie, I don't know why someone should come here to argue that obvious fact again.

In TENET's inversion universe. It's a closed loop, I've already explained 'closed loop' comprehensively in my previous replies.
From the perspective of the linear/normal people moving forward in time, they see inverted people walking backwards forward in time.
From the perspective of the inverted people moving back in time, they see linear/normal people walking backwards back in time.
From a universal perspective, both the forward time and backward time people are moving in opposite directions, just like a two way traffic lanes with cars moving in opposite direction.

That is all about inversion.

light099

If a movie says Jane eats 24 hours a day. No matter the movie rules, this claim is logical wrong. Nobody can eat 24 hours a day, at least Jane would do some other things, even if it's just pooping to free her stomach for more food. So it's not about what a movie claims or the movie rules, some basic logical rules always remain valid.

This here is the basic argument I'm trying to make and since we can't agree on this very basic stuff, this will be my last reply here, in order not to waste anybody's time but before I go I'll still try one last time to convince you that movies do not have to be logical and it is the writer that have the right to choose which rules should remain as the basic logical rule. If he chooses eating 24 hours a day, so be it. He doesn't even have to explain where all that food goes to but because of people like you who are looking for logic in someone's figment of imagination, most writers still give explanations. This is the only reason why they consult expects in the field of whatever movie they are making. The writer can simply say that the reason Jane eats for 24 hours a day is because she's actually a black hole named Jane that devours light, matter and pretty much anything that comes near it without stop and the movie is actually about how a group of alien space traveling scientists try to escape the pull of Jane. You can see how I've made the most illogical thing about this movie to be the aliens (because aliens are still not proven to exist) while the Jane you called illogical is now scientifically correct.

Wait, do you know that the human body never stops growing? It doesn't take a break from growing, it grows 24 hours a day and it is not a movie, it is real life. If you didn't know this and see it in a movie you will now say it is illogical or impossible.

Let me ask you this question, do you know that in the world we live in humans need oxygen all the time to survive, 24 hours a day? Once we stop breathing we start dying, I don't know how long it takes. Why do you think that is so? Do you know that most sea creatures need to be inside the water to survive, 24 hours a day? Once you take it out it starts dying. Why do you think this is so? Now remember that both humans and the sea creatures (the once that need to be under water all the time) all belong to the same world. The same planet earth, they are not aliens and according to evolution they all started from the same point, the big bang. Even if you don't believe in evolution, let me assume it is God that you believe in as the creator of the whole world and everything in it.

Now remember the question I asked at the beginning, that why do you think humans need oxygen 24 hours a day while the sea creatures need water? The answer to the two questions is that that is how they were created by the same creator or big bang. Despite sharing the same world/origin/creator etc they don't have the same rule. In fact their very basic rule for survival contradict each other. Yet you don't call any of them illogical. Imagine you're an alien from another planet that don't need oxygen or water, let's say you're machine based like the Transformers (I hope you've seen at least one Transformers movie). You just discovered earth and find out that one of the specie need oxygen while the other needs water 24 hours a day. It won't make sense to you as an alien. To make matters worse you discover that if you put one in the habitat of the other it dies in less than an hour. Now let me take it further, imagine you're not the one that discovered earth but one of your fellow alien space explorer and he makes a documentary about this, while you sit at home and watch on your alien TV.

Can you see where I'm going with this? To you as an alien who needs neither oxygen or water at all, the possibility of a world where the creatures need water or oxygen all the time is illogical, you can even say it is impossible and ask, won't the creatures do other things or take a break from their oxygen or water? Which is exactly what you wrote that I quoted. The funny thing is that you're not even an alien (I think). This is my whole point, just as God or evolution made humans to need oxygen all the time and sea creatures to need water all the time and you can't call it illogical or impossible, the same way a writer can create his own world and make his own humans to eat all the time or shit all the time 24 hours a day and shouldn't be called illogical. This is because the two worlds, the movie and the real world exist outside of each other. They are mutually exclusive. Each creator (movie, God, evolution) gets to make his own rules. This like I said is the basic point of my argument but since we can't agree on this very simple something, then there's no way we can agree on Tenet.

You can see in everything I wrote here I made sure to avoid the Tenet movie because that is not even my argument. For the last time I'll state my argument that you don't seem to agree with;

A movie is just a movie. It is a different world on its own and does not have to follow any so called 'logical real world rules'.

On a lighter note, I feel you know this but won't agree to it because you just want us to argue to infinity unfortunately I don't enjoy such argument/debate. So I won't give you any further reply and you shouldn't bother either to reply any of my questions here, they are all personal questions you should answer in your heart.

By the way, with the way you're talking, I don't think you watch cartoons, animations and the likes. If you see the way they bend and break your so called logical rules in Spongebob and disregard the laws of gravity in Chinese kung fu movies and mostly all action movies, you will stop watching movies. Not only do animals talk and wear clothes in cartoons, even inanimate objects like chairs, tables and toys talk and have emotions. Have you seen Toy Story? If you're looking for 'logical' movies, then you should stick to those old boring Nigerian movies without special effects where all they do is talk and the only action is when the cameraman shakes the camera to simulate an accident scene or when the house help or young village girl runs to the backyard to spit while the madame or mother waits to ask her if she is pregnant.

Just like I quoted Flash for you the last time, I'll end with this: In movies anything is possible and anything goes. Even my former statement that the writer just have to make sure he doesn't break his own rule is not totally correct. Most movies even break their own rules on purpose and it is part of the plot. Like in most comedy movies or in Deadpool where he breaks the fourth wall by talking to us the viewers throughout the movie.

It's a movie, the laws of the real world don't apply to it unless the writer wants it to. Each writer is creating there own world. If you're given the ability to create your own world, will you rather make your own rules or copy the rules of another person's world? If you choose copy another person's world (like the one we live in) because according to you it is logical, then I'm sorry to say, you're not a creative writer and if as a viewer, then you're not a creative viewer and should stick to sports, news, documentaries and anything under non fiction. This is the same reason why cartoonist are one of the most creative people in the world and why I like animations more than movies because they don't just bend and play with the physical world rules, they break and smash it completely, creating totally new worlds. This is the meaning of creativity.

Goodbye.

Jack273:
It is the writer that have the right to choose which rules should remain as the basic logical rule.[/b] If he chooses eating 24 hours a day, so be it

You're so very right. Now, I remember there was also one inverted version of protagonist said to be a black hole, who ate 24/7 throughout the years of the pincer movement of the TENET movie.
Jane a perfectly normal human being can spend her whole life in a movie eating 24 hours a day. That's what the movie rule says, who am I to say otherwise. You're making a big point here.
Even that guy from your initial example who couldn't teleport to safety from 10 secs countdown bomb, the movie is very right. They make the rules, if the movie later turns around to say the guy can no longer teleport, so be it. A movie can never be against logic as long as movie rules are not broken. All movies are right. I see. Every movie deserves 100% rating.
In fact, Rotten tomatoes, Metacritic and all movie watchers are wrong to critic movies because movies can never be logically wrong. I perfectly get your point pal. You're making a whole lot of sense here. Thanks for this new insight.

Your explanation yesterday was so reasonable and logical and I really read everything you wrote, though it was so long. You shouldn't have spoilt it with this new one. You only spent this whole post mixing things up.
It's a very simple issue, not as difficult or confusing as you take it.
In Jumper movie, David could teleport, that's the movie rule, no big deal about that. In fact if they later say he can no longer teleport, it's still on point. But if during the movie, the plot claimed David was a good guy who never violated the law, then that's not logically true regardless of the movie rule, we all saw David robbing bank vaults and committing other offences. This whole thing is very simple to understand. Even aside basic logic and movie rules, a movie can flop in different other ways, it's no big deal. There are different aspects of a movie that can be judged. Can't see anything so difficult in that to understand.

Jack273:

This here is the basic argument I'm trying to make and since we can't agree on this very basic stuff, this will be my last reply here, in order not to waste anybody's time but before I go I'll still try one last time to convince you that movies do not have to be logical and it is the writer that have the right to choose which rules should remain as the basic logical rule. If he chooses eating 24 hours a day, so be it. He doesn't even have to explain where all that food goes to but because of people like you who are looking for logic in someone's figment of imagination, most writers still give explanations. This is the only reason why they consult expects in the field of whatever movie they are making. The writer can simply say that the reason Jane eats for 24 hours a day is because she's actually a black hole named Jane that devours light, matter and pretty much anything that comes near it without stop and the movie is actually about how a group of alien space traveling scientists try to escape the pull of Jane. You can see how I've made the most illogical thing about this movie to be the aliens (because aliens are still not proven to exist) while the Jane you called illogical is now scientifically correct.

I went through your post again and believe me it is so off-key. Your first post was so on point, but this new one just undermined it. It's always good to know when to own up in a conversation or argument, the moment you start to mess things up by trying too hard or making off-key insincere points, it's always glaring for everyone to see. Everyday, I also learn from everyone I converse with, and I can't always win a conversation, that's even immature, so when I see someone make a valid sincere point, I find a means to admit. Trying too hard would only mess myself up.
Personally I like movies that break convention or universal laws, and that is why I created this TENET thread in the first place.
There are perhaps innumerable laws/rules in this vast universe - human laws, physical laws, natural laws, science laws etc. They're just too many to list.
Now, you keep mentioning 'movie rules', but one thing you don't know is that, a movie rule doesn't change ALL the available universal laws. Movie rule can only change/redefine one or few of the universal rules. So aside these few rules the movie changed/redefined, it means the rest of these universal laws the movie didn't change would still remain applicable to the movie.
The movie has every right to change universal laws or determine which rules remain basic logical rules in the movie, no one is disputing this. It's a free world! Nonetheless, movie rules only change/redefine few of the so many universal laws. The rest of the universal laws the movie didn't redefine still remain constant and applicable to that movie.

TENET changed entropy/time rule as the movie rule, but we saw the actors in the movie talking, eating, drinking, walking and every other usual things normal and typical humans do. This simply means movie rule only changed universal entropy rule, all other universal laws still remain applicable to the movie.
In Kungfu hustle, the movie bent different universal rules the way it likes, nonetheless, many other universal laws still remained applicable.
So there are always movie rules, no doubt, but the rest universal rules the movie didn't change would still remain applicable to that movie.
Even yet, apart from these, there's still something else called 'logic', which a spectator uses when watching a movie.
If during TENET movie, there was a scene where protagonist wanted to call Neil, but mistakenly calls him 'Ives'. That's slip of tongue or misnaming.
In fact, in this case, movie rule wasn't broken, even no applicable universal law was broken either, but that was still a mistake which is logically wrong.
Logic is just a generic term which ensures EVERYTHING done in the movie conformed with sense or common sense.
There can be any flop during a movie, it doesn't even have to be breaking any universal laws or movie laws.

Taking Deadpool, Spiderman, Captain America, Ant man and Iron man as examples. If we combine them all together with all their rules, this even increases the movie rules. Isn't it? We already know what these guys are capable of, so no sane spectator complains when he sees different rules bending in these movies. Now if the plots of these movies suddenly say those supermen don't know their own sex assignments or genders, then that would be illogical. It's true these guys are supermen and they fly about, but we've also seen they're grown adults and have bodies. How would a grown adult man won't know what he has inside his pants if it's a pssy or deek or both or nothing or something else? Even if these guys never bathe before, but at least for once since birth, they would have seen their own private parts.
Such false claim in the plot didn't break those movie rules, it even didn't break the applicable universal rules yet the claim is wrong because it's against logic.
So, it's not just movie rules, there are still many other universal laws that the movie would not redefine, which continue to remain applicable. Yet, aside all these, there's still something else called 'logic' that a viewer employs while watching a movie.
All these are very simple day to day stuffs, can't see what's so difficult to understand or confusing in all these.

Even yet, aside all these, some other things can still be judged about a movie.
If an action movie which is expected to be intense and serious was too weak and playful, the GENRE and ACTING of that movie can be faulted.
Sometimes critics criticize Sean Connery for his wasteful use of unnecessary gadgets and creating unnecessary scenes to flaunt these gadgets.
In Men of Honor movie, ACTING and CASTING was faulted because Robert De Niro's acting overshadowed Cuba Gooding Jr who played Boatswain's character in the movie. It's a true life movie about Boatswain, so the main spotlight should be on whoever was casting as him.
Some movies are criticized because their production was too stingily financed. They are too low budgeted.
The MOOD of some movies are said to be too cold. Sometimes the director or producer or screenwriter of the movie is faulted.
The list goes on and on.

EVERYTHING about a movie can be criticized or faulted. A movie can flop in so many ways. So, it's not just about shouting 'movie rules'.
The movie rules is just a tiny aspect of where a movie can flop or fail, there are so many other aspects.