₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

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.

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.

rather we watch movies as spectators and 'critics' to judge the movie if it's logic, realistic or a fail.

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.

They can say anything in a movie, that's not our problem. Did what was said conform with logic and reality?

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.

So, quoting screenshots of flops and wrong claims made in the movie in order to justify the plot doesn't prove anything right here.

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.