MovieChat Forums > Timecop (1994) Discussion > Big errors in this movie

Big errors in this movie


I know the time travel issue has been posted before, but that's not the movie's only big problem. There are a few big problems this movie has that makes it hard to believe:

- When Van Damme goes back to his own time, he should be in a different universe, since he changed things.

- The time travel cart (which the police officers sit in when they travel back in time) disappears when they go back in time and then re-appears when they come back to their own time. Why does the time travel cart disappear, and where does it go?

- The whole theory of "the same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time" and how that affected the movie doesn't make sense at all. For one, your body won't have the same matter 10 years from now because the body's cells are continually replaced as they die. Second, if you touch your younger self, the matter isn't really in the same space; you're simply placing part of your body right up next to your younger self, which is different from actually occupying the same space. And I actually don't see why it would be a problem if you were to go back in time and make physical contact with your younger self. It seems like they made that up to add an extra twist to the movie (perhaps as a fancy scientific way to kill Aaron McComb).

I don't think Van Damme's macho-man demeanor (i.e., shattering that guy's frozen arm before killing him) and one-liners really helped either.

Having said that, though, I still think this movie's premise, story, and special effects were pretty cool.

reply

Yeah, all of those are problems and all of them have been discussed on these boards time and again. I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, but I don't think you'll encounter much disagreement.

There's also a minor problem in the fact that the guy in the beginning (the one asking for the funding) says that time travel to the future is impossible because "the future hasn't happened yet." Well, then, how do the time travelers get back to their own time? (Especially once they've changed the past. Even if somehow the future they came from has already "happened," the new one hasn't.)

But like you, I like the movie and find it entertaining.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

the guy in the beginning...says that time travel to the future is impossible because "the future hasn't happened yet." Well, then, how do the time travelers get back to their own time?

That's true, that's another problem.

As for changing the past, I'd think that something as simple as breathing could potentially change the past, since breathing changes the content of the atmosphere (although by a relatively tiny amount). Also, walking around would track dirt & dust around, moving it from its original location. Or, simply being there could change the past - Quantum fluctuations are unpredictable, and simply traveling to the past could affect other matter at the subatomic level and randomly make them behave differently than they would have in the normal time line.

Maybe that's too much thinking for this movie though. ;)

reply

As for changing the past, I'd think that something as simple as breathing could potentially change the past . . .

Yep. In fact, as you say, on the time travel premise of this film, just being there is enough to change the past -- and not only because of their effects on anything else; their presence itself is a change. This movie pretty clearly isn't based on the premise that whatever the time travelers do turns out to be part of what already happened.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

As far as time travel to the future being impossible. That is true. But they were going into the past. Since they're from the future, they can get back.

I suppose it's a point of origin question. If you're in the present and want to travel into the future you can't do it because like you say, it hasn't happened yet.

But if you travel back and change something, you CAN do it because you're FROM the future.

From their perspective, it's traveling in the past and then going back to the future.

If that makes sense.

Either way, the movie is fun to watch.

reply

I figured that the car's contents all get sent back to the past but the car itself stays in the present does it not?

And yes the 'you cant travel into the future' is kind of flawed. What happens if 2004 grabs any civillian from the past and brings them to his present? Then they have just travelled into the future.

check out my site: http://www.kwrentagoalie.com/forums/index.php

reply

What about the huge fact that at the end of the movie in the "past" walkers house was completely destroyed by the C4...yet when he returned to his future it was there standing like nothing had ever happened? have to say regardless of some of the ridiculous flaws in the plot the movie was fun and a big part of me just thinks forget all the science and just enjoy it.

reply

What about the huge fact that at the end of the movie in the "past" walkers house was completely destroyed by the C4...yet when he returned to his future it was there standing like nothing had ever happened?

Actually that part's okay; destroying young McComb means that in the new, altered timeline he's no longer around to go back and destroy the house. So even though we see the house destroyed in the "previous" version of the timeline, it now is true that "nothing ever happened."

What is a little strange is that the house is still there in the version of the future in which Walker's wife is dead, because in that timeline the house was destroyed. I guess we have to assume Walker had it rebuilt.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

Spifflock are you sure about that? I thought that Walker lived in an apartment in 2004? But I want to know where he got the tape of him and Melissa? I'd assume its contents were destroyed as well.

check out my site: http://www.kwrentagoalie.com/forums/index.php

reply

Spifflock are you sure about that? I thought that Walker lived in an apartment in 2004?

Hmm, I'm pretty sure we see him arrive at the house. But I may be mistaken; I haven't watched it for a while.

But I want to know where he got the tape of him and Melissa? I'd assume its contents were destroyed as well.

Heh, good point -- I hadn't thought of that. But perhaps he had it somewhere else (his office? his car?) and for that very reason it's the only one he has left.

----

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

reply

But I may be mistaken; I haven't watched it for a while.

And sure enough, mistaken is exactly what I was, as I learned last night upon rewatching the movie. It's an apartment, not the house. Oops.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

reply

Actually that part's okay; destroying young McComb means that in the new, altered timeline he's no longer around to go back and destroy the house. So even though we see the house destroyed in the "previous" version of the timeline, it now is true that "nothing ever happened."
wrong. The house is destroyed TWICE. Once in a timeline that Van Damme tries to rectify and once in the final (unrectified) timeline in which Van Damme has a son. So unless the house isn't rebuilt, it shouldn't be standing there when his son comes out of the house in the final scene.

reply


"From their perspective, it's traveling in the past and then going back to the future. "

Hm, I just realized I am responding to a message written four years ago in the past, so in a way, I am four years in your future (Though not the version of you that can read this reply, but the one that wrote the original text that I am replying to)!

Anyways, I think you made a slight error. I agree with your explanation, but I think you should have said:

"From their perspective, it's traveling into the past and then returning back to the present".

I mean, if our 'future' is their 'present', they can travel to our 'present', which is their 'past', as much as they want and change as much as they want, and still return to our 'future', because it's their 'present'. It's not that complicated.



reply


"As far as time travel to the future being impossible. That is true. But they were going into the past. Since they're from the future, they can get back."

Exactly.

Because it's ALREADY HAPPENED to them, it's THEIR PRESENT that they are returning to, they are -not- returning to future. Future has not happened yet, but the present has.

Though this still raises the question, why couldn't some other people from the past return to the present (which is their future), now that it has happened (though how do you 'wait' in the 'present' for the 'future' to happen, so that you can travel to the 'present' (that used to be the 'future') anyway?)..

In other words, this movie really doesn't deserve the time and effort required to wrap one's head around how it's supposed to work, especially because the writers clearly never accomplished such a feat - wrapping their heads around the whole premise, that is.

It's easy to make time travel movies, when you don't think..

reply

Another one is when at the end Walker comes back to the future and doesn't understand what changed. I mean when young McComb gets a kick in the face, the future McComb gets a scar so when young Walker finally defeats McComb at the end, future Walker should know exactly what happened in the future right?

"Thats a pickle no doubt about it"

reply

that has always bothered me. the problem is, the old walker should have died in that explosion too, because when he returns there will be 2 versions of him. the old him, which experienced the timeline of the movie, and the new him which experienced the new timeline. now there's 2 walkers walking around in 2004.

reply

I don't know if it's ever been mentioned before, but something that occurred to me had to do with 2004 McComb killing his former business partner in 1994. Wouldn't 1994 McComb be a prime suspect in Jack Parker's death? There were probably witnesses who could place him at the plant around the time of the murder, plus they were arguing and some people most likely knew they were having disagreements about the future of the company.

It would have been a kick in the pants for 2004 McComb to return to his time and find himself in prison for Jack Parker's murder!

reply

[deleted]


another big error is why TEC agents go back in time wearing their futuristic outfits that say TEC on them and yet traveling back in time with intent to alter the future is punishable by death. so shouldn't they try to hide their presence in the past so as not to alter the future by letting people know such an organization exists?

reply

I agree, they should have had clothing from different eras available for TEC agents to wear. (If only to show Jean-Claude attempting to balance a 1920's fedora on his mullet.)

It reminds me of the circa 1970 TV show "UFO". They had an organization named "SHADO" secretly protecting Earth from alien invaders. For no possible real-world reason, everyone at SHADO's underground headquarters wore distinctive uniforms with the SHADO logo on them, including the security teams who ventured outside where anyone could see them.

reply

Actually some of your matter is with you from the day you are born.

God loves you for He died on the cross to Save you.

reply

[deleted]

This whole movie is like one big gigantic plot hole.

Time travel for the lose.



~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply

Nopers. Like most time travel stories, TIME COP keeps things coherent for the audience by allowing Jean-Claude to remember only one version of events, presumably the first version, and then having him (and us) learn what has changed from the gang back in the control room. This plays merry hell with the plot, though, since the only one who can remember the original timeline is the TEC agent at the center of the change.

Since TEC's job is to track illegal time travel activity and then send someone back to arrest and retrieve the criminal, let's explore the following possibility:

1.) I go back in time to 1994 and tell my young self to stop contributing to my 401k and buy gold instead.
2.) In 2004 the energy signature of my time machine is detected. Fair enough.
3.) In 1994 my 2004 self is caught and taken back to 2004.

Now, what happens if that goes a little differently?

3.) The TEC agent kicks my 1994 self in the face when he attempts to grab and use the TEC agent's gun.
4.) I go blind.
5.) I never time travel back to 1994 to tell myself to buy gold.


There, the whole reason for Jean-Claude to be in 1994 has disappeared. How does he explain his arrival back in 2004 when he had no reason to go back to 1994??????

reply

[deleted]

As I believe someone else already pointed out, the movie should have immediately shifted back to 2004 once McComb was destroyed. He was the one who initiated this whole chain of events starting in the year 2004. If he mysteriously disappeared in 1994 (as Van Damme's boss points out), then no one would have hired or blackmailed anyone to go back in time from 2004 to steal money or kill Van Damme '94, and therefore Van Damme 2004, the hired guns, and the bomb shouldn't be there after McComb goes "poof".

reply

there's also the fun paradoxes like if his wife hadn't been killed by time altering designed to stop Walker from interfering, Walker probably never would never have interfered in the first place and really McComb should have just won immediately without anyone ever knowing, because angry wifeless interfering Walker should never have existed to begin with.

or if McComb only dies in 1994 because of the influence and "space sharing" of his 2004 self...then how can he live until 2004 to influence and kill himself in 1994? (in fact if everything was erased who called 1994 McComb and told him to come over to Walker's house?) so then wouldn't he either just suddenly be alive again? or would reality just explode because of the sheer lack of sense? who knows...

reply

Yes I was thinking the same thing. When McComb goes poof I kept waiting for the bomb to just disappear along with the bad guys. His wife should also not have a bullet wound. But the house explodes anyway and then reappears with the same crappy paint job in 2004 at the end.

reply

There are clearly inconsistencies in how time travel is supposed to work in this movie. Apparently, changing the past doesn't affect the time-traveler from the future...(which is why Max always remembers the original history), and yet, when younger McComb gets hit, the older McComb instantly gets a scar.

Its also unclear if altering history such that the time-traveler never went back undoes all his changes to the past or not.
For instance, consider the ending. So, because Aaron McComb 'disappeared' ten years ago, no one heard of him as a Presidential candidate. But we also see that name 'Parker Datalink' when Max returns. But technically, McComb killed Parker BEFORE the events in the house when Max killed him and his younger self. So shouldn't Parker have still been dead? Unless preventing McComb from time-traveling erases all his incursions into the past...in which case, why does Max remember what happened?

In any case, here's a nice series of articles analyzing the time-travel issues with this movie. Its still a work in progress-

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/examiner.html#timecop

reply

The company should be called Parker McComb Datalink. Although both people died, the company lived on and made billions and kept the name honoring the founders.

reply

I remember that thing about the same matter existing in two times being an issue in the Dean Koontz book, "Lightning." In that book, people could ony travel to the future and could never visit the same time twice. When you write a book or a movie about time travel, you get to make up the rules and rewrite the laws of physics, but it helps if they make them understandable to the audience.

----------
My bio isn't blank.

reply

They can go back to the future since the future they come from is their past/present...it's only the future for the 1994-versions of the same people...i.e. van Damme wouldn't be able to bring back his 1994-self to his own present.

However, what I do find silly is the fact that they could go back in time to an era where the time machine didn't exist. Any change in the timeline before the time machine was invented would be impossible, because the changes could prevent the creation of the time machine itself. If the time machine is never created, the person would never go back in time in order to make the changes to eliminate the time machine...this paradox is better known as "The Grandfather Paradox".

So, if they really could go back in time they would be like ghosts. They wouldn't be able to interact with any people or surroundings that would change the course of history. Where does this leave us? Well, from the day timetravel was made possible, they would have to wait 10 years in order to go back 10 years (the same date as the machine was created)...or they could actually just use the machine and skip those 10 years instantly, though it wouldn't be smart when you don't know what you're going to (imagine skipping 10 years and the entire planet is a wasteland from nuclear war and you succumb to radiation, heat, cold or whatever before being able to escape back in time.

To summarize: It would be more logical being able to travel to the future able to contain the consequences of the time machine already invented, rather than going back to the past before the machine was invented. Though the safest thing would be to just live normally in the present, into the future, and then travel back to whatever time after the invention was made.

reply

However, what I do find silly is the fact that they could go back in time to an era where the time machine didn't exist. Any change in the timeline before the time machine was invented would be impossible, because the changes could prevent the creation of the time machine itself.

Not necessarily - I think it depends on what they do in the past. Not everything they do in the past would necessarily interfere with the creation of the time machine. For instance, they could travel into the past and go on vacation in Jamaica.. That (and many other things they could potentially do) should have no bearing on the creation of the time machine.

----------------
We have clearance, Clarence.
Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?

reply

Well, if you went back in time to go to Jamaica, you'd change the course of time simply by occupying the seat of a person in the original timeline...this could be very disastrous, unless you disregard "Back to the Future"-time travel and look more in the direction of "Lost"-timetravel...where the seat was never stolen from someone in the original timeline..the original timeline was always affected by timetravel, and the passenger was always the guy who traveled back in time...he just didn't know it until the past became his present.

reply

As Q says to Captain Picard after taking them back in time in the episode "Tapestry": "Please! Spare me your egotistical musings on your pivotal role in history. Nothing you do here will cause the Federation to collapse or galaxies to explode. To be blunt, you're not that important."

Going to Jamaica on a flight that once had 20 empty seats and now has 19 empty seats might change history very little if the time traveler keeps a low profile and interacts very little and in a very ordinary way.

reply

In "Lost"-timetravel you wouldn't be able to change the future at all by going back in time, because what happened happened, and nothing can change the original timeline. I.e. you go back and meet yourself as a kid, and suddenly you realize that you are wearing the same clothes and have the same looks as a mysterious adult you met when you were a kid. If so, the premise of this film wouldn't work as it's based on "Back to the Future"-timetravel.

If you're following the theory used in BTTF, even a slightest event would change something drastically in the present/future. Such timetravel would not be allowed IMO if it were possible to travel back, as paradoxes would be disastrous. In such an event, you'd be a "ghost" unable to interact with anything, and for all we know ghosts could be just that. A glimpse of a timetraveller, unable to interact with anything except really minor stuff, unexplained events which are tiny accidents small enough to be allowed since it wouldn't endanger the future and the creation of the time machine (occurences we consider supernatural).

reply

For a supposedly silly movie, Timecop certainly sparks some interesting discussions. More interesting than the movie itself? Some will undoubtedly say... yes. I do think it is better than most give it credit for, though.



Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

Some of the theories and discussion topics can easily transferred to the 12 Monkeys TV series except the show's time travel paradoxes are more logical ☺
- - - - - -
If you don't like the show, stop watching it!

reply

I think my favorite stupid error is when Walker comes back to the present from the factory after Fielding is shot and he's trying to convince Matuzak of the conspiracy. Matuzak responds with, "How is McComb making these expeditions to the past without our equipment." Walker says something about the prototype never being dismantled. The implication being that the only people who can go to the past are TEC officers or whoever uses the prototype. This begs the question, why do you have a police agency going after time travel criminals, if these are the only ways to go back to the past. Unless there was only one criminal going to the past (McComb) all this time and you built an entire agency around bringing him down. This movie is unrepentedly stupid

reply