MovieChat Forums > Deja Vu (2006) Discussion > A good movie, but it falls into the same...

A good movie, but it falls into the same trap every TT movie does

posted 8 years ago by brendan_stuart
9 replies | jump to latest

Obviously, spoilers below. I'm not going to HTML code them out, so only read if you've seen it, or don't care about spoilers.

So, after he goes back in time, he leaves the 'U CAN SAVE HER' message on Claire's fridge, just like he saw in his own time. But who is he leaving the message for? Himself? But she didn't die. He meets her after the FAILED bombing, leaving no reason to for him to go to her house to get the revelation that he can go back.

During his own time, he saw the ambulance in the boathouse, heard the answering machine, saw the fridge message, etc. So that means FUTURE him went back, too. But was future him too stupid to see the basket full of bloody rags to realize he hasn't changed anything? Because if future him went back to the present and crashed the ambulance, caused the wonky answering machine messages, and left the message, why did she die in the first-place? Wouldn't he have saved her?

It's called the Bootstrap Paradox, or Causal Loop. The definition is, if you went back in time to change something, you would then LOSE the motivation to go back in time, therefore you WOULDN'T go back in time, so whatever you wanted to change wouldn't be changed. For example, say you went back in time to stop Lee Harvey Oswald from killing Lincoln, and you succeed. The method is irrelevant, but he doesn't kill Lincoln. The future would change, you would be born, AND THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR YOU TO GO BACK IN TIME TO STOP OSWALD.

This paradox, or theory, is reliant on the multiverse theory being incorrect. I could TOTALLY understand a multiverse theory, where there is a universe where ANY AND EVERY outcome, decision, state of being, ANYTHING happens, happened, and is, and theoretically, going back in time and changing the past just creates a second universe, one with each outcome.

But this movie doesn't follow the multiverse theory, it follows Time's Arrow, one timeline moving in one direction. He sees the outcomes of his future self (the ambulance, the message, etc), and he leaves them himself for his past self to see. I thought the plothole was filled when he realized he hadn't changed a thing, when Claire was patching him up and he noticed the bloody wastebasket. But the fact he DID save her broke the Causal Loop. The only way I could've accepted the fiction is if the events of the beginning of the movie hapoened at the end, including Claire's death and Oerstadt's escape.

I know it's a 'suspend your disbelief' movie, and I did. I quite like the movie for what it is. But whenever a movie or book or game deals with time-travel, I can't help but be hyper-aware.

The only reason I give Interstellar a pass is because Murphy solves the equation AFTER Cooper enters the tesseract. Supposedly, they had theoretical physics experts on hand to specifically make sure there were no bootstraps or breaks in the causal loop, at least none that were immediately noticeable.

[–] the_notorious_bid 8 years ago

I always refer to current Doug as Doug 1.0 and future Doug(s) as 2.0, 3.0, etc.

There are additional plot holes to the ones which you mentioned.

IF Claire died and washed up on the shore before the explosion and against the tide, when Doug 2.0 saves her, she's wearing the wrong clothes. In order for the original timeline to make sense, Oerstadt would have had to go back to Claire's house to get the dress in which she died AFTER he killed her and before setting her adrift. It's not "impossible." It just seems like Oerstadt would not have enough time to set her adrift in broad daylight (anyway) after killing her and retrieving her clothes. So, when Doug 2.0 saves her, there's no reason for Oerstadt to retrieve the dress.

The phone message which Doug 1.0 heard was AFTER time had reset and he had saved her (even though he hadn't yet saved her). It was 9:30 and she was already dead, about to be set adrift in a dress which WASN'T still in her closet. In essence, the message sent him back AFTER he had already gone back (obviously) and BEFORE he went back. When Doug 1.0 checks the house, he HAS gone back and left the house a bloody mess AFTER Claire is already dead. Doug left himself a message that he can save her AFTER he had saved her and BEFORE he had saved her. It's a multiverse and single timeline theory at the same time.

It makes sense for the U CAN SAVE HER message to be made in every timeline where Doug 2.0 (3.0, etc.) realizes that he hasn't changed a thing. It makes more sense IF Doug 2.0 realizes that the idea to go back will not occur to him without some sort of "urging." IF Doug 2.0 knows that going back is just a matter of time or formality, he doesn't need to leave himself a message.

[–] the_notorious_bid 8 years ago

There is also a theory that multiple Dougs had gone back and failed (died) independent of the one who succeeded. Initially, I had discounted this theory but the plot holes could mean that ANYTHING has occurred and not occurred at the same time.

So, Doug 2.0 (3.0, etc.) could have crashed the ambulance and failed to save her life but with the multiverse/single timeline plot hole(s) of which I have already made mention, Doug 2.0 saved Claire AFTER she's dead and BEFORE she's dead.

[–] brendan_stuart 8 years ago

Yeah, but that's countered by the 4.5 days thingummy. Multiple Dougs would be acceptable, if only he could go back further than four and a half days.

Nah, it's an inevitable plot-hole made by the inclusion of time travel itself. The only way it could be fixed is if Claire died, and everything that happened at the beginning happened the same way at the end.

Like I said, I'm not an idiot, I know how to enjoy a movie for what it is, and this wasn't too bad.

[–] the_notorious_bid 8 years ago

Plot holes can be closed altogether (or not included).

You can't have "clues" which can't have happened, if Claire died, lead you to save her. It could have been written with different "clues."

U CAN SAVE HER means that it's inevitable that future Doug (2.0) goes back after he alerts current timeline Doug (1.0). That, alone, is not a plot hole. This occurs (or MAY occur) whether Claire is saved or not.

I enjoyed the movie but right is right and wrong is wrong. I have the DVD and I watch it over and over (even though several significant plot holes exist). So, I must "like" the movie. I don't watch it over and over to "amaze" myself at how bad the movie is.

The movie covers a lot of interesting ground and features decent special effects. Without the plot holes, it's an even better movie.

THIS is what I'm saying...

[–] black-hood 8 years ago

Struggling to understand your point. You say:

"So, after he goes back in time, he leaves the 'U CAN SAVE HER' message on Claire's fridge, just like he saw in his own time. But who is he leaving the message for?"

He leaves the U CAN SAVE HER message for present day Doug to see.

"But she didn't die. He meets her after the FAILED bombing, leaving no reason to for him to go to her house to get the revelation that he can go back."

Well she didn't die in the bait camp,as she may have done in a previous timeline, but the bombing hadn't failed as it hasn't happened yet. Future Doug is at Clair's home pre 10am the bomb goes off at 10:50

"During his own time, he saw the ambulance in the boathouse, heard the answering machine, saw the fridge message, etc. So that means FUTURE him went back, too. But was future him too stupid to see the basket full of bloody rags to realize he hasn't changed anything?"

Future Doug didn't see any clues in the house, he leaves the clues, ie U CAN SAVE HER, the bloody bandages etc.

"Because if future him went back to the present and crashed the ambulance, caused the wonky answering machine messages, and left the message, why did she die in the first-place? Wouldn't he have saved her?"

He does save her at the bait camp, but then leaves her in the house wearing the red dress, where Oerstadt finds her, takes her and kills her, then dumps her in the river. (Oerstadt returning to the house is from the faq, though it does make sense, you do have to wonder if he had time to do it).

[–] the_notorious_bid 8 years ago

Okay... I'm thinking "inside the box" when I only see Oerstadt cutting off Claire's fingers before he kills her and assuming that she initially died at the bait camp.

You make a good point that Oerstadt comes back to her house after she's initially saved (fingers intact) and in the correct clothes per the original timeline.

There just doesn't seem to be enough time for her to be de-fingered, face re-taped, body burned, set adrift and discovered washed ashore (against the tide) and reported by 10:42 AM. All of that has to occur within one hour.

[–] doubl3 8 years ago

Ha. I somehow didn't catch that his rearranging was how the message ever got there. I caught most other influences between the times, but somehow on that one I thought he just did it because he had seen it that way before. lol.

Anyway, this movie had way more annoying logic issues than other time travel movies, in my opinion.

[–] the_notorious_bid 8 years ago

Anyway, this movie had way more annoying logic issues than other time travel movies, in my opinion.

Please share them!

[–] marshea83-375-785737 7 years ago

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK while John Wilks Booth killed Lincoln. But I understand the point you were attempting to make.