MovieChat Forums > Los cronocrímenes (2008) Discussion > So, repeated time travel transforms you ...

So, repeated time travel transforms you into a dick?


That's the unspoken side effect, my takeaway from this. The nebbish calling to his wife about the groceries spilled in the driveway at the beginning doesn't resemble the guy hitting El Joven with a crowbar. I stopped rooting for the character right about midway when he's making the good samaritan girl strip. At that point, I was following the clever plot, but I wasn't invested in Hector's character anymore. Too early on, he doesn't seem very conflicted about doing what he knows he must do. He takes a moment to cry about the apparent death of his wife, but shakes that off really fast to be cold and calculating about sending the girl to her death in round 3.

Overall I liked the movie though. It was more consistent in following its own rules than most time travel stories.

reply

It speaks to the idea of getting to do things over again. When you know what must be done since you've already seen it happen, you probably develop a thick skin rather rapidly. Yes, he isn't really sympathetic near the end. I think your sympathy is supposed to be directed to the girl on the bike whose only crime was being helpful and beautiful yet she is the centre point of all of it.

reply

Did you watch the same movie? He wasn't sympathetic from the moment he went back in time the first time! He was a complete ass right away and sexually assaulted the girl from the woods. The guy didn't even try to talk to this women reasonably, he was creepy and pushy the moment she came to help him in his car accident.

Worst off, Hector 3 didn't need to have her killed. Why did anyone HAVE to die? He didn't care *beep* about this stranger. He is just a complete jerk with almost no redeeming qualities --- and that made the movie suck.

reply

Why is it that people who can't understand someone else's perspective always start off with that ridiculous phrase?

reply

Because you said he wasn't sympathetic at the end because he developed a thick skin ---- thus implying he was sympathetic at the beginning. He was clearly still an a$$ early in the movie, maybe just less of an a$$.

reply

As I said, "can't understand someone else's perspective".

reply

Worst off, Hector 3 didn't need to have her killed. Why did anyone HAVE to die? He didn't care *beep* about this stranger. He is just a complete jerk with almost no redeeming qualities --- and that made the movie suck


Couldn't be more wrong. It's what makes this movie unique and good. It's not good or evil. It's depicts the struggle of some people. And in the end a guy who was willing to sacrifice others so that he could get his life back won.
I love that this movie ended the way it did. So few movies end it on a high note like that, simply because overall the main character was a 'bad person'. We don't have to be slaves to the good and evil convention in movies. We should ask for better, and this is one of the movies that gave us better.

reply

It's not good or evil. It's depicts the struggle of some people. And in the end a guy who was willing to sacrifice others so that he could get his life back won.


Yeah, not everyone would kill others to accomplish that. He was a jerk from the get go --- so he's not exactly a good guy. Showing him as an jerk from the beginning is setting up the part where he kills someone else.

I guess if I felt sorry for him or some connection, I would have loved this movie. But I didn't care for him and was actively rooting against him at times.

reply

Why did anyone HAVE to die?


Because if someone doesn't die, Masked Hector doesn't need to go back in time to save who he thinks died, so now there are two Hectors living at the same time OR Hector 3 (swollen face) ceases to exist (because his past never happened). That's the whole reason he does things exactly the way they were. He was told this by the science guy.

Did you watch the same movie? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

reply

yet he doesn't have to do it. there is no force guiding him to do exactly what he saw. so why aren't his actions more logical the first time he saw it?

the paradox is there, the logic is tenuous, and the consistency is nonexistent.

reply

The bandages plus the whole "turning into a dick" thing may be a reference to H G Wells' "The Invisible Man", in which the protagonist is also trying to reverse the effects of a bizarre experiment gone wrong - and also goes a bit nuts in the process.

reply

It's like you were in my mind and wrote down my thoughts ---- well, excepct that I didn't like the movie overall because of those issues you raised.

1. He turned into a dick way too soon. As soon as he became Hector 2 and sexually assaulted the innocent girl. How can anyone root for him anymore? And he did it so creepily that it didn't come off as an innocent misunderstanding.

2. He treated El Joven terrible as well

3. It was a clever plot with terrible character flaws. Most movies needs someone you root. This didn't not have one.

4. Why, oh why, would he need to have the girl killed? There's no reason either the girl or the wife had to die.


What I did like about the movie and why the dickish behavior ruined the movie was that it did do a decent job with following the rules of time travel. It was a clever plot but fell apart.

reply

To your 4th point:

He has to kill the girl in order to give Hector 2 a reason to go back into the time machine so he can be wiped from the face of the Earth. But now my question is why didn't Hector 3 simply kill Hector 1 and Hector 2 and get on with his life?

reply

I guess if he'd killed Hector 2, then there wouldn't be anyone to enter the time machine the second time. That would of course mean that Hector 3 would cease to exist (or never be created in the first place.)

reply

I'm not sure that's how it works. He already exist so whatever happens to Hector 2 won't affect him. If it did, then why is his wife still alive despite dying earlier in the movie?

reply

His wife never died. The person Hector 2 kills the first time we see it happen is the girl on the bike. You can tell because of the shoes she's wearing (black hightop converse with red laces). Hector 2 grabs a leg from the roof, and all we see is the shoe, then a brief shot to a corpse-like face with short hair. We only think it's the wife because the girl's disguised to look the same.

I remember watching the movie through and wondering why in hell Hector's wife had the same exact shoes as the girl on the bike. And then I got it.

reply

No, it was the wife. He makes that girl wear his wife's clothes to fool the other Hector so that he goes back to the time machine.

reply

It wasn't the wife. Why would the wife be wearing some of the girl's clothing? That doesn't make any sense. Also, we already see that what happens to Hector 1 is caused by what Hector 2 & 3 do, making the whole idea of cause & effect an inextricable loop. The girl was always going to die in this chain of events.

Not to mention: the girl is disguised as the wife *not only* to fool Hector 2, but to fool the viewer as well. If Hector can't even distinguish the girl from his wife, do you think we can? The entire movie is basically just a revealing of one, single hour where one, single chain of events takes place. It takes us the entire movie (and three Hectors) to figure out exactly what happens.

reply

Why would the wife be wearing some of the girl's clothing?



The wife never wore the girls clothing. What are you talking about? Did you watch the same movie or are you confusing the characters? I just rewatched the scenes.

The first time we see someone accidentally killed at the house, it was a woman wearing his wife's clothes and with the same hair as his wife. Why would the younger girl be wearing his wifes clothes and have her hair short if this was the first time at the house at night in this timeline. It means there wasn't another Hector telling the girl to put on his wife's clothes and cutting her hair like he did the 2nd time around. I paused it on the dead women and the face looks like the wife, an older woman. The 2nd time around, they never show her face (it's a panned out shot).

Seems like you are the only one in this board to think it was the girl on first death scene. It just doesn't make sense.


reply

[deleted]

You do know that all three Hector's events play out at the same time right? That means that the wife never died in the first place, it was always the girl. There is only one timeline, everything happens exactly the same all three times around.

reply

Most comments I have read on this forum disagree. And as I mentioned, the face looked old when they showed the close up of the woman that fell the first time.

Furthermore, was there someone before Hector 1? If someone had to fool the girl to dress like the wife, how would that happen if Hector 1 was the first?

I get that time traveling movies have plenty of plot holes because of the nature of time traveling, but the first instance of a woman falling from the roof couldn't be the young woman ---- why would she have cut her hair and dressed like the wife if she didn't know her???

reply

Ah, but that's just the thing! All the Hectors are Hector 1, there is only one Hector. You could see it like some closed "loop" with no real beginning, the first time around, all the other Hectors are still Hector 1 (the other Hectors are there the "first" time as well). You can read up on The Bootstrap Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_paradox) if you want to, might be easier to understand than trying to decipher my ramblings :p

reply

All Hectors can't be Hector 1 if they are all in the same world at the same time. And the bootstrap pardox is something that can be avoided or at least not be as annoying as it was in this movie.

reply

All Hectors can't be Hector 1 if they are all in the same world at the same time
The whole point of the movie was that they ARE indeed all in the same world at the same time.

The director has stated this clearly. Whether he succeeded in making us get that is subjective :)

reply

So therefore all Hectors can't be Hector 1, as the previous comment had said. Each Hector is created when they time travel.

reply

So therefore all Hectors can't be Hector 1, as the previous comment had said. Each Hector is created when they time travel.
Well depends on from what perspective you mean.

My original comment about all being one and it happening one time is what the director attempted. You're talking about multiple worlds/timelines (wrong according to director) original Hectors (there is only one) his wife dying in segment 2 (it was always the girl since all segments are one and only timeline), "the 2nd time around" (there is no 2nd time, we are shown the same events from different perspectives. everything happened only once, no variations) etc.

But agreed if we want to label multiple Hectors that are present at the same time (due to his time travel back to the same single timeline) then ye they can't all be Hector 1 :)

reply

Geez, you just don't get it and never will. I don't know whether to laugh or be frustrated for the other posters trying desperately to explain things to you.





Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

I guess you weren't smart enough to follow the whole comment chain. Ibrarules agreed with me to a certain point.

reply

I think you are just not smart enough to even understand the movie, which clearly shows in your statement that the wife actually died at some point, while its pretty clear its the young girl - because otherwise the whole movie wouldnt make any sense

reply

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You know there are multiple paths/universes created, right? I haven't seen the movie in over a year so it's hard to defend my position this much later.

Eitherways, the last statement I made was to someone ignorantly saying I will never get it when in fact, if he followed the back and forth I had with someone else, you would see that the other guy ended up agreeing with some of the important parts I mentioned.

reply

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You know there are multiple paths/universes created, right? I haven't seen the movie in over a year so it's hard to defend my position this much later.
The whole point of this movie is that it is one single timeline that happens only once. There are no alternate timelines or multiverse.

Imo it is obvious when watching the movie and it also has been reiterated numerous times by the director.

Of course each viewer can get whatever they want from a movie. Nothing wrong with that but I do take the view of the actual director over yours if we wanna talk about some type of objective truth to the movie :)

reply

I'd have to watch the movie again but to be honest, most time traveling movies are going to be hugely flawed. Time traveling is the type of device that will need plot holes to get it going. I'm sure if the director meant something and I took it differently, it was probably because I concentrated on the plot holes rather the intention of the director.


For example, in Minority Report (**warning possible spoiler alert**), I found it very annoying that what caused Tom Cruise's character to go down a path he did was that he saw himself killing someone in the precogs vision. However, the precogs are only supposed to show you what happens IF nothing is done to stop the crime. However, in this case, the vision CREATED the path. It was a stupid plot hole for me but the writer/director obviously wanted to move the story along in an exciting way.

reply

it was probably because I concentrated on the plot holes rather the intention of the director.
I'd say it possibly was because you expected a different type of TT than what was depicted and you sticking to your preconceived notion (i.e., the Back to the Future multiverse type) created a myriad of plot holes since it wasn't the intended one. (personally I will readily admit that Looper and Primer made only half-sense to me the first time thru. My personal preconceived notions made it hard for me to grasp what type of TT they used, especially Looper that arguably invented a new kind)

Cronocrímenes is simply one single storyline, but one that at times has 2 or even 3 versions of the protagonist in it. Whatever decisions each of those 3 makes at that instant is what happens. Nothing ever changes. Viewed this way tha plotholes go away.

All TT imho creates (possible) paradoxes. I don't equate a TT paradox with a plot hole. If you do, fair enough. You just have to buy into whatever TT type the movie is and accept the paradoxes created.

reply

I am not sure if that's really the same time thing, but it is clearly the wooden girl he kills then.
I was wondering why he called her Carla, and then when we see him as Hector 3 I got it.

Plus when we look at Hector 2, there already is a Hector 3 there doing exactly what "our" Hector 3 will do.

reply

Exactly. If he needed a reason to get rid of Hector 2, then why not kill Hector 1 or 2 or physically force him back into the time machine.

reply

He couldn't kill Hector 1 or 2 for the same reason he had to trick Hector 2 into returning to the machine: he has to preserve the sequence of events that lead to his own existence on the timeline. If Hector 2 doesn't return to the time machine--whether it's because he's dead or because he doesn't believe he's killed his wife--then Hector 3 doesn't exist. That's logical, and following the logic of the scenario is what makes time-travel movies so mindbending, because it's so counter-intuitive.

rankfilms.proboards.com

reply

actually, there is no certainty what would happen if hector 3 decided to screw causality and kill hector 1 and/or 2 (or indeed, mess with any other key event).

the usual simple conclusion (kind of a la back to the future) is that the now-causeless entities simply fizzle.

there are also other far more insane consequences suggested, such as the entirety of existence would supposedly crush itself into oblivion due to a tear in the fabric of reality... or wormholes going inside out... or quantum effects going bazonkers.

either way, there isn't any clear science on what exactly WOULD happen if a time traveller decided to break causality. some theorists think that it wouldn't be possible -- kind of shown in the film, when hector 3 inevitably blacks himself out after bumping the white car, thereby making it impossible (i.e. not enough time) for him to stop hector 2 from going back to the house. the van's crash also led to hector 3 having a moment of helplessness (when he radioed the scientist), and led to him meeting the bike girl, who brought him back to the house... the whole chain of events leading to her death. the inevitability of the prime timeline is consistent in the film, as far as i can see.

***

...as for the dickishness, i guess the film didn't handle it too well. hector 2 was clearly panicking -- hugely shocked when he called himself and then recalled the exchange from earlier. the scientist could've done a bit more exposition there and then, and warned him about the unknown consequences of negating causality, perhaps with some dramatic geek dialogue to instil fear and convince hector 2 to stick to the timeline he saw earlier.

if the scientist had done that bit of exposition, then the fear of messing up causality, along with the need to conceal the existence of the time machine (scientist not authorised to activate it) could explain his dickish behaviour.

perhaps hindered by the creepy head bandage, he did try to show some civility -- he turned away as the girl took her top off. but he also had to maintain sufficient menace to compel her to obedience... so he kinda had to keep up the creep factor, given the lack of time to explain his need to replicate an odd series of events.

reply

Nobody mentions the terrible acting. I thought it was atrocious, from all parties. Particularly the scientist and main character. It took 2.6 million to make this low budget blunder it seems it could have been done as a hobby with spare prop parts on a weekend with a few thousand dollars.

reply

Wow someone else but me noticed it.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

He's acting in the interest of self-preservation. That's a pretty powerful instinct. Anyone who thinks they would be entirely selfless when their existence is threatened is lying to themselves. Most of us would do whatever it takes in the moment to survive, and only feel guilt over the harm we've caused later.

---------------------
"People either loved us or they hated us...or they thought we were okay."

reply

I have to agree, I enjoyed the film but as soon as he entered the time machine he became an instant vilain in his own movie.



Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit? - Nigel Tufnel

reply

it turns you into an irrational dick apparently. why did he even try to replicate what he saw? that made no sense.

reply

Eh, Hector was never really a nice guy. Heck, the whole chain of events is set off because he's a middle-aged perv who catches a glimpse of a young hot girl's boobs off in the distance and has to go check it out.

He was even pretty cranky with his wife at the start. I think the guy is a pretty grumpy, jerky guy by nature.



"We are Groot."

reply

I think you need to look at it psychologically from his point of view.

The whole movie is one long traumatic experience for Hector.

I mean, he first gets attacked and pursued by a mysterious bandaged man. That's enough to give any normal person nightmares potentially for the rest of their lives.

On top of that, he ends up getting sent back in time and is visibly disoriented seeing his past self. The whole situation is out of control and he doesn't know what to do. Amidst all this, the scientist provides him with the one solution to his problem - he needs to make sure Hector 1 gets into the machine, at all costs. That mission becomes a kind of coping mechanism for him, and he basically goes through the motions desperately, replicating everything he remembers seeing, to somehow ensure that Hector 1 makes it to the time machine.

And then, after having to do all the horrible things he did as Hector 2, he had to cope with the fact that he'd accidentally killed his wife. By this point, he's been irrevocably changed by all the trauma he's gone through - he's become hardened and ruthless, a borderline psychopath. In order to avoid being the victim, he must become the perpetrator - and the crime he plans eventually is the murder of the girl.

I think the change in his behavior is pretty realistic, when you consider all the trauma he's gone though.

reply

I hated Hector from the beginning... totally rooting against him, number 1, number 2, number 3... all of them.

reply