MovieChat Forums > Samâ taimu mashin burûsu (2005) Discussion > So the big question is... (spoilers)

So the big question is... (spoilers)

posted 18 years ago by rooprect
16 replies | jump to latest

Where did the time machine come from?

I've been thinking about this a lot. I've watched the movie twice. And my conclusion is a real philosophical mindbender. See if you can follow me...

1) In the beginning of the movie, Mushroom mentions that the time machine just suddenly showed up one day (Aug 20, 2030).

2) At the end of the movie, Mushroom decides to go back to the day prior to his departure (Aug 19, 2030). He does this so that he can reveal himself the minute his other self leaves, so his friends won't worry about his long absence.

3) We assume that if he returned to Aug 19, 2030, then HE is the reason that the time machine "suddenly showed up" on Aug 20, 2030. He brought it back a day early.

So the conclusion is:
NO ONE BUILT THE TIME MACHINE. It was created by its own existence in the past. Totally trippy! (If this still doesn't make sense, try drawing it out on a timeline).

Mathematically it fits. But it forces us to regard "time" from a totally different perspective. There is no such thing as causality. Time does not flow sequentially like a stream. Instead, time is completely static, mapped out like a snapshot. Which leads me to the real philosophical brain buster... The universe itself needn't have a "beginning" (the big bang, etc). It just always was.

I've seen a lot of philosophically challenging movies, but honestly this one takes the cake. Ironic that it's disguised as a silly comedy. Well, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts. This board doesn't seem to get much action, so maybe I'm just talking to myself. heh, like Jose... "alone again".
:o

[–] xris2004 17 years ago

well there was all that talk at the end, about how maybe all of their actions was pre-determined and that there's no such thing as free will...

[–] dragonwarrior_1 17 years ago

One thing I was thinking was at the end of the movie, mushroom left for the day before the day he left in a different part of the building, the roof, therefore at one point i am thinking there were two time machines in on that day, one which i believe was created by that scientist, and he was the one to originally put it in the scifi club room because he knew it and to go back in time to inspire himself to create it

[–] rooprect 17 years ago

That makes a lot of sense. Also I think we see the scientist sketching the time machine on a notepad in one scene. This implies that he's working on building it and is probably successful.

Yah, the fact that one is on the roof and one is in the scifi club implies that there are 2 machines. Wow, time to watch this movie again. I get something new out of it every time. TIME TRAVEL MOVIES ROCK

[–] IdleFingers 17 years ago

Oh my goodness, two time machines? I just watched this last night, but this is a type of movie that deserves two viewings. I was confused, and stayed confused throughout most of it, but I know that I had some questions about Mushroom and the time machine. Time to reexamine!

They're making you one of them, my peacock...

[–] Trac3r 17 years ago

Man I felt like I had taken alot of drugs before i watched this movie, I was so confused at some parts. :D But hey, it was good! :D

[–] IdleFingers 17 years ago

I thought this movie was one of the best films I've seen in a long time. I loved it so much I bought the DVD (but it only comes in Region 2) and watched it two more times. The OP was on to something in that no one invented the time machine. No one had a chance to! The time machine is in this endless cycle with the SciFi club, getting the remote control. And when the professor was explaining it, he made a point to emphasize that a time machine could not exist. So trippy.

They're making you one of them, my peacock...

[–] dragonwarrior_1 16 years ago

It had to be created by someone, the kid from the future said it popped into their club room randomly one day, and my bet is that the teacher invented it and put it there completely knowing that it had to go back in time for him to create it in the first place therefore he placed it there. Therefore it shows taht it had to be invented, also not to mention the theory that matter cannot be created nor destroyed

[–] avortac 11 years ago

"matter cannot be created nor destroyed "

Of course it can!

Matter is created and destroyed in vast amounts every day, just look into a telescope, microscope or at the world.

It's ENERGY that can't be created or destroyed (but if THIS is true, then the Omnipotent Creator can't really be OMNIPOTENT, because surely an Omnipotent Being would be able to create anything he wants - that's what omnipotence IS!), not MATTER.

Though it begs the question: "What created all the energy in the Universe in the first place?" or "Why does energy even exist, if it wasn't created?", and so on. And it really makes you question the official, nihilistic dogma of a "Big bang" theory - so everything just happened to be created because an explosion happened just randomly, without any reason, from a void, which was NOT filled with energy, but had just one little, tiny bubble of energy, that contained all the energy in the Universe, in a really compressed form, although no one compressed it, it just happened to somehow be compressed, and .. uh, it all came from..? Hmm.. well, it was just.. there.. for very long time. Although no one put the dot there, and there was no "time" before the dot, so it just somehow .. yeah. I didn't think so, either. There was no 'big bang'.

But I digress. Back to the topic.

In any case, why are you people here discussing this on a level of 6-year olds? Why can't you discuss it on the level of "yeah, a typical predestination paradox + non-fabrication paradox movie"?

The clock in "Somewhere in Time" is also never fabricated. If the scientist creates the time machine, BASED ON SCHEMATICS THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE IF NOT FOR THE TIME MACHINE, then where did all those schematics and the time machine come from originally? From itself? That's just the same as the clock that was never fabricated - an impossibility.

I hoped that it would NOT turn out to be like that, but the hope was destroyed when I saw the stupid scientist guy eyeing the time machine and taking notes. I knew exactly that this movie wanted to bring that "good-feeling" audience-pleaser into the mix, and that creates the 'non-fabrication' problem instantly.

I know people will want to argue about this, if they can't understand it properly, so I will try to explain it more clearly.

How does the professor (I know, not really a professor, but it's shorter than "that scientist guy", and I am not going to call him 'Jose') get the schematics?

From the time machine.

Why does the time machine exist?

Because of the schematics.

It's circular logic - it can't happen that way! SOMEONE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE SCHEMATICS FIRST, or the time machine could not exist to give inspiration for the schematics (so it can exist)!

So, it's just another (rather silly, I might add) "predestination paradox" + "non-fabrication problem" movie. Nothing new here, but a lot of 'old', including the typically japanese misandry and childishness and the blind following of the 'Japanese drama rules', that goes so far as to have aggressive women and submissive, affeminate men, which the aggressive women seem to lust for.. groan.

Somewhere in Time already did the "predestination paradox" + "non-fabrication problem" combo, but it had other problems as well (like the handwriting being completely different, the main character being ANXIOUS to make everything repeat EXACTLY the way he knows it happened - why? Doesn't he have a sense of adventure? Doesn't he have a risktaker in him, someone who says "fúck it, let's see what happens if I write a different name and in a completely different time!"? I know I would tempt my fate that way as much as I could, just to see and test how much freedom I actually have, but no.. these 'main heroes' the moviemakers present us are obedient, submissive, non-authority-questioning sheeple, not bold and independent, confident, funloving, adventurous leaders of their own lives!).

My point is, this movie presents nothing new, and is not really all that entertaining either. Once you realize it uses "predestination paradox" and "non-fabrication problem", you pretty much know what's going to happen for the rest of the movie, and any suspense is destroyed. Also, the whole premise is really not that interesting.

SPOILERS:

The whole plot revolves around a stupid remote control, that would be cheap and easy to replace WITHOUT INVOLVING TIME TRAVEL.

Wasting a whole time travel plot for THAT premise, is unbelievable, and ultimately quite boring.

The plot basically is: "Your son from the future comes to make sure one day of your life will happen exactly like it should".

You call that a movie plot? I don't. I call it a waste of time.

[–] holtor 11 years ago

It's ENERGY that can't be created or destroyed

Not true. In general relativity, there is no conservation of energy. Actually there is not even an observer-independent concept of energy. When there is no objective definition of energy, how could it be conserved? Conserved along which time line anyway, as there is no observer-independent direction of time?

It's circular logic - it can't happen that way! SOMEONE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE SCHEMATICS FIRST, or the time machine could not exist to give inspiration for the schematics (so it can exist)!

That is not a logical problem. *Why* should anyone "come up with the schematics first"? If you interpret the movie this way, no one did. So what. The movie shows how it happens. No problem at all.

Somewhere in Time already did the "predestination paradox" + "non-fabrication problem" combo

How about "By his bootstraps" (1941) by Heinlein.

[–] Thrivingdead 9 years ago

Good call, the golden age of science fiction.

Just read that story, wonderful stuff. So many elements of that have been reused in subsequent media, and so many films that riff along those lines.

Surprised that folks are taking this specific film so seriously though. If you like your time travel more "serious", I'd recommend Primer (2004), notepad and writing implements, three re-watches, aspirin and a lie down in a darkened room to recover.

I prefer my Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009) to be more light-hearted

... Sanity and Happiness are an impossible combination ...

[–] edt-9 15 years ago

Nope doesn't work.

think about this, the machines shows up, say it's X days old, then it gets sent back in time, is used for 2 days, then it's X+2 days old, then it gets sent back in time, is used for 2 days, then it's X+4 days old, etc. until it is thousands of years old, and it quits working.

It's ok for information to pass though circular loops like this, that is the plans are sent back in time and magically appear from nowhere that's consistent but material objects can't loop like this because they will age and fail.

[–] r_cadell 14 years ago

This is a good point, but if there are 2 time machines then only the new one gets sent back every time.
The new one is built by the soon to be professor and left inside. He then takes the one on the roof.
Whenever this point in time is reached the one taken is always the freshly built one.
That's one possible way at least.

[–] holtor 12 years ago

When watching it I had exactly the same impression as the OP. Why else would they make a big deal about him arriving a day early? And he is supposed to jump out of some closet immediately after his former self disappeared. Thus he would have noticed a second time machine in the room, and investigate.

Also the scientist is not any smarter than the rest of the bunch; he can not even fix a remote with a bit of coke inside (it is a more than 125 years old remote though; still). How could that guy possibly build a time machine, even if he studied one?

Even if he did: First thing after the construction, he would place it in the middle of the sci-fi club to let these guys fool around with it, right? Without him being anywhere in the room to control what is going on?

No, I think it is supposed to be precisely the machine Mushroom came back with. Yeah, they used a lot of the battery, it has been floating in a swamp and it has been handled roughly by a bunch of idiots. Well, it happens to be an indestructible time machine. Personally I have never seen a time machine which was not indestructible ;)

The only problem is how he got it down from the roof. Maybe he just threw it over the edge and dragged it inside.

[–] JayRZay 12 years ago

Mild spoilers about Back to the Future

If I understand the movie correctly I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean to suggest that it's the same machine*.

a) Otherwise the scientist wouldn't have to invent it. He looked at it and built it from what he saw (similar to how Doc invented the flux capacitor after seeing it in the DeLorean in "Back to the Future"). The whole part about him would be superfluous.

b) Everything else in the movie appears to be technically sound. But if it was the same machine, this would be a big plot hole: The machine would have an infinite age (because there exist an infinite number of moments that causally contributed to any instance of its existence). Assuming corrosion and wear (etc.) this is plain impossible. I'm pretty sure the writers would have realized this, as everything else is very carefully designed.

I'm pretty sure the movie means to say that the scientist invented the machine and put it in their club to set time right. For one day there are two time machines in 2030. Him realizing that he can save trouble because he can choose to go back earlier than he left might be another nod to Back to the Future (Marty going back a few hours [or so] earlier to save Doc).

_________
* Edit: I mean, yes, it is the same machine (naturally) but the machine that Mushroom uses to get to the past is brand-new and has never been used before (as far as we know). The machine on the roof is older, not younger (AND older), than the machine he first uses to go back in time.

[–] holtor 12 years ago

>But if it was the same machine, this would be a big plot hole: The machine would have an infinite age (because there exist an infinite number of moments that causally contributed to any instance of its existence). Assuming corrosion and wear (etc.) this is plain impossible.

I was thinking that it was indestructible in the sense of "not aging at all". Like e.g. in the classical sci-fi book "The city an the stars" by Arthur C. Clarke they have objects and buildings which do not age, because every damage is immediately fixed on an atomic level. It clearly has some kinda outlandish energy source too, so why not assume that it cannot age or be damaged.

[–] JayRZay 12 years ago

I was thinking that it was indestructible in the sense of "not aging at all". Like e.g. in the classical sci-fi book "The city an the stars" by Arthur C. Clarke they have objects and buildings which do not age, because every damage is immediately fixed on an atomic level. It clearly has some kinda outlandish energy source too, so why not assume that it cannot age or be damaged.

I don't know, doesn't strike me as particularly likely since everything else in the movie is pretty realistic (assuming a time machine would work and look like this). The time machine seems to be built from everyday materials. And, after all, it is implied that the scientist is going to invent it. I don't know the book by Arthur C. Clarke (I should check it out), I can see how it would be a funny twist if it was like this, but I think it would make the movie's science much more unrealistic. Talking about its energy source it would certainly have to be infinite to fix an unlimited number of small damages and perform an unlimited number of time travels.

Since they included scenes that suggest the scientist will build it I believe that that's what they meant to say; and since I think this is a conceivable and (comparably) realistic solution (and it would fit the movie's general kind of "realism") I think it'd be the better choice. But the other one's certainly a funny idea.