MovieChat Forums > The Tomorrow War (2021) Discussion > Could Invent Time Travel, but Not Figure...

Could Invent Time Travel, but Not Figure Out Whitespike Earth Origin Point?

posted 3 years ago by richmeng (47)
27 replies | jump to latest

While plot holes and just "huh??"s reign in this movie, I was thinking after finishing it, why these 500,000 people in the future, who are obviously the brightest (most anyway) to have survived (either protected by the government while everyone else was torn to shreds, or had survival smarts) couldn't figure out a better plan to change this alien invasion from ever happening?

While you're lead to think the premise of the time travelers was to recruit people from our time to go fight their battle, we do learn that they just need people to help find a solution to stop the aliens when they do first land & rise up, thus our first "huh? why not just stay in the present and prevent it?" is what they want to do.

But my problem is, if they are smart (invented time travel after all and were able to build the time machine), have helicopters which, if they didn't fly so slow, can't get attacked by the whitespikes, not find the landing place of the aliens themselves? If the ice has truly melted as the student's ice melting prediction video showed, they would have found the ship in northern Russia even sooner than the finding-an-ice-cube-in-the-artic present day team did. They knew it had to be North Russia. Even if the whitespikes had been dropped off to kill us all, there would be some sort of cavity or mass amount of tracks to show their origin in the snow/mud.

Then, once they have pinpointed the start of the alien invasion, just go back in time to wait on that island, which would then interfere less with earth's original timeline. Of course then our main character probably still would have gone on to leave his family and die, but oh well. If they had come back and gone to that place, even in 2040, they would have found the ship like in the movie and could have disposed of it.

Oh well, just my rambling thoughts after seeing the flick. I know, if that had been how it happened, not much of a movie...

[–] galahadfairlight (414) 3 years ago

Alas not and it was explained in the movie why not.

They couldnt time travel that far back. They explained it as two rafts on an ever flowing river, the river represents the flow of time, the two rafts represent two points on the time line. The problem is those two rafts are drifting, which means everytime they jump back, the raft has moved further up the time line, and also jumping back is a problem because when they jump back to the future, they are getting closer to the point humans are finally wiped out.

[–] zeesha (1764) 3 years ago

"The problem is those two rafts are drifting"

Can anyone find a solution to that？

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

What do you mean "that far back"? They would have had to travel back in time less far to reach the point where the invasion started. It is stated that the raft travels forward in time in both the future and the present, sure. But when the made the raft, they could have made it go to any point in the past. It would have moved forward in time from that point. They just said they couldn't build more rafts because lame plot excuse, but this doesn't explain why they didn't build the first raft to go back to the point of the invasion. Also doesn't actually address the OPs point that they should have been able to figure out where the landing site was.

[–] tanayayt (13) 3 years ago

Probably they know they only have one chance to open a portal. So if they choose a time point too close to the invasion, it's too risky. What if they can't stop the invasion as it's already late, or what if they are wrong (about the place and year), or what if their technology/weapons can't stop/kill the aliens, and so on. Then they will waste that one chance to save mankind, and you can't loop or redo, because of the "drifting raft" effect.

[–] cyguration (3897) 3 years ago

Which still doesn't address OP's very salient point about tracking the origin of the invasion.

Were there no geologists in that future? No geophysics? No geobiologists? No one to track animal patterns or migration effects? No microbiologists to use common sense to track the minerals found in the creature's biology to pinpoint the origin of their growth/spread?

They somehow did it in the past but didn't think to do it in the future, and then the diversity crew they sent from the future were too stupid to bring back any resources to help track down their potential origin for the tomorrow war.

It was all kinds of stupid.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

According to my brother who is a physicist, although time travel is likely impossible, if it WERE possible, then it would only be possible to travel between timepoints AFTER the time travel machine was invented. So if you invented a time travel machine on June 5, 2020, then you would never be able to travel farther back than June 5, 2020.

Talking to physicists is weird because, instead of falling about laughing at your insane questions and hypotheses, they take your ideas seriously and give you serious answers.

Funny story, when my son was about 8, he had nightmares about zombies. I told him, "Honey, zombies are impossible because the biological processes can't reverse like that. It would just go against physics and chemistry and the laws of nature." When I related that story to my physicist sibling, he responded that zombies actually aren't technically impossible. It would be theoretically possible for a dead body to resurrect. It just would be very unlikely.

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

That's only one type of time machine. We are talking sci-fi, so you can have any kind of time machine you want. The only thing that matters is that you don't contradict your own story. These people want to avoid paradoxes, yet it is clear at the end of the film that they are in a completely different timeline anyway. So that makes no fucking sense, based on the films own logic. I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp for some people.

[–] maximmm (3093) 3 years ago

How did they place a raft in the past? Is it possible to then place another raft further back in time?

[–] xergan (898) 3 years ago

Why the future ones never found out: First of all, they didn't know the WS are coming like the ones in movie timeline. So then Russia was first of all trying to contain it by themselves, but likely the WS conquered quite fast Asia, but back then no one knew where they came from except from somewhere Asia - but they could come from whatever. Even if you would know for what you are searching it is quite hard to find.
So that they know at all that they are from North Russia is most likely coming from some surviving Russian officials, who told them from where it comes from. But until they might disclosed that, it could been already too late for proper satellite scanning of something, which might be anyway not there. The WS spread fast and higher ups had better to do as searching for where they came from. This ONLY changed after they invented time travel, but back then it was very likely way too late for such stuff on a scale they needed. They say, only 500,000 people were left around 3-5 years after all started (they said 3 years until they were world wide around, it was I think not disclosed how long between this point and the time jump). This mean the kill rate must have been insane, even if it would been 10 years. This must be terrifying and crazy.

tldr: The landing site was not found as no one know for what to search for and higher ups first trying to contain the info. Then concentrating on killing the WS had much much higher prio until it was too last for them to find their origin.

[–] UncleRuckis (2562) 3 years ago

This actually brings up an interesting question. Future Muri says the "aliens" attacked Russia without warning, and that they never detected any ship landings or anything indicating their arrival.

So if they had no indication that they came from outer space, how did they know they were aliens? Obviously that is confirmed at the end of the movie, but the future just weirdly assumed that. They could have just as easily been a long dormant species native to earth as far as they knew.

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

Or something that came out of a lab.

[–] xergan (898) 3 years ago

As they multiply like bunnies and are so huge, it would be very unlikely they came from earth, except you want to open the hollow earth conspiracy box. They are also way too advanced and different of anything existing, so the lab theory is also unlikely either.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 3 years ago

While watching the movie i was kind of expeciting "They were there all along" angle with them simply coming from caves bellow earth from some prehistoric period. Glad it didnt end up there.

[–] Valerian (10489) 3 years ago

DNA test.

[–] ManToTrust (1648) 3 years ago

I'll give this plothole a pass. There's only so many resources to dedicate to a major engineering feat, especially with a dwindling population.

Applying your sentiment to the real world, it'll be like saying, "they could invent a COVID19 vaccine, but not figure out a vaccine for HIV".

[–] cyguration (3897) 3 years ago

Applying your sentiment to the real world, it'll be like saying, "they could invent a COVID19 vaccine, but not figure out a vaccine for HIV".

Except COVID was made in a lab, as revealed during the congressional hearings (and even before that, the scientists who literally helped develop it were whistleblowers who ended up dead for blowing the whistle on it and then CCP-funded fact checkers said it was a "conspiracy theory" only for it to be proven true).

And given that a peer-reviewed paper (which health authorities had retracted) revealed that the "vaccines" for this man-made virus kills two people for every person it supposedly helps (although there's zero data indicating efficacy rates): https://archive.is/PyvXD

...It does seem like it would be a better use of resources to focus on HIV instead of creating vaccines that kill you faster than a man-made bio-weapon.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 3 years ago

>kills two people for every person it supposedly helps

But then if 50% of population is vaccinated then somehow everyone would be dead.

[–] cyguration (3897) 3 years ago

But then if 50% of population is vaccinated then somehow everyone would be dead.

That's assuming even those numbers are accurate. We really don't know HOW many people have been vaccinated, because according to Biden more people have been vaccinated in the U.S., than the amount of people who actually live in the U.S:
https://www.rt.com/usa/531378-biden-blunders-number-vaccinated/

Also, people don't just drop dead from the vaccine unless they have a very healthy and over-active immune system. This is why it kills a lot of young kids very quickly, because a child has a very strong immune system. It treats the messengers like a parasite (which is ironic, because in order to treat the negative effects of the vaccine you need anti-parasitic drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine).

It all depends on IF the messengers get into your bloodstream. If that happens, then it's a matter of time before your immune system kills you. Dr. Hoffe explains the particulars based on the blood work of patients who had been vaccinated. It's a short 8 minute video that details why clotting occurs:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ChQwQBggc8TL/

So if the messengers don't stay local, you usually have up to three years to live unless you get treated. Ironically enough, the issue with the messengers not staying local was a problem they were having with RNA vaccines for decades. In previous trials with mice, the messengers would get into the bloodstream and cause clotting. They've been dealing with this issue in RNA vaccines since before 2007. You can read the report here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17148587/

That's why RNA vaccines never got approved.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 3 years ago

Given that most vaccines require two doses Sleepy Joe probably wanted to say number of vaccinations that happened. Thats about the right number.

You do realize that ivermectin is a horse drug that will kill you, right? Also kids do not have very strong immune systems. Their immune systems are weaker. This is why they get sick more often than adults. Also why cytokine storms (what you are trying to claim here) happen mostly in young adults.

[–] cyguration (3897) 3 years ago

You do realize that ivermectin is a horse drug that will kill you, right?

No it's not. Are you an idiot? It's been approved by the FDA for human use since 1996:
https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/usa-clears-ivermectin-for-human-use

Where on Earth did you hear that it will kill you?

And did you know that a lot of antibiotics used for animals are also used for humans? Did you also know that animals drink water? I guess you better stop doing that, too.

My gosh this generation is as uneducated and ignorant as the people in the movie Idiocracy. In fact, in that movie they DID stop drinking water because water was used in toilets. You're about one comment removed from that level of thinking with your post.

Also kids do not have very strong immune systems. Their immune systems are weaker. This is why they get sick more often than adults.

No their immune system is immature, not weaker. They get sick more than adults because their immune system has yet to build natural immunity to viruses adults have already been exposed to.

They also have over-active immune systems, simply because they are still growing, and their body is constantly trying to adapt and fight off bacteria/viral strains/etc, especially for kids 10+. This is why their immune system is what is rapidly killing kids who take the vax, because it sees the messengers as a parasite (which is why ivermectin is used to treat the messengers in early stages of travel).

Ontario immunologists explain how and why the immune system reacts the way it does when the messengers travel, and how it causes clotting and organ failure:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-spike-protein-travels-from-injection-site-organ-damage/

[–] FilmBuff (6736) 3 years ago

They aren't able to change the past by traveling back in time. They can only help those in the past avoid the same future as them.

[–] Rich_UK (25) 3 years ago

Future people couldn’t go back and wait, they mentioned in the movie that all the visitors from the future were young, because they needed to have been born after the time of their visit as they can’t occupy the same timeline, same as the people from the past sent into the future had all died before the time they were being sent to.

[–] alienzen (1929) 3 years ago

The answer is: The people in the future were smart, but the script writers were dumb.

[–] maximmm (3093) 3 years ago

lol
I fear they were as smart as the scriptwriter.
Anyways, technological prowess is not quite the same thing as intelligence. As our technology advances, we actually become dumber and more dependent on technology to complete intellectually challenging tasks. So, there is a fairly good chance that people in 500 years from now will be significantly dumber than the current generation of humanity.

[–] whatwazdat (380) 3 years ago

The high school kid in the classroom figured it out. LOL!

[–] UncleRuckis (2562) 3 years ago

So it took Pratt's wife and a high school kid all of a minute to come up with a plausible(and eventually correct) hypothesis of where the white spikes were located.

Which means that if anyone from the future was able to come to the same conclusion, they could have time traveled back to that soccer game, immediately sent a team to Siberia to search for and find the ship where they would find a boatload of unconscious test subjects to make a serum, and wrap up the entire conflict of the movie without sending 50 year old pastry chefs to their doom.

Yeah that is definitely bad writing.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

I hear you. But I actually don't think the movie's plot logic is written for, uh, logic. I think it's a climate change metaphor. It's basically saying climate change is a massive emergency, but we aren't willing to do anything about it because it's such a slow-motion emergency that it doesn't visibly affect us yet. But if people from the future could come back and tell us how bad it will become, and if there was a way for us to help our future great great great great grandchildren to save the human race, by going into the future and seeing for ourselves how bad it's really going to be, then we should and would do that. And, in fact, the seeds for that disaster are being sown now, and if we wait to try and solve it in the future then it will be too late. So we should stop it now, before it becomes an irreversible disaster.