Film: Looper
TV: Dark (S1, S2, S3)
I saw Looper in college in a completely empty theater and it was amazing. Dark is a German Netflix series and it has one of the intricately designed time travel plots I've ever seen in any medium. It's incredible and more people need to watch it.
Also shoutout to Predestination which is also a great time travel movie.
Only movies? Because if other media is allowed the answer is DARK. It's absolutely one of the most amazing time travel stories ever told in any medium.
Or as they just added that to give some purpose they hadn't really thought it through? Which is obviously the case. I'd say from info in the film the more obvious answer in context is the aliens are long lived as assuming they time travel moves outside of any concepts from the film itself and in fact goes against the core thematic of knowing your future and the implcations of that vs time travel which is an entirely different concept.We are talking about the film. Also, the past and future that the aliens perceive are tied to their perspective, presumably as it is depicted for Amy Addams. If it's anything like Amy Addams, they can't see past their own death or before their birth. And the film has the 3000 years line -- that you can't avoid just because you like the short story more -- this would lead one to believe that the aliens time travel OR they live a long time.
The one thing the film does better than the short story is have Amy Adams in it! Her performance was fantastic. I did like Arrival and it works pretty well but it's a shame they fluffed what I see as one of the core challenges the short story presents to you. It's falls into what I think of as the Kubrick trap. As he noted having an anti-lynching film where the protagonist is innocent is cheating because of course you'd oppose lynching an innocent. If you really want to make an anti-lynching film that's honest the protaggonist needs to be guily and the viewer challenged to agree that even though he's guilty he shouldn't be lynched.Hah, I'm still going to double down on "its semantics" but I'm for sure not trying to invalidate anyone else's opinion.
This is a lot of the reason I dislike "vanilla" time travel as a trope: we approach the unknowable from a narrow, almost narcissisticly human perspective on something our brains were never biologically wired to perceive. Where time travel is a doorway to be stepped through, with adventure waiting for us on the other side. But do we really have to physically step through time for it to be time travel? Isn't that just the easiest way to tell a story about it?
To the Interstellar example, I think Nolan oversold a very tired, very psychologically stressed Matthew McConaughey's ability to individually navigate the corridors of space/time and accurately communicate with the past via gravity. (He literally just pulled off an unprecedented feat of space docking, followed by traveling into a black hole! His brain would be gravy!) But in theory? I love that the flow of time remains relative to his own local experience and — physically — he is always in his misplaced present, allowing him to become the humbled avatar of forces beyond all comprehension.
Its mysterious, disorienting, and unfathomable as all good time travel should be. IMO, of course.
Re: Arrival, in my eyes, the doors of perception are opened and the main character's mind is now able to move forward and backwards in linear time despite being physically present here and now. The aliens being in the present — to them, the past — because of an event that has already happened in the future — to them, the present — is itself a form of travel. Just not a convenient one. The movie doesn't dig into what happens when you try to divert from the "intended" course of time, but Amy Adam's character resigns herself to her own fate because it was following that future that ultimately unites mankind and grants her the gift; she is following that thread out of respect for the alien's gesture. A covenant of sorts.
I've read the original book of short stories, and agree it worked better in the original, but still feel like the movie works for different reasons and is a nice complement to the same core themes. Plus I'll never say no to Amy Adams.
I liked Primer a lot, but I never quite got it through multiple watches, and I'm wary of engaging with the creators works now.
I gotta agree with this, heh.
Whereas the film cheats and gives the viewer the far less challenging question of
whether as a parent if they knew their child would die from an incurable and unavoidable disease that has nothing to do with their character they'd still have the child anyway
It's shame but at least the core idea of how you'd approach living if your perception was such you knew your and your child's future what that would be like: but it does soft peddle the concept.
It's great it spoke to you; it's still a poor change aligned to the thematic content and shows lack of confidence from the director in challenging his audience. Also we're not all born to suffer (we will all die though) and I'll never understand why anyone wants to cozy up to that outdated concept.I liked this change. I related more to the daughter in the film. She's born to suffer and die -- and so are we all, ultimately