Hearing you talk about the time travel in Tenet reminded me just how annoying and confusing it was. I think my brain came to the same paradoxical conclusions you did while watching the film, although I definitely didn't venture down the thought experiment rabbit hole as far as you, or with as good of understanding. I think what was so frustrating about Tenet is that it framed its time travel as totally legitimate. It had the guise of being completely fool proof physics. Movies like The Prisoner of Azkaban, Arrival, and The Butterfly Effect all had equally problematic time travel, but I never got distracted by it. Probably because the time travel elements, while crucial to the story, are far from the main focus. I am not saying all of those are amazing films, just that the time travel elements in these films never got in their own way. Let me see if I understand your thought experiment. If a man traveling backwards met a man traveling forwards, and the man traveling backwards killed the man traveling forwards, then the man traveling forwards would continue on being dead in the future of his forwards reality. However, the man traveling backwards would be going further into the past of forwards man's forwards reality, where he is still very much alive. Does that mean it is impossible for the backwards man to ever kill the forwards man in his own backwards reality. Let's say he does kill the forwards man. How would he ever be able to confront him in the first place, since the forwards man would be dead in the backwards man's reality during the conflict leading up to his death. This is total insanity. Christopher Nolan really bit off more than he could chew with this one. I have a feeling this film was created after he learned about tachyons and thought they were neat. Thank you for helping me grasp why the time travel in Tenet aggravated me so much.

@Kerogas_

2 жыл бұрын

I have a simpler example. Backwards man shot at the glass. For him everything is ok. But how this glass was made in forward reality? The factory has already released it with damage? This moment made me swear while watching the movie.

@nadarith1044

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Kerogas_ One of the major points of the movie is that effects can't propagate too far against the universal direction of entropy, it's why the algorithm which can invert the direction of universal entropy itself is such a big deal there was even a scene where the protag suddenly started forming a stab wound minutes before being inverse stabbed which took away the wound, showing that the effect of the stab couldn't even propagate too far into his personal past, demonstrating that when fighting against the dominant entropy of a major object (human) a minor inverted to it effect (small stab wound) can only go so far before it loses, demonstrating this exact effect in miniature

You are missing the point. Nothing else ‘could’ have happened. This is because it is established the everything that plays out in the film is a closed loop meaning that everything that always happens is always supposed to happen and cannot be changed. One example of this is when future Kat jumps off the boat after killing sator making past kat think that sator was cheating on her which is what the kat that killed sator also thought before realising she was the woman who dived off the boat. Nothing can be changed. All the inversion and action and events plays out the same and can never be changed because again it’s all a closed loop.

@DrDoohickey

2 ай бұрын

It's not a closed loop - as illustrated in this critique, there are elements necessary to its logic that must take place off-screen and are inconsistent with its characters' motivations, or anyone's motivations for that matter. This is recognizable in the first 10 minutes of the film, making deciphering it a fruitless and monotonous task. And that's if you're willing to accept a story with a preordained outcome. Props to this guy for actually bothering to illustrate this flaw. This is Nolan's Kid-A - something that could have been truly great had it not crawled up its own backside. A joyless contrivance of its predecessor.

At ~8:00 you suggest Neil could shoot the goon. Neil knows he can't hit the goon. Any shot he fires will/did miss, because the goon is not already dead from his gunshot when he arrives. If Neil can kill the goon, then the goon's body would be already dead with his bullet in him, and he'd pull the bullet through his dead body and revive him in order to be the one to cause his death. Inverted and uninverted people find it hard to shoot each other, because it is very easy to miss someone who you have to shoot before you see them die! You later note that shooting dead inverted warriors to bring them to life is a bad idea. But it is not! It is the only way to make them die! If you don't do that, then they survive the battle and will have already made things worse for your team (unless you have you're own inverted Warriors who can simply shoot at them and aim normally). If you don't "revive" inverted enemies, then that means they avoided death. Every inverted enemy you see stand up and run away is a blessing, because it means they *did* die, and hence cannot fight another day, nor contribute more to the (past) of the current fight.

@JackdotC

6 ай бұрын

How did the bad guy shoot main woman then? Why did reverse team even shoot in the final time raid? Best friend guy shot at himself driving a jeep and the bullets hit but he was in reverse, how is that possible given your explanation? This does not make sense, reverse bullets would not be a massive commodity to import to use as a new super weapon as they were explained in the start of the movie, they would be worth less than the metal they were made from.

@Moley1Moleo

6 ай бұрын

​@@JackdotC - in the red/blue room, we see the bad-guy's perspective. He is going backwards in time, and he see's the main-woman injured on the seat, and holds the gun next to her and fires a reverse bullet, reverse-injuring her, so that anyone in the main flow of time sees her become injured. Reverse bullets are useful weapons, but you need to think carefully about how to use them. You will miss if you shoot at un-inured people, because their time is going in the opposite direction to yours - if you hit them, then they'd be injured already. You need to have a plan to shoot injured people, in the hopes that you were the one who injured them. From your bpoint of view you would have healed them, but in the main flow of time you hurt them.

@Littleprinceleon

3 ай бұрын

​@@Moley1MoleoThe movie tell us that inverted person running (normally) is feeling the wind in his/her back because in reality (s)he is "running" backwards. The same logic/rule applied to bullets that are whizzing back into the barrel of the gun: shouldn't air resistance slow down the bullet? Meaning that it is the slowest when it's closest to the gun! And we could continue with similar nonsensical stuff. In a battle how on earth would any of the inverted soldiers know who shot whom? It would only work if complete and completely MINDLESS predetermination rules that world. I'm able to accept that no matter what amount of thinking I apply to any of my decisions it could be still totally determined by factors I cannot have conscious control over. However, in case of timeloops there would have so much inconsistencies to be resolved that the only way possible for such a world would be an external, independent agent who knows all possible outcomes and can direct the events at all place and time. An omniscient and omnipotent being. That's the fundamental premise of Tenet!

Your initial concern is explained through the "wind of entropy". Inverted objects are always swimming "upstream". The idea is that eventually inversion cancels out and the object "annihilates". The other idea of the movie is that you can't do something that messes up the order of time. Free will is subject to whoever has the upper hand in a "temporal pincer". Since the protagonist is "ahead" of everyone else, he has set up the pieces to fall the way he wants, and everyone's "will" is subject to his.

@miscuses3499

2 жыл бұрын

Then the algorithm parts cannot be inverted and sent so far back by the scientist initially. They should be 'annihilated'. She can't invert herself that far back either because she is aging.

@maujo2009

2 жыл бұрын

@@miscuses3499 The movie is never clear on how much time it takes for the entropy wind to take effect. It seems to have something to do with the amount of radiation that the inverted object emits. So, maybe some objects can retain their inverted state longer than others.

@AydarBMSTU

Жыл бұрын

@@maujo2009 or rather - the writers have no answer and only care about cool scenes to show

@lennartsenden1220

11 ай бұрын

This is just another way of saying that the story writers can do whatever they want whenever they want disregarding their own set rules or not even establishing any rules to begin with, rendering the story to be shitty as fuck. wait, it IS shitty as fuck.

@Littleprinceleon

3 ай бұрын

The only occasion I heard to mention annihilation in this movie was some weird "explanation" about the possible consequences of the protagonist meeting his former self. Always this LAME excuse to enable the writers to avoid the most distracting/disturbing paradoxes of clashing the past with the future. WHEN did they talk about the temporal effect "invertants" make on "normies"? Thought experiment: How would a fertilized inverted egg behave? Suppose it's placed in a container with inverted oxygen... The main assumption of Tenet requires miraculous changes and even materialisation of stuff in the world with ordinary order of entropy all the time something "reversed" acts on it... AFAIK science claims entropy could work in the other direction of time but so far I've never met a pondering on "two-way mode" 😊 Nolan's clever idea was to confuse viewers with the inversion (and its "physics") which admittedly gives rise to unexpected literal TWISTs in the story(lines). I appreciate this effort, however it also serves to steer the attention away from the fact that most of the paradoxes of "ordinary" time travel still applies to this film. First and foremost: the "future" messes with what seem to be already settled. Okay, even serious physicists (especially if also sci-fi fans) like to speculate about "ordinary" timeloop establishing itself via resolving the paradoxical issues "before" becoming a reality. But even they refrain from "messing" with entropy 😅 😅 😅

The impossible situations you are describing are in fact impossible, which is why they never take places in the movie. In fact, despite the female researchers in the 1st act saying that people still have free will, the movie clearly shows that there isnt any free will in this framework, since the characters cannot actually make decisions that would overrite the future's perspective on the events, so for example the past Protagonist cannot kill the future Protagonist, he simply cannot physically make that decision and carry it out, he can try and he attempts in the movie to defend himself, but he cannot actually kill him since that would cause a paradox. Now, for the Neil death scene, there is no paradox here either, just because Volkov doesn't know about the dead body on the ground doesn't affect this, you asking "but if what if he DID know and chose not to even aim the gun at him?" Well he can't, he doesn't have any free will to do that, Volkov must kill Neil in reverse, and Neil must die, this is simply how it has to happen. Whatever happens, happens. This is actually the tenet of the movie that suspends our laws of physics, the whole idea of a movie si to suspend reality and enjoy an alternate view of a different kind of reality.

@patinho5589

3 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as cause and effect. Everything is the universe choosing every motion from moment to moment.

@TheJadedJames

3 жыл бұрын

But also, as the scientist explains early in the movie "The bullet wouldn't have moved if you had not put your hand there, either way you look at it, you made it happen" inverted objects react to what you will do, not to what you have already done, which doesn't negate free will. Inversion doesn't allow for paradoxical time travel, as for example ... it was physically impossible for the Protagonist to prevent Kat from being shot, but he still made the choice to attempt it. There are a lot of things people can't do, but at least for me, I'm not sure it means you lack free will if the thing is impossible

@Lockn3s5

3 жыл бұрын

The film doesn't clearly show that free will doesn't exist. In fact quite the opposite. If all individual decisions were fixed than there would be no need for their other tenet, "ignorance is our ammunition." The success of their mission hinges specifically on the obscuring of information. This wouldn't be necessary if all decisions were fixed. Instead the events are an infinite loop that require the ignorance of those in the past interacting with those of the future. In a way it's like each player involved needs to ensure the narrative plays out exactly as it should and everyone plays their roles. It's an active choice they're making. It's free choice, with the decision to play out the predetermined narrative.

@wesleywallace4426

2 жыл бұрын

Neil knew he needed to die not because the Universe grabbed him by his throat and forced him but because he knew his death would be worth it. People in the past knowing the future but not doing anything to change it is not a plot hole.

@EJ-jw9ow

2 жыл бұрын

This comment is better than the actual video. Tenet is actually quite careful (however lazily and problematic) to avoid the 'paradoxes' outlined in this video i.e. you cannot interact with your past/future self or annihilation happens. Lazy, but an effective/plausible defense. And also, your philosophic understanding of determinism and free will lack nuance.

Neil mentions that inverted objects in regular environments are eventually taken over by the surrounding entropy. If an inverted bullet was embedded in a wall it would continue to exist into the past until the entropy takes over. It reverts itself and inhabits the same space as itself from the future. They annihilate each other which means the bullet never exists in its final resting place but it does cause a lot of damage to get there. From a normal timeline perspective the wall would become more and more damaged (from reverse damage slowing down and reverting. Like the glass cracks in the first turnstile scene) until a bullet materializes inside the damage (from annihilating itself in reverse) is pulled into a gun and eventually disappears in a turnstile with its’ forward time self.

@BamaNick

2 жыл бұрын

The bleeding scene on the way to the airport explains this perfectly! Neil explains this to TP in that same scene! That forward time is the dominant entropy. And when objects and humans are inverted they are swimming up stream

@futurestoryteller

3 ай бұрын

This kind of reminds me of when I thought about "How can time move backwards." I saw an article with a tree that was on fire, and I thought "So wait if you were moving through there it would just be a burning tree that burns into a perfect tree until it's struck by lightning, then is fine? So it was birthed by lightning?" Then I realized I had messed up the exact sequence of events. First the tree would form out of desication, then it would smoke, then sizzle, burn, and get struck by lightning, then it would return to the ground by getting progressively younger, until it was gone. From our frame of reference that sequence of events is ridiculous, but on a backwards timeline, birth is the death state. I feel intuitively like a similar hang-up makes the more fantastical elements of the movie harder to wrap your head around. Not to say they make perfect sense to begin with, just to say we get too hung up on the order of a cause and effect sequence. The bullet has reverse entropy but it's not in a reverse timeline. That is to say - surrounded by a reverse time environment. So in a way the movie's explanation is probably good enough, considering how unintuitive reverse entropy is. But it definitely works better I think if people in normal time aren't handling inverted materials.

The movie doesn’t ignore these problems. What happens has to be pre-destination paradox. Which IS the structure of the story. The impossible stories you tell are exactly that.. impossible to happen.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

@Patinho thanks for the thought! But why are they impossible to happen? Are they impossible to happen because they deterministically make sense? If they don't deterministically make sense (they are irrational) then you wouldn't expect them to be the result of a deterministic universe. Determinism is the idea that everything was set in motion way back at the beginning, and dominoes are just toppling forwards through time in a RATIONAL way. This seems like it sets up a story as the causal foundation, and says all the rest of the universe has to bend to make sense AROUND the story (irrationally, in my opinion.) Does that make sense?

@sevenwordsmusic

2 жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate in Tenet there's no free will, events just happen. The movie shows some events, some of them forward and some of them backwards. That's it, from my point of view it's not very appealing~

@ToriKo_

2 жыл бұрын

@@sevenwordsmusic not very appealing unless you also think we have no Free Will, then it’s fair game and still interesting

@IronFreee

Жыл бұрын

@@ToriKo_ How does that makes it any more plausible or interesting?

@ToriKo_

Жыл бұрын

@@IronFreee because if you think the universe we live in is truly deterministic, truly, then we do not have any Free Will. And a lot of people in real life believe the world is truly deterministic, say, people who believe that ultimate laws of physics exist. And the world we live in is still very interesting to a lot of those people, and so Tenet isn’t made uninteresting solely based on if the characters have no Free Will. I’m not really arguing about Tenet here, I’m trying to point out something interesting about the world we live in

"Don't try to understand it, feel it" -Instruction manual for Tenet

@jhtrq1465

Жыл бұрын

I feel that I don't understand, because there is nothing to understand

The idea of time traveling at least in the past on itself is a paradox. It can't never happen... So trying to resolve paradoxes in time travel is damn near impossible...there will always be one.

@SketchTurnerZero

2 жыл бұрын

"It can't never happen" you are funny

If I recall, Neil talked about grandfather paradox and said they just don't know what would happen. On the other hand, they said that coming into contact with your past self (if the particles actually touch), it would cause anihilation.

@xxswegdutyxx3745

3 жыл бұрын

I got a question, what does the movie mean by anihilation?

@polivkamikulas6401

3 жыл бұрын

@@xxswegdutyxx3745 I suppose destruction of the person

@fietae

2 жыл бұрын

@@xxswegdutyxx3745 Destruction of any matter touching itself. It's basically whats happening in the inversion machine if you watch something entering it from the outside. For you the object is entering on both sides and then just disappears.

@Littleprinceleon

3 ай бұрын

​​@@fietae That's why the former self of protagonist saw his future version to appear on both sides (fighting one and the one with Neil)? Edit: okay, I forgot that the future version was already in "reverse mode". However, I don't think annihilation was meant to mean this illusory effect (no real destruction, just a reversal in time). You know what annihilation of (anti+)matter in physics mean?

@Littleprinceleon

3 ай бұрын

The authors want to avoid such crude paradoxes that's why they "invent" all sorts of "rules"...

I think "what's happened, happened" solves pretty much all your critiques

@brendonwood7595

2 жыл бұрын

How about a new critique then? The movie clearly establishes that firing an inverted bullet causes existing bullet damage in the object to repair and then not exist into it's future. Firstly this means that the windows in the airport scene were made at the factory, installed into the building and left there with bullet holes and glass fragments up until the time they are inverted shot. This is just nonsense when described like that but really isn't the big one. If you shoot someone in the head with an inverted bullet it must also repair the damage in the head that has been there up until the time they get shot, presumably before birth. The wall at the start of the movie clearly establishes the damage is there for a very long time. Nolan completely understood his theories fall completely apart and has both very carefully crafted the movie to avoid exposing them to the audience and created magic handwavey inconsistent stuff regarding shooting people to further hide it.

@rpware1564

2 жыл бұрын

@@brendonwood7595 Also, the fact that TP mysteriously gets a bleeding stab wound only _after_ the car chase scene. This is to make sure he gets "unstabbed" later at the airport. Nolan could've easily fixed this by making him get "stabbed" instead of "unstabbed" in inverted time. So from the POV of the past non-inverted TP, future-inverted TP would get "unstabbed". This wouldn't, however, fix the issues of the bullet holes in the airport's windows

@kkb474

2 жыл бұрын

@@rpware1564 Interesting take..

@kev3d

Жыл бұрын

@@brendonwood7595 I hated the excuse "Don't think, just watch." I'm sorry, that doesn't work. It's not a dream sequence or hallucination where things can happen absent of logic. A film can have whatever rules it wants but it has to be consistent with those rules. Tenet, despite all the fanboys, isn't internally logical.

@majimasmajimemes1156

Жыл бұрын

@@kev3d It also doesn't work because the movie is trying to explain itself every five minutes.

2:38: Inverted POV: gun picked up, shot and taken by a uninverted person. uninverted POV: person has a gun, the gun is taken from him by an inverted person, the inverted person reverse fires the gun, the gun is then put down. 3:43: Inverted point of view: person walks into room, wall explodes, causing person to fall out of room. Uninverted point of view: person is thrown into room by inverted explosion, thus trapping them in the room, person walks out of room. 4:46: uninverted POV: gets attacked, killed, ded. inverted POV: uninverted person undies, inverted person attacks him in someway having been startled and/or threatened, inverted person goes on with his life. P.S. This does get addressed in the movie. 5:02: No, the fight begins at point 2. (Or from an uninverted perspective ends at point 2 and begins at point 1) 5:32: Yes 5:39: Yes 6:24: You can't die twice, not sure what you're asking 7:52: This is essentially the same question as 4:46. The only way an inverted person killing an uninverted person or vice versa works is if that is the beginning of the fight for the killer. Like I said: Inverted POV: gets attacked, killed, ded. Uninverted POV: uninverted person undies, inverted person attacks him in someway having been startled and/or threatened, inverted person goes on with his life. 8:57: still the same question. If the goon were to have intentionally shot Neil, if he know who that was and what he was there for, then Neil would undies just as being shot and continue his forward-time existence since he is moving backward through time, this is the end of his backward time existence. 9:30: true, the only way an inverted person can kill an uninverted person or vice versa is if the murder weapon eventually exits the dead person's body. Say the thingy protagonist stabs his inverted self with at the Freeport, if it were to have remained in his arm, then it would be there for his entire percievd existence past that point all the way up to and past when he was inverted. Meaning the moment he stabbed himself, that same weapon would just have appeared in his own arm. The only way it makes sense is if it somehow got in his arm earlier (or from an unknverted point of view, taken out).

Why Tenet is a great film... because people try to figure it out or make sense of it so much where it's almost stupid to even try to. Think about it.... Back to the Future is a gem yet has so many holes and contradictions and most people don't care about that and still love it. I'm one of them. This Tenet movie actually is an even more ridiculous concept and the fact that people are thinking about it and trying to make sense of it is complimentive to its artform. And it's done not only well but trying to be as legit as possible to its premise. Regarding inverted guy and one kills the other... inversion doesn't exist or isn't possible so how could you try to understand it or make sense of it. Meaning that you assume you can understand it based on the movie and its portrayal of the concept. The rules of inversion arent known at all so you can't factually try to define anything.

@anshik.k.t

2 жыл бұрын

Your first sentence is soooo true. I wasn't able to frame that idea in a sentence. he fukks physics, applies extreme level twist and story gaps and everyone solves this movie to make sense out of it forcefully.... And everyone think it's COOL

@jussi-pekkaturunen689

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I don't quite get it why to even try to rationalize facts given by a movie. Thing what you can do is to try to see if movie is consistent with its facts. If movie is consistent with its facts then everything is actually pretty fine.

@onlywiigame.

2 жыл бұрын

Ok this comment is just pure fanboyism

Great video, Jesse. Nolan is so inconsistent with his premise that it was painful to watch. For example, Nolan apparently want us to believe that all of Sator's henchmen working in the tunnels at just stepped over Neil's skeleton by the door for years and let it "undecay" into a fresh corpse that could rise up and "untake" a bullet. I might have been more forgiving if Nolan had developed the characters or even innovative SFX, but personally I found them both to be flat and uninspired.

@wesleywallace4426

2 жыл бұрын

It's called the Winds of Entropy. Neil's corpse might have just disappear until it suddenly appeared around the time the base gets attacked. And maybe somebody might have noticed but I'm sure a building just collasping out of nowhere might have been more eye catching until the actual attack.

@brendonwood7595

2 жыл бұрын

@@wesleywallace4426 It's called ignoring your own premise. The section of wall at the beginning of the movie implies this inverted damage exists long into the past. The building collapsing out of nowhere also reveals the problems. We have a building with a blown up top floor going all the way back into the past and a building with a whole top that was never built in the past on top of a blown up bottom into the future. There is literally only a period of seconds in all of time that the building is whole if you believe the single timeline premise is true.

@soufian2733

2 жыл бұрын

@@brendonwood7595 no, the building was made in the 20th century, got broken down by the winds of entropy, then the battle happened where it un-exploded back into its normal form and re-exploded right after

@brendonwood7595

2 жыл бұрын

@@soufian2733 So huge car sized blocks of building were just jumping off randomly? How does that work if someone moves one of those pieces before the building is blown up? Does it still reverse blow up into a whole building?

@soufian2733

2 жыл бұрын

@@brendonwood7595 in my opinion no one could have moved those pieces of rubble because it would break causality in the inverted time flow, similar to how you can’t kill your younger self because it would create a paradox

For your paradox, I think this might help... POV of the Normal Guy: He finds the inverted guy and starts fighting. Inverted guy then kills him and that's it. Normal Guy's body lies there. POV of Inverted Guy: He sees a dead body which comes to life and attacks him. The normal guy now fights him and the inverted guy flees away in the end. Also, let's say the inverted guy is the normal guy after he goes the through turnstile. If the normal guy is making it through the turnstile, it means his inverted self will not be able to kill him. But if the normal guy kills his inverted self, then the normal guy is going to die when he goes through the turnstile and comes across his past self. Regd. Neil's death, the goon must have used the rope to go down the tunnel instead of the gate. He saw a dead body there with a gun. For safety he took the gun (which is inverted too). He doesn't know that the dead body is inverted so while trying to fire Protagonist with the inverted gun, he unfires the bullet from Neil's face bringing him back to life.

@soufian2733

2 жыл бұрын

Agree with all of this. The only question I still have is how and when the bullet got in Neil's head (before it went back into the gun)

@udbhav5079

2 жыл бұрын

@@soufian2733 From Inverted Neil's perspective, he enters the tunnel and sees the protagonist fighting with the henchmen and as soon as the protagonist goes behind the gate, Neil closes it but comes in the way and gets shot in the head by the inverted gun (which is a regular gun from Neil's perspective). The only issue here is how can Neil get inside the tunnel if it was blocked by explosion. You can assume that Neil finds another hidden entrance.

@soufian2733

2 жыл бұрын

@@udbhav5079 oh good catch!

@mattneilson1824

2 жыл бұрын

@@udbhav5079 Does this mean that, from a “normal time” reference frame, Neil’s dead body was already lying in the tunnel when the tunnel was first created? If so, how? Has Neil’s dead body been present since the dawn of creation? Or did it begin as a clothed skeleton and gradually reverse-decompose over the course of (normal) time? I guess I’m asking a similar question to the “bullet in the wall” question: was the wall built with an inverted bullet inside it?

@udbhav5079

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattneilson1824 There can be many causes for an effect, just like there can be many effects for a cause. The purpose of Tenet Organization is to maintain sufficient causality so that Sator never suspects he is failing until the last moment. I believe, people from Tenet put Neil's inverted dead body in the tunnel. Let's say you are a member of Tenet & you invert and go to the tunnel before the final war. After reaching there, you come across Neil's body and as instructed by your supervisors you bring the body back to the organization where they revert Neil's dead body by putting it in the turnstile.

Niel said it what has happened, happened. Everything you see is in this movie is the only reality that ever was... There are no multiple futures and pasts... One timeline...

@reisaki18

3 жыл бұрын

no what's happens happened rule breaks the rule of inverting or even temporal pincer movement

@robrick9361

3 жыл бұрын

@@amiri7392 But if going backwards to find out what happened to tell yourself what happens always happens then you already have the information and don't need to invert to find out what happens, another grandfather paradox just with information. Also what was the goal of the future? If everything always happens then clearly they never succeed in flipping time since time needed to be going forward for the future to exist. Makes no sense. It all relies on very contrived writing to work. The movie should have kept inversion to objects, that could have led to crazy action scenes. When applied to people it should have been fatal. It would have been cool if the protagonist used inverted bullets to pull off crazy shots or they used inverted ropes to do crazy movements.

@robrick9361

3 жыл бұрын

@@amiri7392 But that's the problem. The future is already the future and time hasn't been reversed so regardless of what the future did they couldn't change anything so their attempts are pointless. And if you do a temporal pincer movement to gain knowledge of future then you wouldn't need to do the pincer movement in the first place cause your future self would have already told you of the future, its a paradox.

@robrick9361

3 жыл бұрын

@@amiri7392 Yes but you would be doing the pincer movement already having the knowledge. You go forward to get the knowledge. You go back to tell yourself. Now that your past self has the knowledge, your past self no longer needs the pincer movement, but without doing the pincer movement you would never have the knowledge. PARADOX! Either everything is predestined or you can change the past. The movie tried to have it both ways cause the writers needed everything to be predestined so that they could write action sequences with some logic but if everything is predestined, where are the stakes? Contrived writing. They should have gone fantasy rather than scifi. That actually would have been totally original since plenty of spy thrillers are scifi but none ever have fantasy elements.

Welby coffeespill breaks this down perfectly. It makes sense. And works.

@BamaNick

2 жыл бұрын

This guy obviously didn’t do his research into the idea that Welby went over of objects World Line not ever to able be broken. The paradox actually self corrects as whatever needs to happen to continue an objects world line will happen. This means when a inverted bullet is fired it’s effect through the past is that it will forever of had been in that object, and whatever needed to happen in the past to get that object in that exact place at that time happened.

@MrSpecOps

2 жыл бұрын

@@BamaNick despite this, Neil's worldline is still somewhat paradoxical for two reasons. 1: if you watch on reverse time, from Neil's perspective, his actions don't make sense. He runs in, stands behind the door while TP fights the Russian, then CLOSES the door before taking a bullet to the head. 2: similar to TP getting stabbed and the injury appearing while he's in reverse time, the bullet would manifest in Neel before he gets shot, meaning he would never get to the door in the first place. Despite these two nuances I actually really enjoyed the film and have watched it half a dozen times already

@GamezGuru1

Жыл бұрын

@@MrSpecOps i think your fist point is mute, because the actions he takes are based on the information he got from TP and Ives before inverting for the final time. They imply he opened a door for them, and TP starts crying, so he may even know he dies. Armed with this information, he knows he needs to CLOSE the door behind TP. When he arrives, it's shut already, so he opens it, waits for Ives and TP to go back behind it, then shuts it before accidently getting shot. For the second point, just imagine the bullet was a through and through, and gets jammed in his helmet if it makes you sleep better... Personally I think the manifestation of injuries that then get healed is one of the few errors in the whole movie. First of all, it's not consistent - you mention TP's stab wound, which would just make way more sense if he starts bleeding AFTER he gets stabbed. Afterall, this is what happens with Kat when she is shot by inverted Sator - her injury remains AFTER she is shot.

“It’s annoying...it’s annoying!” This is the only conclusion I could come to while discussing this movie.

Not that I’m a fan of the movie but to answer your question the time travel inversion thing only functions if free will and agency don’t exist, the scientist who kind of implies that free will exists when Protagonist asked her about it either doesn’t know what she’s talking about or is lying to him. She doesn’t actually say that free will exists so I like to think that she just sort of implied it so that she could effectively lie to him without explicitly lying. In the example you gave about fighting your inverted future self, your inverted self is incapable of killing his past self because he can’t do anything he didn’t already do. So inverted you does whatever past you saw you do and it can’t be deviated from because free will and agency don’t exist in this universe. Past you could kill inverted future you and if they did they would see themselves un-killing a dead body and no matter what they did they would fail to kill inverted you in their personal future since it is your inverted selfs past because again free will and agency aren’t a thing. That is the only way any of this makes any sense and kind of explains why the scientist told Protagonist to not think about it because man it does not hold up to scrutiny. Just thinking about that inverted soldier who got un-exploded into that wall brings up so many problems, his body was in that wall two days earlier, a year earlier, his corpse has been in that wall for as long as that wall has existed, somebody built his corpse into that wall. All of that is also true for every inverted bullet, Tenets world is full of people building inverse bullets into walls and reverse prying them out/into bullet holes that they’ll be inverse fired out of in the worlds future which is the bullets past. Hope that helped somebody but again the scientists advice of just don’t think about it is definitely the best way to try and enjoy this film, not that I did but some people liked it so good for them.

@UserName-bs8eu

2 жыл бұрын

Free will can still exist in this universe. Both versions of the self do what they want to do, why would the inverted future self want to kill his past self? Their actions are determined, but this is still in line with free will in a compatibilist sense.

I don't think even Nolan understood what he was filming.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha @Sree he likes to push the boundaries of what we know and can imagine. He likes to toy around with abstract creative concepts and see what he can come up with. It's fascinating in many ways, but sometimes I think he can take it too far or become a bit bogged down in the concept, at the expense of story

The thing with Tenet is that in quantum mechanics, things called "Tachyons" might exist - these are particles traveling backwards in time. In special relativity we know that traveling faster than light also results into traveling backwards in time - so there are scientists today speculating what if those tachyons really exist - and if yes can they solve the paradoxes that arise in quantum mechanics? And they seem to do exactly that! So tachyons might actually exist and if discovered - that would mean that the world of tenet really exists in the quantum world!

Are you going to make a video explaining how all of the impossible super powers in all superhero movies are indeed impossible? ...

@vab120

3 жыл бұрын

Thing is : superhero movies aren’t serious, everyone assume it’s unreal and it’s cool. Nolan is super serious in his films, on that thin edge between fiction and « let me teach you something ». So Nolan deserves this kind of review once in a while to remind him he’s gone too far and too stupid.

In your scenario, what would happen is, at 3, the normal guy stays as dead, and the inverted guy can see the corpse of the normal guy. At 2, (if you watch it inverted one's perspective) the normal guy would seem like he rises from death while the inverted guy shoots the corpse. At 1, the normal guy is alive. Clearly, a dead person cannot reach point 2 without being alive. The inverted guy could be dead or alive at 1. Both scenarios are possible depending on the fight's outcome between 2 and 1. Nothing is paradoxical or inconsistent here if you follow the rule the movie presents. Sadly, most of the audience cannot even get through the surface of the film, but you'll find a masterpiece once you fully understand it.

Just subbed because this has got to be the best explanation of how I felt about Tenet’s time travel. Side note, do inverted people age normally when in inverted time? Had me thinking that if Neil was sent back to the past via inversion, he’d have to be living in real time during the back trip. Does he age up or down? Wouldn’t it make more sense for Neil to look decades older than the protagonist if he took a trip several years back in time? Idk. Thoughts?

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

Hey! Thanks for the sub and thanks for the investment! I've not spent much time reviewing comments to this video, but occasionally I will see some (like this) that make me want to make a second video. I've wondered the exact same things . . . . how does aging work, how does combustion work, how do they go years and years into the past? Do they simply cart back literally tons and tons of inverted oxygen? I also wondered why Neil seemed the age he did. I guess there is the theory that he is Kat's son . . . . I haven't thought about it much but if we project into the future I suppose he could invert when he's quite young and go back to meet the protagonist right around his age in the movie. It doesn't seem they would age normally. That seems one of the many inconsistencies. Many of the laws of physics are supposed to work perfectly backwards (supposedly all, in Tenet) but would that mean they literally get younger? Mostly it seems like Tenet is not actually REVERSING entropy, it seems like it's simply flipping it to move in the opposite direction. That's why inverted guns, muscles, gravity, everything still works the same. But that means they are trying to divorce entropy from time, which to my limited understanding of physics is basically impossible. They seem inextricably linked. Then of course you have the whole weird oxygen breathing thing, the wounds getting worse thing . . . . which doesn't seem to run very consistently with the rest of the laws going on.

A forward moving entropy object and or weapon in this movie will always move forward as its intended purpose, if a gun is normal and you shoot at an inverted person, the wound will still be going forward because the entropy of the weapon being shot is always going to go forward whether or not it is at inverted person or not. If the gun is inverted and you shoot a normal person from their perspective it seems to be have gone backward into them in back into the gun but the inverted person is from the future, therefore he was always going to shoot you, so from the inverted person's perspective he is moving forward as well as well that's his weapon is sentimental which way you want to spin it, like Neil says what's happened has happened.. because that guy in the opera house was always going to be shot by Neil just because it seemed it was backwards doesn't mean the wound itself doesn't cause any damage from the forward perspective it technically hasn't happened because it's in the past but from the guns perspective it's already happened, but it's based off Neil's initial commitment and choice to pull the trigger, there is a reason multiple realities are mentioned multiple times is because it's constantly switching based off your intent and commitment of choice. I don't know if you're familiar with the famous cat experiment within the box you put the poison in the box with the cat close the lid you essentially create two realities one where the cat is dead one where the cats are alive both simultaneously exist until you observe the cat. Once you observe the cat then all those two realities collapse into one. In the case of tenant you have future people acting on the past but the past is already happened so it was always meant to happen that way

@bond3161

3 ай бұрын

Uhhh... But theres not two realities. The cat either Ate or it didnt. The mere thinking of the two possibilities does not equate to actuality. There was only one reality.

What's happened has happened, which is an expression of faith in the mechanics of Christopher Nolan

blue and red guy meet and start fighting at 1, blue dies in 2, stays dead through 3 where red comes up. from red's perspective, red comes up, finds blue dead, at 2 un-kills blue (like taking a knife out of blue's body), then fights him to 1 where he meets him and they go separate was "before" (in blue's perspective) they meet and start fighting

One possibility is that we are seeing the net effect of numerous iterations just like what you are describing but done over maybe a billion revisions or something. I haven't really thought it all the way through.. straight out paradoxes could never occur no matter how many revisions, and what gets "computed" first the forward time or backward time, etc. My guess is even this method wouldn't work, and it's the only way to save the silly science part of this sci-fi movie.

The house that got blown up in both directions of time… so when was it intact???

@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017

Ай бұрын

Exactly.

I think its a great concept. Almost all the paradoxes have layers of argument that swap back and forth the more and more you think about it, which I find fun. It uses its complexity to baffle the audience evoking the emotions we all have felt when we do not understand the world. Harry Potter does this same thing by making concepts that fundamentally make 0 sense but have layers of complexity that make you feel as though you simply need to understand it better to grasp the concept. It reminds me of the first time I heard of relativity or when I was young learning about the rules of society. I do believe your final conclusion is right. I too think this type of time travel is fundamentally flawed. But no more or less than any other form of time travel. Part of the movie and the experience it offers is the bewilderment of the new world the main character finds himself in and how these new rules effect the free will of these characters. That was the whole point of the fight scene. He did not chose to fight himself. Because time was reversed both saw the other as an aggressor which was crazy when you realize it. Great movie.

Even if the paradoxes didn’t exist, you couldn’t use inversion to do anything or gain an advantage. You couldn’t extract information and use it later. You could only participate and witness events.

The movie explains your first point where they say that coming into contact with your forward-moving self causes 'annihilation.' It's written to avoid that paradox because a paradox would simply end the movie right there. It's not a perfect concept, I admit, but it's not like we have a basis for parallel timelines right?

There is one flaw in this video, that is that you assume that time is flowing and is being created as we go along it. The point of the movie is that time has already been prewritten, so in the protagonist scene where it would be paradoxical for the gun to be shot at the wall, it would simply never be fired at the wall. Look at time inversion itself how did the protagonist see his future self exiting the turntable, when he hasn‘t experienced it himself. This can only happen if all of time all events are „prewritten“. To the bullet in the wall scenario and how it got there, in physics the universe knows when it is being observed so, there are two possibilities, either the universe materialised it when no observer was around, or the bullet was there to begin with. This can be seen as when the protagonist arm gets stabbed before the plane fight, no observer to see the wound, so the wound just materialised, and only the after effect can be seen.

@leonbigio5499

2 жыл бұрын

To the grandfather paradox, what would actually happen in the scenario given, is either the event just can’t happen, or on killing of the inverted protagonist you are going to follow the footsteps of the inverted protagonist until you(being inverted) gets killed by your „normal“ self

At ~4:20 you mention the inverted guy taking cover in rubble when it unexplodes. From the inverted guy's point of view, this will likely kill him. The implosion near him pulls shrapnel from around the ground through his body, perhaps breaking him into pieces or pulverising him with the force. Yes, his gibblets (or some of them, the winds of entropy probably gradually revert some of his giblets after a while) probably were there the entire time, embedded inside the bricks or buried in the dirt. When those bricks were made in the factory, it was probably tiny pieces of decomposed flesh, or fragments of bone, because from their point of view, they decay the further into the past you go. From the point of view of the guy shooting the rocket, yeah his first encounter with the victim is the cloud of red mist, that reforms as his rocket fires towards him. The rapidly reassembling body of that guy then walks away and appears to flee the rocket (however we know he is doomed to be hit by its implosion in the past). This does mean that to kill inverted people, you need to fire weapons at corpses, because for your attack to have killed them, your killing blow is the first blow you make, and from your perspective you bring them to life. So why would you want to attack near corpses in the hopes of hitting the inverted people? Aren't you reviving them? No, you're killing them. If you didn't make a habit of firing at where nearby enemy corpses could have been standing, then you'd miss them with your shots! And if you miss them, they get to (have already) gone further back into the past to contribute to the battle.

@BarbarossaSC2

2 жыл бұрын

i dont know why this made me laugh so hard. it's like you realize how ridiculous the premise becomes.

i think the problem is that you’re overthinking it and creating “what if” scenarios when Tenet’s universe is based off one timeline where whatever happens happened which means whatever happens was determined already since the past present and future are one. what if scenarios cannot be brought in to critique the film.

@robertolukas3minutos

9 ай бұрын

He literally gave examples that are in the movie

U gotta start looking at the world differently, not just at the movie , THE WORLD.

I absolutely love your review, and I absolutely love the movie. Also, you made me laugh with your comments about springing people back to life. but the way I see this movie is that you can cause the effects and affect the cause in both directions of time and any changes that you make, any effect you cause and the causes that you change are true. Meaning that traveling backwards in time you change the fabric of the universe and its existence but you still keep the memory of it because your memory travels backwards to that point in universe that is still existent. Meaning the time is just a perception of universes existence or its movement. So if you move in a certain direction from one spot to another, it is possible to cause effects in both locations, even if the original location gets destroyed and altered by someone else's action. Let me give an example, you travel back in time and you kill your grandfather, you still exist because you also brought all the atoms that make up your body and your memories with you from a different spot in the universe just backwards in time. This movie doesn't jump through time, it just moves through time. So even your grandfather is dead, you are still alive because you don't need to be born because you were already born, all the atoms and all your experiences already happen, you just continue your journey from this point in space and time and existence.

Yeah, it made no sense to me. Bullets in concrete and glass? If shot by an inverted gun, wouldn't the bullets remain in the glass all the way to its manufacture? And where does the bullet go when the glass was just sand? And wouldn't the glass manufacturers notice a bunch of bullets embedded in the glass that they were selling to the airport vault?

You can do a much simpler thought experiment. Let's say I watch the lottery numbers, then write them down and then inverse. Next, I have to give the paper to my past self, which means I had the lottery numbers all along. But to get the numbers, I HAVE to go back in time after the lottery, which means I can never enjoy my millions. Or do I get cloned when time inversion starts, which makes me stuck in a time loop and my clone happy with his millions? But why should I do this? It's so confusing.

it doesn't make sense even in the most simplest way because if they explain that inverted people cannot interact normally with mediums when in time flowing forward they shouldn't even be able to see because the medium of light would not be able to be perceived by the inverted people because that light would flow normally in time and the inverted person wouldn't be able to process that since they also explained that oxygen cannot be processed by an inverted person since it would kill them, same with sound and everything else .. this movie requires you to suspend your disbelief heavily to work

Inception and the matrix (Both concept movies) do a much better job creating a logical concept, and they both do a infinite better job explaining said concept to the audience. Inception does it through telling us, the matrix does it through showing us, either way they get the job done. Christopher Nolan tries to explain the concepts to us, but as he realizes that it is not logical and contradicts itself he tells us “ don’t try to think about it, feel it.” Which already in and of it’s self is pretty lazy and in someways cheating. But then he continues for the rest the movie trying to explain to us how it works. You can’t have both.

@sajjadhossain5277

Жыл бұрын

You realize that inception is also made by Nolan?

@bossisin2510

Жыл бұрын

@@sajjadhossain5277 lmao yes? So?

The best way that I can interpret things is that the present and the future are always happening at the same time. It's not like there was ever a "first time" that "forward time" events happened, and the future has never happened before. In the words of Neil (not sure the exact quote), what's happened will happen, has happened, and always will happen." Take the reverse car chase on the freeway. This is the first time that the Forward Protagonist has experienced this, but Sator is inverted, coming from a future that clearly already exists. The future exists at the same time as the Forward Protagonist's forward perspective. From the forward perspective, it's hard to think of how things could "reassemble" or "unbreak" but from an inverted perspective, which would cause the "break" it totally makes sense. Even Ives says at the end of the movie to the Protagonist "There is no first wave. Red team and blue team operate simultaneously. Don't get on the chopper if you can't stop thinking in linear terms." I too struggle with a lot of these concepts however.

@JackdotC

6 ай бұрын

Ok thing about blue team and red team tho, they can't operate at the same time. All of the soldiers were inverted back to that day right? They touch down as the explosion happens. But the other team is reverted after the battle has already happened in reverse in order to go to the past to before the fight happened and play it through in forwards time. If the explosion was at half past and they fought backwards for 30 mins and then leave on the hour that means the forwards team was also inverted the whole time to sit around for half an hour at least plus extra time in order to be reverted before the battle begins. So blue did get there first, and completed the battle whilst forwards team was still inverted. They were the first wave. The forwards team are all 30+ mins older than backwards team before the battle even begins

The way i think of this (And my favourite way of thinking of time travel) is that in the moment u travel to the past you will allways do the same, and if you travel with the intent of doing something it breaks unless something happens (like in this movie and the protagonist doing it all even though he already did it) so in the fight the inverted person couldnt kill the normal person cause he never did, cause if he did it he couldnt have been there to fight, and because it is his past is engraved in history (the time travel too)

How can inverted people even see, unless the photons hitting their eyes were inverted as well? The same goes for inverted objects being visible to non-inverted people.

Hi, I am bit of a Tenet enthusiasts and I whatch videos praising and criticising them alike, I liked your video, I hope you allow me to reflect on your line of thoughts thorugh your examples to show a different point how to observe inverted events - summons in his mind , that is not what is happening, he drops the bullet, in a reverse motion, from our perspective the inverted object is 'summoned' because it's entropy runs backwards, this is well established in the movie in the sentence: 'The bullet would not have moved if you hadn't put your hand above it' 'Cause things to occur without causality'- this is also incorrect, as also explained above, to our experience (forward time) the cause seemingly is followed by the effect, due to the inverted entropy of given interacted obejct / person.. but there is always a cause! inverted bullet continuity: how the movie explains it the object itself is continous, and in the wall in our past yes, it's effect (bullethole) however is fixed over some time as it is flowing aginst the dominant entropy of the world, thus before it is 'unshot' the bullet damage materializes then gets unshot. This is also highlighted in the movie with the Protagonist's arm injury.. it starts unhealing during the 1 week inverted time in the shipping container to Oslo, and gets more serious until the time of himself getting stabbed by his past self. The problem with your explanation of paradox is you do not correctly follow the entrophy, and run into a self created paradox, despite the movie establishing these, The objects/ people inverted or not have a constant existence in their own timeline, the cause and effect casuality rule also applied, but we always have to apply this in the directon the person/object is currently moving in time in case of the 'walled in solider at Stalk 12 battle, he or she did not got born into the wall, that is absurd, Rather we saw it from our perspective ( forward time ) , from the solider's perspective, they wer standing in an explotion on the wall, ( caused by a for them future explotion ) but since the inverted person's perspective is backwards for forward time events ( normal rocket hitting the wall) they could not anticipate the explosion in time and got inverted hit by it, dying by getting smashed by a seemingly reconstructing wall. You tend to misinterprit the events 'Shown to us' by fixating from the entropy it was shown, the movie is brilliant, because there are 3 scenes where we can see both forward time and inverted time perspectives, what eventually helps us understand/ visualize how all this works. the inverted guy killed by normal guy - similar situation as the end scene of the movie: Inverted Neil takes a bullet for Protagonist, but since he is inverted, from our forward perspective he becomes unshot, then opens the gate, yes! From inverted Niel's perspective he Closes! the door then stands in front of Volkov's gun to take his shot and sacrafices himself and remains dead in his future, which is everyone else's past... But of course this is the end of his life ( it just happens it happend in a point of a timeline, that is before the present, meaning after his death he does exists ( as he is talking with Ives and protagonist after saving them with the jeep) hard to get your head around it but this is how inversion works, and it is obeying the rules of casuality. FUN! Finally again, Neil inverted could not have killed Goon = Volkov, because if he did from forward time perspective Volkov would have died before the algorithm was 'succesfully buried by the explotion making future Sator on the yacht on a line phone line aware that his plan was not succesful. That is why Neil only could sacrafice himself by taking the bullet, be also aware that he did not Open the door, ( it looks like from Protagonist and Ives perspective) he Closed it! from inverted pespective also to ensure enough time passes so that Sator on the phone thinks his plan worked and he can proceed to kill himself... its really brilliant if you think about it, and how aware inverted Niel had to be to think as such as an inverted person! Try to wrap your head around entropy flow perspectives, as you always get into paradoxes with your explanation as you always view events from forward perspective, and then claim casuality is broken, but it is not! Hope some of my explanations help and you can enjoy this brilliant movie from another point of view ;) Whatch some (not my) videos where this is very well explained with visuals (both for objects, effects, non lethal, and mortal wounds, and object continuity) kzread.info/dash/bejne/p3WblMWvgpy1p6g.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIqYpK6jfrWbhLg.html - objects kzread.info/dash/bejne/g6phxKyCk73LksY.html - death/injuries

I said this from the get go. The movie wasn't complicated, just stupid... I understood the entire plot/concept. But it's stupid because it's a literal paradox. You can't have cause/effect of reverse time-flow interacting.. interaction is itself is a complete and utter paradox no matter how you dress it up.

If you are moving bsckwards in time, on a planet moving forwards in time - won't you fly off into space?

"Didn't find it compelling". *Dedicates a youtube video to questions about plot interpretations. You are not using the "grandfather paradox" correctly. The questions like "they will never meet and fight?" make zero sense because they DID meet and fight as you described it. When you ask "can something happen," the answer is always yes, but the past and present would change accordingly. Your use of "fail to explain" is also strange. The questions are deliberately not answered to allow for interpretation, like the spinning top in Inception. It's what will make the movie discussed for years.

what if the TP decided after inverting to go to the movies instead the car chase, but the car chase already happened. it seems hes bound to have to go on the car chase, but that takes away agency

You switched colors for inverted and normal guys. I literally cannot follow now lol.

I had this problem when i mistakenly thought he was still inverted when he knocks out an ambulance driver at the airport. My mind just broke trying to figure out the logistics of that. But he wasn't inverted. However the idea still fucks with me

4:48 you can't kill an inverted person . And also you can't even push a inverted dice lying on a table you can only pull it because then only from inverted dice's perspective you would have pushed it. and you can apply the same concept to your thought experiment.

Now, there are two (minor) paradoxes in the movie though. 1. The bullet lodged in the glass during the interrogation scene had blood on it, despite Kat being intact when he first enter the chamber, this is a mistake, the bullet should have blood on it only while this version of Kat is wounded, so during Sator's perspective of the blue room events he is the one who shoots Kat, but in fact from his perspective Kat is inverted, so he heals her when he shoots her, the bullet should therefore have no blood on it when it enters the glass, the bullet SHOULD have had blood on it while it was in Sator's gun, this is the real paradox. 2. The BMW's mirror being broken since it is healed back when the inverted Audi slams into it, the question everyone of course is asking themselves is: does this broken mirror stay broken all the way into the past? Did the BMW always have a broken mirror ever since it was produced in the factory? How did this get past quality control? Of course, these small paradoxes aren't answered, but they are small enought o not really matter within the scope of the movie.

@joebender9052

3 жыл бұрын

1. I couldn't make sense of Kat getting shot with an inverted bullet, since it seems like that would heal her, but I guess it is related to inverted and normal things touching being really bad. 2. This is like the bullet holes in the glass in the freeport fight scene. You can see them slowly forming out of nothing, so I think they fade away as they move into the past. So if you looked at the BMW mirror as they were approaching the time it gets hit, it would look like it was becoming more and more broken right until it gets fixed. My real question is how Neil doesn't have a bullet hole slowly forming in his head as he goes backwards towards the point where he gets shot. The protagonist has the knife wound in his bicep forming from nothing as he goes backwards towards the point where he gets stabbed, after which the wound goes away I think. So shouldn't a hole start forming in Neal's head as he approaches the moment where he gets shot?

@vumazwesiziba4103

3 жыл бұрын

answering 2. Broken mirror breaks minutes/hour before the incident to unbreak it happens. This is shown throughout the film. Remember when the protagonist first entered the airport we saw a bullet hole in the glass forming a crack. There is also another clear incident when the protagonist started bleeding from nowhere minutes before fighting his past self.

@reisaki18

3 жыл бұрын

there is more to that like the biggest mistake is when kat goes secretly in the yacht while her past self going back then dive off. Question, is she invented? or she's in the past? or present? or maybe future? why were seeing two kat on the same timeline? just compare it with the protagonist when he goes back in time seeing himself handing off the orange case to sator, we all know he is inverted. But on kat's pov she's not. And it's more confusing when sator talking to the protagonist like in the present timeline while in the past before the present kat killed him.

@sidewaysfcs0718

2 жыл бұрын

@@joebender9052 To answer the Neil problem, the bullet that kills Neil actually comes from the wall, goes through his head, and goes into Volkov's gun (from Neil's perspective). From Volkov's perspective, he attempts to shoot the Protagonist, but a weird dead body rises up, gets "healed" by his bullet, and the bullet gets lodged into a wall.

Love the way you pointed all this out. Tenet, while an excellently made movie, was just not a fun movie to watch. All it has is its tricks, and once you get your head around those and understand they are mostly bullshit you understand this is not a good Christopher Nolan movie.

It´s not a time travel movie, its a multiverse theme. The paradox of the man in the wall exists in other reality, but showing the time flow of other reality and other universe is impossible, so you just follow the unique POV of the protagonist as me messes up reality and creates different multiverses. I try to think like the Butterfly effect rahter than a Back to the future movie

Totally! Took a look at 1:33:53, it's hard to understand why the hell Sator would throw back the case as if he was not to get the case.

@officialfzcphrxx5895

3 жыл бұрын

he already know protagonists lying so he throwing back a case

@alsa4real

3 жыл бұрын

his forward goon threw the case

Watched it last night. Right at the beginning, I got mindstuck with how did the bullet got stuck in the wall (the target). Tracing back the time path of the bullet before protagonist unstuck it from the wall by unshooting the gun at it. I could not make sens of this, I could not enjoy the movie and I slept very badly trying to figure where was the bullet before it get stuck in the wall from the point of view of the wall. I don't get it if if you can explain to me the timeline of the wall and the timeline of the bullet before and after the scene, I'd like that. But right now, for me, this put the whole thing to the bin. Focus on that instance with me please. Listen, at some point the shooting range in the laboratory gets build and they put a lil wall target there to shoot at and ... The bullet is in the target somehow. That's it. It doesn't go further (or before depending the point pf view) than that. The futur of the bullet is to be shot in the target. But its futur doesn't end there, It can't, no futur of anything never ends; atoms are recycled into something else. Backward atoms merge with forward atoms to create new forward molecules?? People discuss the path of counsious objects and it is hard, but at least you can go somewhere with some form of explanation. Ianimated objects are doomed to nothing. There is just no way to reconcile the past of the target with the futur of the bullet. Please prove me wrong

There is no cause to the effect of the bullets it’s existence there is literally a visual and physical response that a human is capable of noticing only for it to make sense within the laws of physics. You can’t assume the counterparts are the same or different because they follow different laws themselves the moment one is inverted. A bullet will stay inverted until it is inverted again meaning the moment it is inverted for a bullet it is instantly in every point of the past because it can’t do anything on its own. However when a person is inverted they are capable of breathing their own air and using their own body normally because everything is functioning in a complete separate law than normal making it completely possible to not have materialistic issues.

I think you're completely missing the point. Saying it's impossible is no different then saying anything we think of as impossible, is impossible. So comparing it as worse then other time travel movies makes no sense, if anything this movie handles time travel better then any other movie before it. Just because you can't wrap your head around it as easily as every other time travel movies you've seen, doesn't mean it's done a worse take then other time travel movies before it. Every other time travel movie to date has seemed just as, if not far more impossible then Tenet was. Tenet wraps everything up in a neat package at the end - unlike many other time travel movies - no matter how impossible it seems. So basically every time you feel like something doesn't make sense because you're imagining how it could have played out differently, the answer is - the outcome simply would have turned out differently in the movie so that everything inverted that interacted with something that wasn't inverted - would have happened in a different way to fit whatever scenario you're imagining. So every scenario you're picturing with Neil's death scene, had it happened in those ways, Neil's body simply wouldn't have ever been there dead in the first place when they arrived and the reverse death never happens. If you can get your hands on a copy of the movie that you can watch and rewind at will when something seems confusing, and try to get the full picture of how everything plays out, you'll see that everything is consistent. As valid as the questions about the people interacting with the inverted objects while the protagonist is training are - the easiest way to explain things being conveniently in place for him are open to interpretation, and might seem far fetched - but since we know the protagonists future self will be spending a lot of time setting up his past from his future, we can insert any number of explanations for that. Since we know he will be spending a number of years with Neil as Neil Travels from his past to his future death in the present, it makes sense that they would just leave those details to imagination. The way you have to picture Neil's life is like this: Neil's dead body has slowly been coming together, making it's way to the spot where he died since the begging of time - assuming no one decided to intercept his dead body and turn it forward - if we can suspend our disbelief for the movie then the atoms that make up Neil will slowly come together with their reversed entropy until his dead body is eventually at the spot where he's shot in reverse, comes to life and picks the lock. The only other possibility for how his dead body made its way there would be if the Tenet team interfered with the past - making sure his dead body ends up in that spot - in the event that something else in the past could have interfered with his body ending up there. It's another detail that makes sense to leave open to interpretation. Finding out the movies finale is just the beginning of one big temporal pincer for the protagonist is a brilliant way to end it and tie everything together. One way or another Neil's dead body will end up in that spot, regardless of how we want to imagine it got there. Ironically enough, time is a one way street in this movie - inverted or not - things always played out that way. Now Neil has revived and picked the lock. Thinking forward in time, Neil has weaved himself back and forth so many times that his past self will continue on helping them in all the ways we've seen throughout the movie and so on. Now the two Neil's we see in the cave at the end - one running backwards and one forwards - running to the machine, enter the turnstile and he disappears into the past forever, from the perspective of anyone following his timeline. From Neil's perspective he enters the machine for the last time, becomes inverted to pick the lock, is shot in the back by a reverse bullet, killing him, and he experiences death exactly the same way as every other person experiences death. R.i.p Neil. Had Neil survived and made it back to normal time, then we would've had a scenario with three Neil's that played out like it did when they entered the turnstile after the car chase and he'd need to exit a turnstile somewhere in the past, like they did at the museum. Picturing it in forward time, had Neil survived, then at the exact moment 2 Neil's would have seemed to appear out of nowhere from a turnstile somewhere before he picked the lock, the third Neal is simultaneously making his way to the turnstile in the cave. Just like when the 2 protagonists seemed to appear out of nowhere in the first museum scene, the Neil who appears and exits the turnstile in forward time will be his future self, while his present and inverted self make their way to the turnstile in the cave. On the way to the turnstile in the cave, inverted Neil picks the lock, then inverted Neal and present Neal enter the turnstile and disappear into the past leaving future Neal by himself and closing the loop.

Great analysis man! I just re-watched this the other day and was confused as hell, (just like the first time i saw it). On top of all the things you point out here, i'd like to know how the fuck are people capable of "using their mind" to do things in the first place? For instance - the protagonist was able to use his mind to summon the inverted bullet into his hand? How the hell was he able to do that - is he like a time wizard or some shit lol ? They never effin explain the core/baseline concept underpinning the entire time-travel magic system,

Great video! Neil getting shot still makes no sense. Where did the bullet come from? It would have been traveling back IN TO the gun as Neil stepped in front of it. It would have to have been in his head the entire time he ran back in or it would have been coming from BEHIND his head where it would have been in the Protagonist's head. It makes no sense. And - If Neil is traveling backwards through time to unlock the gate and let the Protagonist through, that means the door SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNLOCKED the entire time the Protagonist was standing there until Neil got there. Tenet is a masterclass in how to hide your story's flaws with editing and omissions.

@reisaki18

3 жыл бұрын

the biggest mistake is when kat goes secretly in the yacht while her past self going back then dive off. Question, is she invented? or she's in the past? or present? or maybe future? why were seeing two kat on the same timeline? just compare it with the protagonist when he goes back in time seeing himself handing off the orange case to sator, we all know he is inverted. But on kat's pov she's not. And it's more confusing when sator talking to the protagonist like in the present timeline while in the past before the present kat killed him.

@hieudang1789

2 жыл бұрын

So normal death happens like this: a bullet comes out of a gun into a person then hit the wall. Inverted death in the inverted person perspective happens like this: bullet comes out of wall, hit the person, back to the gun. But in the guy shooting it happens like this: bullet comes out of gun, but instead of creating a wound, it make the wound disappear, then hit the wall. Basically the bullet hit the person on the way from the wall back to the gun according to the backward timeline. Our forward past is the inverted people future and vice versa. So the wound is always in his head according to OUR past, but in THEIR future. In OUR future, they was always dead then came back to life. But that is their PAST, so they was always alive, then became dead.

@tylerjanesprime

2 жыл бұрын

@@hieudang1789 But you're describing two different scenarios to make it work. 1 - inverted death in the inverted person perspective happens like this: bullet comes out of wall, hit the person (presumably killing them), back to the gun. 2 - for person shooting the gun: bullet comes out of the gun but instead of creating a wound it makes a wound disappear... Right there. That's where it breaks down. The first half of your sentence predicates the behavior of a non-inverted bullet being from from a non-inverted gun but the rest of the sentence switches and describes the situation as if it is an INVERTED bullet, as only an inverted bullet could "cause" the "disappearance" of a wound. If a non-inverted person shoots a non-inverted bullet moving FORWARD in time anything it hits will become damaged thereafter by the bullet, regardless of time direction meaning the inverted person would now be shot. This is why it is a paradox and doesn't work. The inverted person can not both be dead the entire before the shooter shot him and after.

@hieudang1789

2 жыл бұрын

@@tylerjanesprime No, what I wrote is the same event but looking from different PERSPECTIVE. 1 is from the perspective of the inverted guy who being shot. 2 is from the perspective of the forward person with forward bullet. If from one perspective you are being shot, then in the other perspective, you are unshot. The only thing confusing here is that people can only be shot in their own timeline. Because if they are being shot from the backward timeline, that means they are dead in their past, which is impossible. When a forward object interacts with an inverted one, the effect it leave on that inverted object is reversed compared to when it interacts with another forward object. The movie didn't explain this rule but kind of let the viewer understand on their own. In every time travel movie, there are always some sort of self-consistence rule. Like you cannot kill your grandfather in the past before you were born, likewise you can only be shot from your own timeline. In the shooting scenario, in perspective 1, the forward bullet is inverted (compared to the inverted guy) , shot the guy from behind, enter the front of the victim killing them, travel back to the gun chamber. In perspective 2, forward bullet is indeed forward, because it's in its own perspective now, travel from gun to wound, undo it. Little reminder: perspective 1 - backward timeline, perspective 2 - forward timeline. Just read it carefully and it'll become clear.

@tylerjanesprime

2 жыл бұрын

@@hieudang1789 But it's not the same as just rewinding a tape. If the not-yet-shot inverted guy is moving "forward" through his timeline and a bullet (inverted to him) flies out of the wall and goes through his head and back in to the gun, the splatter would be back at the shooter. That can't be because the shooter is shooting a bullet forward in HIS timeline and sees the bullet go through the inverted guy's head and lodge in the wall behind him, meaning the splatter would be away from the shooter. It can not be both. On the other hand, if the inverted guy is moving "forward" through his timeline and a bullet (inverted to him) flies out of the wall and goes through his head and back in to the gun and the splatter goes back in to the wall, like the shooter would see, then his brains should have been all over the wall the whole time he was going "backwards", but obviously they are not, because he is alive for that time. It can not be both. Again, it's different scenarios. When you describe the wound disappearing to the shooter you're talking about an inverted bullet (from the shooter's perspective), it would have to be in order for the wound to "disappear". When you describe the inverted guy's perspective you are talking about a non-inverted bullet (from the shooter's perspective), it would have to be because the inverted guy isn't dead until the bullet flies BACK OUT OF THE WALL. Entropy can not work both ways through time in the same space. This is a fundamental tenet (sorry) of thermodynamics. And logic. And cause and effect. This is why I say the movie is a masterclass in hiding essential flaws in a story. They want you to think it's just like rewinding a VHS tape.

Good video, Good point, my counter argument 2 years too late is that a paradox cannot happen and the event of the movie played out that way because a paradox is impossible.

@JesseTate

Жыл бұрын

Good point. I guess you reveal part of my frustration that I never articulated fully: if we are in a deterministic universe, then human psychology becomes a part of that deterministic framework. Decisions we make have to be sensible (inevitable) down to the neurochemical level. To avoid paradox, we shouldn't rely on humans 'deciding' things that simply make no sense. We need to explain how everyone acts sensibly YET STILL the universe avoids paradox. In the case of this movie I think it's simply impossible, because the movie is asking us to believe too many bizarre, coincidental, counterintuitive, indeed too many impossible things. Not sure if that makes sense

My brain was telling me the logic of this movie made absolutely no sense but i couldnt put the reasons into words. Tha k u for this it is nearly flawless in the thought construct! 🔥🔥

Wow, there are so many high IQ comments in this comment section, which amount to very little when they don't use proper grammar. Honestly, most of the people defending this movie either don't understand the concepts themselves and are being told what to believe by others they watch on the internet, or people who think they understand the concepts and want to show off how "smart" they are. I won't lie, many of the action sequences and cinematography are fantastic. The pacing, story and logic however...

@exilius333

3 жыл бұрын

Grammar only subtracts ifvyou let it. Many people use various devices with various limitations in typing including auto correct and time constraints. Grammar means less so long as you grasp the meaning of their messages. Are you trying to show how smart you are by focusing on the grammar? Are you assuming and projecting into others your own inherent behavior?

My answer to how a bullet can end up in a wall without the person shooting it being inverted. The bullet and the person are capable of interaction because regardless the normal version of entropy and the inverted one will co exist and neither will dominate because it is not the exact same object in question. Unless the bullet is coming In contact with itself before it was inverted which is impossible there is no reason to expect a different reaction than what it can do. That’s why when tenet fought himself the holes in the glass already existed. They always would because the bullet not implemented itself into something it could physically change normally like when somebody is shot however just touching such an object wouldn’t create a similar reaction because touching an object isn’t the same as changing it. Changing a location in space or moving such a thing is not the same as the functions of its entropy. The inanimate object is blatantly going backwards and functioning as it’s intended within its own laws of entropy so if somebody else was inverted it would be doing exactly what it was supposed to creating no reason for you to think it’s impossible however you don’t understand that because you can’t fathom inverted entropy and that’s why you don’t understand the movie.

Rewatched this recently and just went down the YT rabbit hole. I think the movie only makes sense when you believe in the idea of fate. Not action and consequence… sort of like the idea “illusion of choice”. Anyhow, it’s a movie 😂 Love your passion and commitment, thanks for the video. Keep up the great work of sharing your views.

@JesseTate

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the encouragement! I really appreciate it and I will indeed continue to pursue the development and sharing of my views. It's been a couple years since I did this video, and I haven't given the movie much thought but I have been devoting a lot of time to philosophy, and (hopefully) rational thinking in general. I'm thinking about coming back to this and doing a Part II in which I outline my thoughts a bit further. Short version: even accepting fate . . . . how does the plot cohere? The film just seems to assert ultimate causality, and from there proceed to do a ton of things that provide fantastic shots or 'wow' moments, but actually make very little sense. If we are fated to choose things, it should be in the context of the laws of physics which govern our universe. That means not only guns should fire, cars should drive, and so on . . . . it also means psychology, neurons firing, sensible decisions, believable human activity. Basically if things are predetermined, that should include sensible actions SEEMING sensible, and not the ignoring of all possible choices which might lead to paradox. Anyway idk . . . . I might return to this, might not. I appreciate the view and the support! Glad you enjoyed

@calvinfwong

Жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate thanks for taking the time to respond Jesse. I truly appreciate the openness for dialogue and thirst for intellectual discourse. I definitely agree more with what you’re saying than otherwise. I believe my only glint of curiosity is formed around my ongoing discovery of the limitations of science. One definition is that “Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.” Meaning that as we learn more or we collect more evidence, our understand can evolve. Newtonian Gravity would be a one such example. Another really cool one i came across is: how do you explain to a worm what it is like to see when it has no eyes, or even the ability to speak? If we assume we are the most intelligent beings in the universe (which cannot be proven either way) then there is a chance, however small that we are not able to comprehend something, beyond our senses or intellect. I think it’s important to note that I’ve been on team science my whole life and still am. I did coincidentally watch this video earlier today which you might enjoy just pondering about. kzread.info/dash/bejne/YmSlmdadj7uWc6Q.html but basically, it’s the idea that without imagination, we cannot break barriers. “Imagination is more important than knowledge” - Albert Einstein Anyhow, I’m just writing because i want to get better at expressing my thoughts (still very poor at it haha) I look forward to more videos from you. Cheers!

The problem with this also appears in almost every single time travel movie. You simply cannot create a way to delete all inconsistency and paradox when it comes to time travel. All you can really do is avoiding it. Basically they do it by apply something called Novikov self-consistency principle. Which states time travel can only exist in a way that doesn't introduce paradox. That way you can never kill your grandfather, because you're already exist. Forward person and inverted person cannot kill each other in their respective forward direction, only can do so in their backward respective direction. Because killing the other in your future means killing them in their past, which is impossible unless the order is reversed like Neil in the end of the movie.

@khoile9807

2 жыл бұрын

So don't make the time travel movies that leaves up holes to such paradox. Predestination is a movie dealt with the paradox problem quite nicely. The point of the movie is paradox relating to time travel. It's the paradox regarding human intelligence, somehow these characters already know the possibilities but they chose to engage in the dumbest way possible. An explosion in reverse meaning that you can be hit by the debris flying backward, which will make it impossible to avoid considering not knowing which debris belong to which part.

Didn't Nasa discover some place where time moves backwards a while ago?

i agree with you and i think nolan was high on drug while backwinding his amature video tapes, and he was like wtf everything i shot moves backwards??? Then when he woke up next day he was like that stupid shit i thought yesterday while i was high is a great movie idea.......10 years later he made TENET

This can all be solved by saying that only one timeline can exist and any timeline that's past can not self reproduce its future will collapse. I think that's what they were going for but they did not do a good job of explaining it at all. However, the mechanics of inversion don't make sense as the forward timeline defines the physics but even objects that are not inverted act in a way that they are inverted for example the car driving in reverse or even an inverted person's body.

Just think of the one gun someone sends back in time and the person meant to find it in the past misses it. so this gun is now in the ground traveling back in time just waiting for a cave man to find it...LOL

@nadarith1044

2 жыл бұрын

Nope, universal entropy still goes forward and prevents the propagation of inverted objects too far into the past, that's the whole point of the movie and why the device that can reverse universal entropy is being fought over in the first place

Your assuming causality and causality is feature of linear time which is not a feature of tenet. Technically speaking in tenet time is not linear in the way its portrayed. The potrayal has a seemingly linear passage of time is based in how we experience it backward or forward. However it's impossible to assume this version of the idea of time travel having assumed that time progess one moment after the other, moving forward or backward. Time in tenet is an illusion of experience, it just is, and all moments are happening all at once, all moments of time exist simultaneously always and forever having everything predetermined.

@markarmage3776

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's not the problem with it. If such phenomenonexists, where time are happening all at once, than the conscious of the characters experiencing it must make sense. If a guy knows he's trapped in a box, he's going to try to escape the box, that's human psychology. Characters in Tenet knows they're trapped, but they act in a dumb way, that's the problem.

Wherever the bullet was last moved is where it will stay. You can assume it was always there because it obviously can’t move itself. It’s not like when a person dies in negative entropy because when a person dies in negative entropy they are stuck there and can’t be tampered with.

100% agree......I liked the movie, but not really. Not as much as other time travel movies....there are constant paradoxes happening all the time that would make cause and effect in so many instances impossible. If I'm wrong, and there is an actual explanation out there that makes sense.....I'd love to hear it:)

This is the best explanation for this movie that I've seen: pbs.twimg.com/media/EqHYi2JXIAEAM4U?format=jpg&name=900x900 (credit to: twitter.com/KetanJ0)

why do you need fast internet to edit screenshots? And don't try to understand, feel it 🙂

This might be a stretch but frankly I think this movie was presenting a new age “Alan watts”esq spiritual framing of reality. The movie plays out the “one electron” theory which states that every electron is the same electron, just looping back and forth through time to where there are near infinite copies of the same electron (and it’s a positron while moving backwards). To me that sounds oddly familiar to the Buddhist/gnostic idea that each and every person is actually just one entity being reincarnated billions of times, because everyone is essentially nothing, leaving you with the conclusion that everyone is god - they just haven’t realized it yet. If you remember during the locked door scene Sator talks about how his lack of faith in anything makes him “a god of sorts”. The characters in the movie are also acting out a script created by someone in the future - another god of sorts. Priya tells the protagonist he’s one of many protagonists. I think once you think of it in this light, the theme of the movie makes sense (and is not that mystifying anymore). Also if you look at the Sator square translation with this in mind you can see how it relates. “Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas”. - farmer arepo has the wheel for operation I think it’s a statement about a deity and the wheel is the wheel of time. Also I’m not sure, but I think you could roughly translate it as sower arepo believes he operates the wheel. Which would line up closer to the characters in the movie.

13 brains melted watching this video. Good job btw

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

Haha thanks Kelmorian! Glad for the support

Absolutely a forward moving person cannot unfire a reverse moving bullet. This is what happened at the beginning with the Protagonist and the Female Scientist.

4:46 No problem, you just did inverted colors :)

The inverted guy couldn't have killed the normal guy because if so then there is no inverted guy, hence it is impossible for the inverted guy to even WANT to kill the normal guy. What's happened happened. And if you were to talk about killing a DIFFERENT guy, then yes at the point of killing, the inverted guy would see that DIFFERENT guy goes back alive. But he couldn't have killed the different guy twice back in the past because what's happened happened. You didn't get the main point.

How would an inverted person even function at all? I would figure if one walked into an inverter, they would walk out backwards they way they came in, and then proceed to backtrack their entire existence until they are unborn. Obviously this would be difficult with the rest of the world still moving forward, not to mention the fact that one's brain would be working backwards. Also, wouldn't an inverted person need to inhale CO2?

@louisaparker

2 жыл бұрын

The inverted person does not just backtrack his own life. The inverted person has free will to do whatever he wants. But everything he does, looks very weird to normal people.

Regarding your questions about inverted guy killing normal guy, Nolan is tryna invoke the block universe theory of timelines, but even if you accept that theory as absolutely true, the way Nolan tries to use it doesn't work at all. Just as an example, block universe doesn't explain where the inverted bullet and bullet hole in the opera house came from. Block universe theory could literally be completely true and it still wouldn't support Nolan's contrivances.

I understand your confusion. When the goon shoots Neil dead body : Based on Goon's timeline the bullet should be in normal timeflow. But based on Neil's timeline, the bullet should be inverted, because after being 'shoot', Neil runs to the gate.

Time is neither an _object_ nor _medium_ (allowing for cause & effect) unlike it's taught. Such is the _fundamental_ problem with interpretations of time, in science or fiction...

This is why no-one understood the film yet I still enjoyed it!

Well Nolan did say this is mostly fictional. The only thing sci-fi is the word "entropy". Not in how it's explained. Because if inverted people existed, "light" should come out of their eyes. And that's like just seeing light for the inverted person. That's ridiculously science fiction.

@sidewaysfcs0718

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, light would come out of their eyes, but this wouldn't change the sensation of sight, since the exact same photoreceptor cells are functioning. The simplest way to imagine how an inverted person can see is to think that ambient heat is being concentrated through their body and converted to emission of visible light from their retinas, and then head back to the source, as it happens, the cells would still produce a photoreceptor signal to travel to the brain. So while the light propagation is reversed, the neural signal is not, since the actual eyes , nerve, and brain all passed through the turnstyle, but the ambient heat didn't, that ambient heat comes from the future. This is also consistent with Neil's explanation of inverted objects slowly "creeping" their influence on the environment, since ordinarily there is no reason for non-inverted ambient heat to concentrate into an object and produce emission like that, but since this object is inverted and is "pissing against the wind", some of that wind changes, it somehow compels ambient non-inverted heat to start to behave in an inverted manner. In reverse, this works out perfectly, since this is exactly what happens when you see, light enters your eye, is converted to ambient heat, that heat eventually escapes your body and remains in the surrouding environment as just random heat, that stays in the past, and travel into the future as normal heat. But this same ambient heat can interact with an inverted person and become light again, in the movie's physics system.

Materials can only retain information from their past. Materials can be inverted and interact with other materials that have not been inverted. The future of an inverted material is the past of a regular material. If an inverted gun and bullet are shot at a wall, what will reveal to have happened in forward time is that an inverted bullet had been lodged in the wall that whole time, and said bullet will rush towards the gun and merge with the casing, just like we saw in the lab. Whether it is a reversed or forwards moving person firing the gun the outcome is the same, the bullet will be unfired in forward time, or fired and stay in the wall for the rest of time in reverse time, unless it is inverted again. The blue team guy who was sealed in the wall by an inverted explosion was himself inverted. He went on the mission and then got trapped in the wall, which was likely the end of his life. From an outsider's forward perspective the wall was blown up, and from it emerged the soldier who then walked backward towards blue containers hanging from helicopters that then flew away. If a normal guy and an inverted guy meet and inverted guy kills the normal guy, he will only be dead in his own future. From inverted guy's perspective his act of murder will have a revival effect on normal guy. You literally described it correctly and then acted incredulous as if you had unearthed some paradox. There is no paradox, it's exactly what follows logically from the mechanic of time inversion. Inverted guy can't kill normal guy "again", his act of killing can only be experienced as a revival from his perspective, since his future is normal guy's past, normal guy will necessarily be alive after the murder has occurred, from inverted guy's perspective. There is no such thing as the many worlds interpretation in this movie, it strictly operates on a block universe model. The line about "multiple realities" was likely to justify the "future's" faith in their plan of destroying the past, but it completely contradicts everything shown in the film. If Neil had acted differently and instead of surrendering to the goon's bullet had waited out the situation and hid, to later tackle him, he could have survived that interaction. It isn't a good military strategy to shoot at inverted targets, unless it's at the end of conflict from your perspective, since killing an inverted target revives them from your perspective. Complexity isn't impossibility. These concepts are fully consistent, you just don't like them.

@bbokser

3 жыл бұрын

Explain how the inverted bullets in the window were manufactured with bullets in them and installed in that wall that way without anyone caring.

@thob

3 жыл бұрын

​@@bbokser If you mean the windows at the freeports, I suspect those rooms were built in the future inverted, and that is why the glass is broken until the bullet is fired. Either way, hypothetically, the 'how' would be interesting but not necessary to justify where an inverted object ends up on its linear path. Though not everything in this film makes sense, like the building in Stalsk-12 being blown up in both directions in time.

@bbokser

3 жыл бұрын

@@thob There was also an inverted bullet in the concert hall at the beginning of the movie. There's no way that one part of the concert hall (let alone the entire hall) was inverted just so Neil could use his inverted gun there. Also, as to the inverted man dying inside of a wall: that means the wall was constructed with a hole shaped exactly like his body, filled with rotted organic matter. Which again implies inverted causality applied to an object that was never inverted in the first place. Also, the construction workers somehow did this without noticing (again). Finally, if his body decomposed from the inverted perspective, that means inverted bacteria digested his body while ordinary bacteria ignored it, despite the fact that inverted bacteria should have the same issue as humans metabolizing non-inverted oxygen (or whatever else they breathe if they're anaerobic) and should have died. If decomposition can't happen, then his body would have lasted a lot longer, long enough that it would have been present during construction!

@bbokser

3 жыл бұрын

Also, think about the scene where the Protagonist picks up an inverted bullet by opening his hand (from the bullet's perspective it's dropped). Okay, so now that he has an inverted bullet in his hand, what happens if he opens it again? Does it fall down or keep going up? Let's say it falls down. Now the situation is flipped. From the bullet's perspective it gets sucked upward whereas from the Protagonist's perspective he drops it. If he keeps opening and closing his hand does the bullet fly up and down? This is an interesting thought exercise that shows how paradoxical the concept really is. Inverse causality ends up being applied to normal objects and normal causality ends up being applied to inverted objects.

@brendonwood7595

2 жыл бұрын

@@thob "Though not everything in this film makes sense, like the building in Stalsk-12 being blown up in both directions in time." The building being blown up just makes the paradoxes his time travel theories create blindingly obvious as you can't make up some " the room was inverted and sent back excuse, or the guy in the wall was inverted" The inverted team blow up the top of the building that doesn't exist except for a few seconds in the middle of the fight so was never built in the first place so how does it exist after the bottom is gone. This is the exact same problem as the holes in the glass being there when the window was made or the blue guy being in the wall when the building was made. He didn't write his script to hide this particular paradox because it was too cool.

I loved the movie and I loved this critique.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

Haha I like that attitude! Thanks Justin. We need more celebration of quality wherever it can be found, I suppose. . . . but balanced by open and relaxed criticism to always move us forwards

@dereksbooks

2 жыл бұрын

I think that the problem with Nolan movies is that too many people take them too seriously. At the end of the day, they're just entertainment with grand ideas, which don't ultimately hold up to scientific and philosophical scrutiny. Inception and Tenet are flawed, but they're bloody entertaining!

My biggest problem with Tenet isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that Nolan throughout the film attempts to make it look as if it makes sense. To expect that any film with time-travel-related mechanics makes 100% logical sense (or that any film at all is 100% logical) is silly. The Back to the future movies are full of plot holes and paradoxes, yet I still love them because they're at least self-aware and don't take themselves to seriously. Tenet does not do this. I'm not saying that Tenet should've been a goofy family-friendly movie, but when you're working with a concept as convoluted and impossible as this, explaining how "inverted-oxygen" works just comes off as pretentious and dumb.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

This seems like a very good summary! You just said in a paragraph what I couldn't quite pin down in many many minutes of thinking! Hah. I would say the self-awareness is key, as you said. Then of course the lack of convincing characters (or any arc whatsoever) means the movie hinges COMPLETELY on the concept. . . . which makes it even more frail.

@sonsofbiscuits1

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think ideas such as inverted oxygen are an attempt to explain everything and be clever. I think at the end of the day it's a film with next to impossible ideas, Nolan knows this but he enjoys exploring these strange ideas regardless, as he has done in the past. He made a film about having a dream within a dream, they're just ideas 😂. Anyway, if inverted characters have to wear oxygen masks it helps to distinguish them. For example, the highway chase scene and what followed is confusing enough, but it's made slightly easier when you learn about inverted oxygen and then see Sator wearing the oxygen mask. It lets you know he is inverted. Also, it makes it seem a bit more intense when the protagonist steps outside into the inverted world wearing the oxygen mask. It makes the world he's now in seem more extreme, along with the handling of the car. I think it's all just for effect. I don't think Nolan is being pretentious, the film tackles the fact that things don't make sense quite a lot, for example, when the scientist says "Don't try to understand it, feel it." If it could be understood by following logic then there would be no need to say this. When Neil says, "Does your head hurt yet?" And when Neil talks about the grandfather paradox. Through this dialogue Nolan is acknowledging to the audience that there are paradoxes and that if you follow every detail you will reach a point that will either make your head hurt or it simply won't make sense. By including this dialogue he's acknowledging he's aware of this. I definitely agree about Neil's death, this did bother me as it's obvious he couldn't have left the turnstile with a bullet in his head and there's not even a farfetched attempt to explain how this would work in this world. Imo though Nolan literally wanted to make a spy film but also wanted to explore this different take on time travel. Clearly after going through how it could work with the other writers and physicists he realised there would be several things that are farfetched or paradoxical, but he chose to make the film anyway. Talking with friends and people on forums about how it could work and about the paradoxes has been half of the experience for me. Seeking answers is what led me to your video after all 😂. I feel that although you highlight some key points, such as how the fight with the inverted man wouldn't work it doesn't take away from how original a take on time travel this really is. I have never seen anything like that fight sequence, it was great how the inverted man crawled like something from a horror film, only to realise later he was trying to reach back for the gun so it can't be used against him. Anyway, there are things that don't make sense, such as the fire creating ice 🤦🙄. But after multiple viewings I think the film is impressive in it's own way.

@CooperCobb22

3 жыл бұрын

@@sonsofbiscuits1 Awesome

These are my thoughts too... I refused to watch the movie because I know I would be borderline irritated by these impossibilities xD

Complaining about the logistics of time travel in a time travel movie..... Time travel DOESN'T make sense EVER. But it's fun to play around with the premise. The point of the film wasn't to create a film about time travel. It was meant to be a literal palindrome translated into cinema and he absolutely nailed it. Tenet is an actual work of art when you see the entire picture. The time travel in the film was simply a tool used to create the palindrome which is why everything needed to be on the same timeline and not branch off into alternate timelines. You people who are overly critical of Nolan's films are too worried about scientific accuracy instead of appreciating the art form. I am personally not some Nolan diehard. However, every time I decide to watch his films I am always impressed at his ability to weave such unique tapestries of narrative film making that are so refreshing to watch. Tenet by far has stuck with me since I watched it impressed by the cinematic symmetry on display.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

It's definitely fun to play around with premises, I agree. My gripe is more the fact that Tenet tries to sustain multiple improbable/paradoxical premises at once which seems to me to still further complicate what is already a troubling/paradoxical genre. The more irrational a story arc, the more difficult to suspend disbelief, to embrace it as plausible. With most time travel movies you just have to accept one thing--say that time travel is possible, or that a causal loop is possible, or that there are multiple universes, or that if the loop were to exist one could actually see oneself, or kill one's past self and remain alive. There's ONE proposition with an emotional story built around it. With this one there are so many branches or struts of the story structure that are dependent on things which don't even make sense WITHIN the tenets of the story. Say determinism is true. I can't believe the people would act as they do, the rules of the world being as they are.

@Lockn3s5

3 жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate Time travel itself is a paradox. The premise is already broken. You should know that going in already. I do not believe there are multiple improbable paradoxes within the film. Not to mention calling a paradox "improbable" is redundant. Everything works within this closed loop system according to the rules that were established. I don't exactly understand your last gripe with character behavior. It was made clear that those armed with knowledge of the future need to make sure the key players stay uninformed in order to behave exactly as they would so as not to disrupt the loop.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lockn3s5 Yes it seems that time travel is a paradox, at least that's my opinion with everything we know today. But the movie presents situations that, even accepting the concept of inversion, simply don't align with how I think people would realistically act. It also presents situations that simply don't seem to have a coherent explanation (wall exploding and sealing a guy off; Kate on the boat; car chase; the very idea of an inverted guy shooting a non-inverted guy).

@Lockn3s5

3 жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate You're going to have to go into detail about what is confusing you because I understand the mechanics behind each one of those examples and they all line up according to the rules established. Nolan is particularly very detailed with his scripts and how everything functions so he didn't just leave that many unexplained moments. They clearly made sense to him if he kept it in the film. And again, any criticism that states, "this is not how people would behave" is totally fallible as human behavior is more often than not unpredictable so to assume to know and generalize human behavior in any given story even completely made up fictional worlds where the people who live in it have a frame of reference to only that world and not ours makes this criticism even more pointless. How YOU think people would realistically act is simply an opinion of a generalization and not a legitimate criticism. These kinds of projects take a hell of a lot of work. They wouldn't have released it if they didn't thoroughly check to make sure most things were in alignment with the ideas the story presents.

@Lockn3s5

3 жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate The guy who gets sealed off from an inverted wall explosion is the blue team which is inverted. You were seeing Neil's perspective. The explosion happened forward from Red team's perspective trapping the Blue team member behind the wall. By Kate on the boat I assume you mean how is future Kate on the boat? This one seems pretty self explanitory. They all inverted for 2 weeks then they reverted back to normal flow of time. Kat was with them so I dont see how that's confusing. The car chase makes sense forward and backwards. It's just that there's hidden information during the first chase. Shooting someone while inverted is trickier to explain. An inverted person sees the effect before the cause. By following the effect backwards you can strategically set up death traps using inverted bullets. Neil uses this manuever in the inverse in order to save the Protagonist's life at the end but he also uses this in the beginning at the Opera house.

It's not a paradox if the normal guy kills the inverted guy this is what happens in predestination. It's simply circular life instead of a straight line life, however it is a paradox the other way round as then the past would have never reached the future (although it would not happen in single timeline as you never go *back* in time you go to a point in time) Non-paradox (3rd person perspective): o-------| ---X | |---------| for the person it is still: o-----x

The universe wouldn't allow events that would break the universe to happen. It would excuse itself.

@JesseTate

3 жыл бұрын

This is a nice response because it is calm (lol) and very simply summarizes what the majority of disagreements are about. It seems like you are making the case for determinism and suggesting that the story or the universe can impose things upon its smaller components. I understand but I still disagree. I would say for example that determinism does not 'impose' itself on our choices, our biochemistry, our neurology . . . . it can't 'make' the fighters never try something paradoxical. Determinism is the idea that, trailing back all the way to the Big Bang, ALL things (even our neurochemistry; hormonal imbalances; rationality and irrationality) is caused by a very clear causal chain limited to the material world (nothing supernatural). With that understanding of determinism, the agents in any universe should ONLY act as their environment and genes would compel them to, along that causal chain. And I'm saying it doesn't seem likely to me that they would NEVER have tried something paradoxical. The movie just can't show anything paradoxical because we can't conceive of it and it would ruin the story.

@evanpax8585

2 жыл бұрын

@@JesseTate well said.

It's a movie for entertainment my guy that deals with paradoxes so of coarse you can pick holes at it lol... Does not mean the movie was not wonderful.

the whole thing behind the film is what's happens has happened and u cant change the past, so by go back in time i believe u perform all the actions u have already seen without thinking about it. like in the freeport fight, the inverted man already knows what moves he already did so he was able to counter them.

@patfcat3187

3 жыл бұрын

What if he did think about his moves though and wanted to do something else?

@Ooog__

3 жыл бұрын

@@patfcat3187 they did question it but the characters will instinctively act out what they have already done

@billyperry3059

2 жыл бұрын

@@patfcat3187 Then the film would have played out differently. Same answer as any other "What if the character did something different here?" It's irrelevant to the film, because the film isn't about characters who might do anything, it's about characters who do these things.

My understanding is that NoloN has put the inverted bullet scene in the opera house shooting scene to give a glimpse of inverted objects. As per the script this scene is needed to take protagonist and audience in to next scenes All the scenes are logically correct as per the script Movies are directed as per the script not as per the practical logic! I clicked your video for entertainment and pass the time and not for knowing what is correct what is wrong. I appreciate 👏👏👏your effort in analyzing and raising practicality of scenes

It hasnt happened yet. But what has happened happened. Its an contained loop

Doesnt the whole “winds of entropy” argument “explain” most of this?

@khoile9807

2 жыл бұрын

No, pal, it doesn't at all. Nolan tried to write this based on science, the scientist advising this movie probably took this theory out of a thrown away notebook, too many holes, too many inconsistencies.

@ohcrap2222

2 жыл бұрын

No the only thing that could make sense is there is only one self-repeating timeline meaning the only inversion that can happen is events that are repeatable if a change happens it can only stand if that change self replicates in an altered timeline. Of course, even that means a lot of the actions don't make any mechanical sense just physically. Think of the movie "Time Machine" where his wife dies in different ways every time he goes back to save her as he would never create the machine to begin with.

Was really stupid movie that started out with some promise. Suddenly in desert, suddenly armies fighting, who they fighting unknown, why unknown, Where, how they get there, where they from, time travel magic. This movie had a bunch of unconnected random scenes. Not a story, just a poorly thought out concept