Wait a tick. Basil, if I travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, presumably, I could go back and visit my frozen self. But, if I'm still frozen in 1967, how cou ... oh, no, I've gone cross-eyed.
July 30, 2009 6:44 PM   Subscribe

M. Joseph Young does rather interesting, detailed temporal analyses of the different timelines created by the Terminator films, the Back To The Future trilogy, Millennium, those Trek films that dealt with time travel, 12 Monkeys, Flight Of The Navigator, Army of Darkness, Lost In Space, Peggy Sue Got Married, the Bill & Ted movies, Frequency, Planet of the Apes, Kate and Leopold, Somewhere In Time, The Time Machine, Minority Report, Happy Accidents, The Final Countdown, Donnie Darko, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Deja Vu.

I was particularly impressed with the 12 Monkeys analysis ...
posted by WCityMike (56 comments total) 45 users marked this as a favorite

 
Speaking of Deja Vu. But still, I love stuff like this, its what the Internet was created for...
posted by AndrewStephens at 6:48 PM on July 30, 2009


I wish I could go back in time and add an apostrophe to my previous comment.
posted by AndrewStephens at 6:49 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Here's the front page of the site. There might be a couple more movies he talks about.
posted by jabberjaw at 6:50 PM on July 30, 2009


Hmm. I'm not sure of exactly whether this falls under Metafilter "dupe" guidelines or not -- it looks like the Terminator film page and the main page was linked to in that FPP as a secondary, supportive link ... so, yeah, depending on where the border lies, maybe this is a dupe. But if someone only checked out the primary link on that FPP, then they've missed the brilliance of all the various subpages on that site, each of which is pretty damn amazing in its own right. I think it's worth its own discussion, to be honest with you ...
posted by WCityMike at 6:59 PM on July 30, 2009


On Primer: "Several people asked me about this film, so eventually I acquired a copy. I have watched it several times, and my impression at this point is that it asks most of the right questions but gives a lot of entirely wrong answers, and it makes us feel as if it is telling us everything but intentionally keeps us in the dark about points that matter. I am not yet completely certain what happens when, but I am working on it."

Here's a labyrinthine map of the various timelines in Primer.
posted by benzenedream at 7:01 PM on July 30, 2009 [8 favorites]


The guy's been around the RPG world for a decade or so now, apparently still promoting his long-winded game (which is quite open about his evangelical Christianity) about you playing yourself and going into different universes when you die (it's called Multiverser) with some rules noted for their byzantine complexity. He's always been on the fringe where people who are either cranks or geniuses hang out. As near as I can tell, he's more on the crank side.
posted by graymouser at 7:02 PM on July 30, 2009


Obsessiveness can oft lead to some interesting stuff, and it's led to some interesting stuff here. The 12 Monkeys one is particularly interesting, IMO, in terms of analyzing the various temporal implications of the film.
posted by WCityMike at 7:04 PM on July 30, 2009


I really hate his notions of "sequential" timelines - they require the assumption of some meta-time in which one timeline can be "later" than another.

I'm much happier saying that 12 Monkeys is just one consistent, stable timeline. It's not dangerous to go back to the past, since you can't change the future. That's definitely how it's presented in the movie. That's how the scientists understand it - they aren't going back to change the present, they're just trying to collect information with which they can use in their future to change the further future.

I think Terminator 1 works a lot better with that model too, though for Skynet and Reese to go back to fight over the past suggests a lack of understanding of this model on their parts. Why does there have to be a "original" timeline anyone traveled back to it? How is that different from saying there needs to be an original future that I keep changing by waiting my way into it.

But it doesn't matter, since T2 throws it out the window. Now you have to resort to ridiculous notions of metatime because otherwise it's impossible to make any sense of the narrative.
posted by aubilenon at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2009 [5 favorites]


The Donnie Darko one is great -- I've always said that movie works from a basic, simple and rather ingenious proposition: reverse the conceit of "It's a Wonderful Life". The whole message is -- it would have been better if you hadn't been around. Also, sacrifice, secret Xtian elements. But whatever, loved it, loved the explanation.
posted by matthewstopheles at 7:26 PM on July 30, 2009 [5 favorites]


My problem with time travel movies is that either they are inconsistent or the motivations of the characters make no sense. Movies in which the characters change the past (Back to the Future, Terminator 3) make no sense. That's not time travel; that's dimension-hopping But in movies with nice consistent space-time structures, the characters never understand how time travel would work. Why do the Terminators go back in time to try to prevent John Conner from existing? He's there in the future! They should know from the outset that their attempts are going to fail! Why does Rufus go back in time to help Bill and Ted? It's not like anything would change if he decided to stay in bed instead. Worst of all are movies in which the characters are worried about causing paradoxes. If it's a paradox, it won't and can't happen! There's no need to worry about killing your grandfather before you're born. Ain't gonna happen. The only time travel movie I can think of that's consistent and that doesn't drive the story forward by having characters who act foolishly is Twelve Monkeys. (Like aubilenon, I disagree with the claim that what the linked page calls "the uncaused cause" is an inconsistency or impossibility. There is nothing wrong with temporal loops.)

Why can't Hollywood come up with a time travel movie that is consistent and has smart characters? It's not that hard, and it can lead to some pretty cool ideas. Here's one: it's a neat feature of time travel that if you go into the past and try to kill your past self, you will fail. Your past self is invincible. Someone who knows how time travel works could exploit that! Imagine in the future that aliens or robots or vegetables or something are taking over. Humanity needs a hero! So someone goes into the past, grabs their previous self, and brings them to the future. Now humanity has a hero who cannot die. He's temporally immortal! And in a neat way. It's not like he's bulletproof or anything. He's a normal guy... he just can't die. Try to kill him, and some crazy Rube Goldberg, Final Destination-like chain of events will save his life.

There are all sorts of movies that can be made from that core idea. I want someone to make one.
posted by painquale at 7:28 PM on July 30, 2009 [30 favorites]


I read this guys site back when I was sort of surveying Ambrosia Voyeur's Time Travel in Film course (and didn't post it for two reasons: the previously, and time travel in film really deserves a bit more fleshing out for a post on MeFi...). He's got a pretty good site going, despite whatever else may occupy his time, and it's a fun reread. Of course I can't remember which movie now, but I recall being pissed that he'd overlooked a really obvious, great time travel film. Mighta been Primer.
posted by carsonb at 7:29 PM on July 30, 2009


There are some people commenting in this thread very authoritatively on the subject of time travel, as if they themselves have a time machine.
posted by Midnight Rambler at 7:34 PM on July 30, 2009 [13 favorites]


This guy always annoys me because he maps his multiple timeline concept onto movies that clearly use a different kind of time travel theory. 12 Monkeys seems to pretty vehemently consider itself to be presenting a story with a single timeline, and the whole point of the story is about how the past can't be changed. Donnie Darko specifically states in the supplementary materials that there are two universes in which the events of the film happen, rather than multiple timelines.

Why can't Hollywood come up with a time travel movie that is consistent and has smart characters?

It's not from Hollywood, and it's more the kind of universe hopping that you're talking about than time travel, but check out Primer. Rather than trying to change the past, the main characters are trying to shape the universe to help themselves (such as cheating on the stock market) and most of the film is spent dwelling on the unintended consequences that arise from that.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:35 PM on July 30, 2009


Apropos of nothing else, I'd just like to categorically state here how massively stupid of an idea that Superman reversing the rotation of the Earth would also reverse the course of events in the flow of time. Also, his boots are ugly.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:40 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ambrosia Voyeur's Time Travel in Film
posted by acro at 7:46 PM on July 30, 2009


I always thought 12 Monkeys was the only one of these that made sense. I have some affection for the plot of city at the edge of forever just because I was too young to spot the problems when I first saw it.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:49 PM on July 30, 2009


I don't know, I don't like all the assumptions that there must have been an original timeline that changed. It's needlessly complicated. Buckbeak wasn't killed, Hermione always prevented it. She went back in time to prevent what she thought was his death because she didn't know he wasn't killed - there's no paradox.

I guess I just like the "What Happened, Happened" LOST theory.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:52 PM on July 30, 2009


That dude has seen Donnie Darko many, many times.
posted by Mister_A at 7:56 PM on July 30, 2009


Now, let's see. Joe Young, right?
Young, Young... Tongue, Bung, Hung. Hung!
Tom Hung! It's perfect! You like that?

Also: Primer is awesome.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:57 PM on July 30, 2009


Wanted: Someone to go back in time 
with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322,
Oakview, CA 93022. You'll get paid after
we get back. Must bring your own
weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have
only done this once before.

posted by blue_beetle at 8:01 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


Superman did not reverse the rotation of the earth. He went faster than the speed of light and traveled backwards in time. Earth spinning in the other direction was an effect (it did so because time was going backwards), not a cause.

Still ridiculous, but please do not attribute to poor plotting a problem that was actually caused by poor cinematography.
posted by kyrademon at 8:08 PM on July 30, 2009 [5 favorites]


(And, yeah, why is he making all these ridiculous and complicated schemes to explain changes that explicitly DIDN'T HAPPEN? Nonchangeable timelines have been a staple of fiction for years. It's not a problem. Why is he imposing his own wishes onto someone else's story?)
posted by kyrademon at 8:15 PM on July 30, 2009


benzenedream: Here's a labyrinthine map of the various timelines in Primer.
That underscores what's missing from this site: graphics! It's 2009, all-text descriptions aren't worth 1/1,000th of a nicely formatted graphical display with hover-over for detailed info that accompanies the main text.
painquale: Here's one: it's a neat feature of time travel that if you go into the past and try to kill your past self, you will fail. Your past self is invincible. Someone who knows how time travel works could exploit that! Imagine in the future that aliens or robots or vegetables or something are taking over. Humanity needs a hero! So someone goes into the past, grabs their previous self, and brings them to the future. Now humanity has a hero who cannot die. He's temporally immortal! And in a neat way. It's not like he's bulletproof or anything. He's a normal guy... he just can't die. Try to kill him, and some crazy Rube Goldberg, Final Destination-like chain of events will save his life.
I know it's going to get plenty of favorites- as it should- but seriously, painquale: you, and if you're not a good writer someone like robocop is bleeding, should sit down and write that script, as a sci-fi comedy of sorts.

I don't know how much mileage you can get out of the one gimmick: 90 minutes of knowing the hero is invincible, no matter how wackily entertaining the Rube Goldeberg ways of not dying are, won't really work anymore than it does for snorefest Superman movies, so a short film might be better. Although if done as a comedy-drama, you could have the dramatic tension be some choice our invincible grandfather-killing has to make whereby he gives up the temporal immunity and his life for a better future.

Or go straight comedy, say something like a futuristic super-Hitler type is taking over the world in some unstoppable way, and his own grandfather is part of the resistance determined to stop him: so the grandfather finds some way to go back in time and steal himself as a young man, brings him back, knowing that the young version of himself is invincible because he has to not only survive but eventually return to his original time to father the super-Hitler badguy. Then you have the grandfather as an old man and the young version of himself paired up, fighting evil in some wacky geriatric buddy-action-movie, kind of Bubba Hotep-ish. Although again, the grandfather might just end up offing himself/refusing sex because it's ultimately the only way to stop things.
posted by hincandenza at 8:25 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


For somebody who took the time to go through all that analysis he seems to have completely missed the final few minutes of 12 Monkeys. He doesn't mention the woman "in insurance" at all, and suggests the final version of the timeline is unresolved.
posted by ecurtz at 8:33 PM on July 30, 2009


Painquale - you might need to send a Hell of a lot of people back in time, all of whom will die horribly while trying to retrieve their past selves, before you find the invulnerable savior you need.
posted by ecurtz at 8:50 PM on July 30, 2009


And, by the way, the guy-who-can't-die-because-of-time-travel plot has been used a few times. One example would be the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, where it eventually becomes clear that Arthur Dent cannot die until certain circumstances come to pass, because he was seen alive under those circumstances by a time traveller:

"You haven't been to Stavromula Beta yet? Oh, you go there, alright. You go there, alright. Oh zark, I've brought you here to soon! I've brought you here too zarking soon. I' m going to kill you anyway, even if it's an improbable impossibility, I'm going to zarking well try."
posted by kyrademon at 8:54 PM on July 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


He doesn't mention the woman "in insurance" at all,

Covered in the addendum.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:21 PM on July 30, 2009


I wish I could go back in time and add an apostrophe to my previous comment.

The "Immutable Timelines" theory embraces consistency and implies either (a) something happened to prevent that apostrophe from appearing, or (b) a new time thread containing that apostrophe was split off from ours the moment it was added.

Either way, I think you already did.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:28 PM on July 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


If you separate the consciousness from the body using dissociative anesthetics, and drive really, really fast, the distance traveled through the third dimension (it's gotta be fast) translates into movement across the time spiral, allowing glimpses of artifacts from the future. I've tried it. 'Tworks.
posted by battleshipkropotkin at 9:40 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


What about Lake House what about it
posted by user92371 at 11:00 PM on July 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


There's a lot in your analysis, aubilenon. Imposing metatime on narratives which seem capable of resolution as single coherent timelines seems like incurring a useless metaphysical overhead. But I think the idea may still be useful in explicating narratives with prima facie contradictions, and showing how it is that contradictions don't actually get to occur in spite of the apparent ease with which one can kill one's infant grandfather.

We could sort all this out if we had a watertight theory of counterfactual conditionals; but this is one of those philosophical areas where there isn't even a leaky theory, just an appalling chasm of universal incomprehension.
posted by Phanx at 11:40 PM on July 30, 2009


This thread was better the next time I read it.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:15 AM on July 31, 2009


If I was a moderator of this site, I would edit AndrewStephens first comment to have an apostrophe.
posted by maxwelton at 12:26 AM on July 31, 2009


He doesn't mention the woman "in insurance" at all,

Covered in the addendum.


The addendum is maddening. I always took her saying that she's "in insurance" as meaning "I'm here to ensure that this will happen", possibly so that "we run the world in the future", or something along those lines. Not that she was an insurance saleswoman. Isn't she shown as the same age in "the future" and "the present"?

I'd love a discussion about that because I've always felt uneasy about that interpretation, but nothing that I've seen linked is covering that.
posted by flaterik at 1:52 AM on July 31, 2009


he'd overlooked a really obvious, great time travel film. Mighta been Primer.

No Primer = lightweight
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:57 AM on July 31, 2009


I particularly liked this bit in the Back to the Future analysis

"George McFly meets Lorraine (through the aforementioned accident), marries her, and gets a job working for the bully who has terrorized him all his life, Biff. They have three children, the third of which takes an interest in music, and so connects with Doc, who provides him with access to technological equipment he might not otherwise have had. As a guitarist myself, I am quite aware that amplifiers, effects boxes, mixers, microphones, and other equipment all cost a great deal of money. Being able to repair or even build some of these things for your own use is a bonus, and Doc has the skills to do so. Marty would find his friendship with Doc useful in this way, and Doc would enjoy having the lad around, teach him bits about the equipment, and use his help in some of his experiments.
posted by MuffinMan at 3:17 AM on July 31, 2009


I always took her saying that she's "in insurance" as meaning "I'm here to ensure that this will happen", possibly so that "we run the world in the future", or something along those lines. Not that she was an insurance saleswoman. Isn't she shown as the same age in "the future" and "the present"?

..whoah, flateric. I never even thought of that. Is that an accepted interpretation? Because that's fantastic, and I always read that scene as straight dark humor- this is her in the past, not her from the future sent back, and the humor is that she was doing the same basic thing in the past as she'll eventually do in the future. But I always thought there was something weird about the way she said that line, and I couldn't figure out what- if it's true that that is her future self, it would explain why the way she said it was so heavy on the irony.

I'm really glad you said something- I feel like I missed something big and now I have to go watch that movie again.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 6:29 AM on July 31, 2009


Anyone who is attempting to make a Serious Look At The Time Travel Of The "Bill and Ted" movies needs to lighten up. The time travel doesn't make sense, and that's just fine. It's a comedy.

Seriously, there's a "lighten up, Francis" waiting for this guy.
posted by mephron at 6:34 AM on July 31, 2009


The addendum is maddening. I always took her saying that she's "in insurance" as meaning "I'm here to ensure that this will happen", possibly so that "we run the world in the future", or something along those lines. Not that she was an insurance saleswoman. Isn't she shown as the same age in "the future" and "the present"?

What?

I always read that scene as straight dark humor- this is her in the past, not her from the future sent back,

Whaaaat?

Wow. This was my thought process about the ending: the whole point of sending Cole and others to the past was to bring a pure sample of the virus to the future, where the scientists could work from the core virus to develop a universal cure.

It's obvious, from the way the scientists/leaders treat their time travellers, that they think that Bruce, "Bob," and their ilk are a pack of irredeemable fuckups. So they use Cole, "Bob," Jose and others to do the grunt work, and when they're 99.9999% sure of who needs to be where and when, they send somebody they don't think is a fuckup to ensure that they will get the pure virus they need.

Hence the woman being there, the same age she is in the future, explaining that she's in "insurance." She's their insurance policy against the probable failure of the dribbling morons they keep launching back into the past as expendable sniffer dogs; she's there to make sure they get the virus. She's presumably going to steal a sample from the Assistant, or allow herself to get infected with the pure strain.

It never occurred to me that there was any other way to read the ending (although I think the this-is-her-in-the-past thing doesn't work, given that she'd be about 30-35 years younger). You guys are blowing my mind here.
posted by Shepherd at 6:46 AM on July 31, 2009 [2 favorites]


No, it...seems really obvious NOW, and I'm just amazed that I managed to watch that movie about a dozen times without seeing it that way. It never occurred to me that she was the same age. Uh. Darth Vader is Luke's father, right, because I was never clear on that either. Jesus.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 7:12 AM on July 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


Anyone who is attempting to make a Serious Look At The Time Travel Of The "Bill and Ted" movies needs to lighten up.

They are not worthy?
posted by Phanx at 7:53 AM on July 31, 2009


Dude, reading that site makes my brain hurt.
posted by AzraelBrown at 8:20 AM on July 31, 2009


Superman did not reverse the rotation of the earth. He went faster than the speed of light and traveled backwards in time.

*Smacks forehead* So that's what he was doing. I guess since I saw that movie when I was five years old the mechanistic view is what made sense to my kindergarten outlook. I never bothered to think about it again. Still, IANATP, but being able to somehow exceed the speed of light waves doesn't mean one exceeds space/time. Just being the fastest traveling quanta in the medium doesn't make one exceed the medium. Anyway.

They are not worthy?

Nope, and neither were Wayne and Garth.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:23 AM on July 31, 2009


Hence the woman being there, the same age she is in the future, explaining that she's in "insurance." She's their insurance policy against the probable failure of the dribbling morons they keep launching back into the past as expendable sniffer dogs; she's there to make sure they get the virus. She's presumably going to steal a sample from the Assistant, or allow herself to get infected with the pure strain.

I always interpreted her saying she was in "insurance" to mean she was going to kill that guy's sorry ass and prevent the disease from spreading (even though he already let some of it loose at the Philadelphia airport; it wouldn't be quite as bad as multiple exposures worldwide). This of course, means that the past can be changed in the 12 Monkeys world, which I think is even more tragic since didn't actually have to die, even though he remembered it happening.

Doesn't quite make as much sense as "insurance" being her collecting a sample of the disease, but I had never thought of that. I think I like that even better, but I'll have to watch it again.
posted by dogwalker at 9:01 AM on July 31, 2009


Apparently neither this guy nor anybody in this thread has seen Chris Marker's La Jetée, from which the basic plot of 12 Monkeys is taken. Fine, it's not a direct remake, but it seems odd to discuss the plot in detail without mentioning that a lot of it came from another movie. (I love them both, but 12 Monkeys is a fun genre movie, whereas the Marker is a great movie, period.)
posted by languagehat at 10:56 AM on July 31, 2009


flaterik: I always took her saying that she's "in insurance" as meaning "I'm here to ensure that this will happen", possibly so that "we run the world in the future", or something along those lines.
There is indeed a mountain of subtext and suggestion in the "insurance" line, but it's also a plausible cover identity that's unlikely to provoke many prying questions. Who wants to encourage some stranger on a plane to try and sell them an insurance policy, after all?
posted by Western Infidels at 11:49 AM on July 31, 2009


English-language version of La Jetée in its entirety at Google Video.
posted by Western Infidels at 11:55 AM on July 31, 2009 [3 favorites]


There is indeed a mountain of subtext and suggestion in the "insurance" line, but it's also a plausible cover identity that's unlikely to provoke many prying questions

But why use such a loaded word? I've always felt like there has to be something there. She's clearly the future scientist. But what, exactly, is she there to ensure?

I was really hoping someone would offer a coherent theory based on clues from the movie that I missed! Come on, people, this has been bouncing around my head since I first saw it in the theater.

Of course that weird feeling of unease and not knowing what's going on is probably a big factor in why I love the movie.
posted by flaterik at 12:10 PM on July 31, 2009


I was really hoping someone would offer a coherent theory based on clues from the movie that I missed!

Seriously, dude, this ain't doing it for you?
posted by Shepherd at 1:07 PM on July 31, 2009


flaterik: But what, exactly, is she there to ensure?
Maybe she was sent back with Jose, as a sort of plan B, to stop the spread of the disease.

Maybe she's just after a sample of the original virus, as the scientists have said all along.

Maybe, as you suggested, she's ensuring that the infection unfolds around the world as told by her history, either to ensure that there are some survivors, or to prevent the creation of a catastrophic time paradox, or to secure a position of power for her and her colleagues in the emergency to come.

Myself, I like the ambiguity of the ending, the fact that we can see these possibilities but have little basis for choosing one over another. Like the film's characters, we the audience must decide what to believe, knowing that the information we have is patchwork at best and either fraudulent or based on the recollection of the criminally insane at worst.

Or maybe I've missed the clue that makes everything crystal clear. I hope not, though, because I think it's more interesting if it's not crystal clear.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:09 PM on July 31, 2009


Hey shepard, you hadn't even realized it was ambiguous!

And yeah, I'm quite sure it's intended to be and will always be ambiguous. A big theme in the movie is lack of knowledge and not knowing what's real. Why should our view of the events be any different?
posted by flaterik at 1:57 PM on July 31, 2009


First, screw this guy and his RPG lens of looking at the world.
That said, some of the analysis are pretty nifty.

Terminator....no you really have to disconnect your head there. It's just an action flick. Neat ideas, but if my enemy is all humanity and I have a time machine why bother with killing anyone? Just start making terminator and advanced weaponry factories and infrastructure for skynet further and further back in the past.
And really, why do time travel movies have to be set in the present day? Why not 1980? Or 1996? Seeing an alternate future from that point to our present day, would be interesting.

"There is indeed a mountain of subtext and suggestion in the "insurance" line"

Yeah, she doesn't look happy about it. I'd suspect she's the 12th monkey (since you have monkeys referenced elsewhere - the monkey with the roast beef sandwich, the monkey being experimented on (et.al) on t.v.). And she's there to get infected like a good little monkey. Pretty straightforward.
But giving Cole the pistol to shoot the lab guy is the giveaway for that. He doesn't even know who to shoot. Kathryn tells him to shoot the lab dude. And he says that it's now about "following orders" - hence the whole monkey thing, as in, YOU'RE a monkey now too along with all the 'sniffer dogs.'
The phone call at the end not being known from the beginning, I dunno - light travels at the same speed in all reference frames so maybe it's got something to do with that (?)
I don't know whether the scientists know or don't know about Cole's dreams.

But the effects of time travel on consciousness would be an excellent thing to explore. If your brain is getting superluminal information....yikes you'd be messed up. At least from the perspective of an outside observer.
And one of the biggest problems I'd think, as in Primer, would be interfering with yourself. You'd be making changes based on outdated information because any new information - that is - information based on the changes you'd made in the reference frame, would only be received at the speed of light. You, on the other hand, are outside the light cone until it catches up to you. Or at least the forklift driver guy at the bar says.

So there'd be a lot of 2nd guessing yourself. So you would have to (as in Primer) wait until it passed your other temporal self to go and make changes.
posted by Smedleyman at 4:17 PM on July 31, 2009


keyword arsonistcuttlefishbombshell - distracting AndrewStephens while typing resulted in correction thread. AndrewStephens is not the target, repeat AndrewStephens is not the source. Comment zero is by maxwelton. You know what to do.

Ah, time traveler satire, LOL. Anyways, have you all heard of this band called the 'Smashing Pumpkin'?
posted by benzenedream at 11:31 PM on July 31, 2009


Related earlier thread.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:45 AM on August 5, 2009


Also: Niven's The Theory and Practice of Time Travel. My personal view is that Niven doesn't quite prove what he thinks he does, but it's still an interesting exploration of the idea.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:48 AM on August 5, 2009


Time travel explained.
posted by painquale at 10:33 AM on August 5, 2009


« Older Michael Savage unplugged. Behind the scenes. "This...  |  Late Thursday Flash Fun: Drop... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments