Name ONE movie featuring time travel that doesn't require you to turn off your brain to enjoy

>Multiverse isn't basically confirmed by string theory

Attached: 1555170547900.jpg (932x944, 95K)

Predestination.

>Your such a homophobe you deny yourself kinos.

Primer's time travel works because it's built from the ground up to remain logically consistent through branching timelines that do not interact with each other after the split has been made, so the camera completely moves away from the original branch as soon as the time jump happens. Narratively, this interpretation of time travel often has the potential to fuck over a story's happy ending since all it's doing is creating an alternate reality where bad shit didn't happen while the original reality remains intact, unless you do shit like Back to the Future does and the original timeline arbitrarily gets erased based on the perspective of the time traveler even though there should be multiple time travelers in all sorts of different eras and creates a whole new slew of implications regarding the erased timeline.

The only other kind of time travel I can think of that stays consistent are stable time loops where fate is immutable and nothing can be changed since it already happened, which still has the problem of information or sometimes even physical objects appearing out of nowhere with no origin in time and a requirement for the timeline to be self-correcting, which is hard to believe unless the story has completely supernatural elements in the first place. I'd say the time loop in Harry Potter Prisoner of Azkaban makes more sense than the time loop in Interstellar for this reason, because magic bullshit.

Bill and Ted

My only real problem with Looper was wtf was up with the psychic / other superpowered kids? Those seem a LOT more interesting but had like one scene (out of fucking nowhere) and nobody cares.

It is internally consistent, not logically consistent. Primer is a "smarter" movie than most time travel films, but it is not in unique in being internally consistent.

There are plenty of films that are internally consistent within their own concept of time travel. Primer is also an awful film so there is that.

Time After Time

Cloud Atlas

>tfw I loved looper but found out Rian Johnson directed it

Do I still like it or nah?

Attached: 1555998187553.png (408x332, 44K)

/thread

I haven't watched it in a long time but what's not logically consistent about it if you accept that the time machine they have creates an alternate timeline branch every time someone uses it? Actually, now that I'm typing this, I am recalling some dumb stuff in the movie that isn't really explained by my initial thoughts so you're probably right, and you're also right about it being a bad film.

yes if you're able to understand that the same director can put out both good and bad films

no if you're an actual retard

I didn't like it but if you did then don't change your mind because of external pressure or director's other films.

Looper has one of the best body horror sequences in film adjacent to some third-rate slapstick comedy performed by the secondary antagonist who is an nonthreatening retard.

Fucking 10/10 post. Nice digits too

and therein lies the problem

Time Travel is not possible, so who fucking cares what rules they use

The amputation scene? That was wonderfully disturbing even if it doesn't actually make any sense

Predestination was in my backlog but now that I hear it's got gays in it I'm not gonna bother

Well I would describe that as internally consistent as I did in my post, not logically consistent. Logical consistency is a higher order operation that would imply the kind of time travel in the film is logically consistent with current experimental and verifiable physics.

In other worlds it would be like saying many-worlds interpenetration of quantum mechanics is logically consistent, which would be a hard claim considering there is no experimental proof for it. It is however internally consistent within it's own rule set.

Other films have this kind of internal consistency, like Timecronos, you just swap the acceptance of alternate timelines with the acceptance of future events effecting the past.

OK, that makes sense. I guess I just thought logical consistency meant that everything makes sense within a certain given premise instead of necessarily being based on reality. Like you said, it's probably just a matter of me finding the idea of parallel universes more believable than self-correcting timelines.

>t. from the 21st century

first half was good until he showed up at that chick's house

Just an autistic semantic discussion from my side, you are correct to write logically consistent, as it is logically consistent in it's own world but only internally consistent from the outside perspective. Reason I jumped on it is that I've had this discussion a lot with Primer people on the old IMDB forums were many-worlds interpretation is seen as superior because of it's lack of paradoxes so it appears more logically consistent than other time travel possibilities.

>finding the idea of parallel universes more believable than self-correcting timelines.

I believe so too, it's just that there really is no evidence for it, even though it is a beautiful idea and it makes perfect sense to me. But then again there could be perfectly reasonable physical problems with it that we have yet to discover so I wouldn't say it's logically consistent until we have some kind of experimental proof for it.

I went to see this in the theater, really stoned, with my friend and my sister and almost got kicked out because we were laughing so fucking hard the entire time.

Attached: _400.gif (380x190, 906K)

Looper was retarded, how did the narration work in that movie if the main character fucking dies

Not a movie, but watch Continuum, it's secretly kino.

Attached: continuum.jpg (640x502, 129K)