The Flying Penguin wrote on Feb 23, 2021, 11:34:As I understood it, the issue was getting the "algorithm" into the hands of the people traveling backward (in comparison to us) in time. With the algorithm in hand they would gain some kind of power to dominate (in some way not clear to me) the time streams. The way the Sator (the antagonist) is going to accomplish this is by burying it, which would allow the backward traveling force to recover it in Sator's (our) past. This is prevented when they successfully prevent the algorithm from being buried.
In particular, what confuses me, is the death of the antagonist at the end of the movie, which in the timeline took place before many of the events in the rest of the movie. Yes killing him changed the future (the classic grandfather's paradox and that's not fully explained in the movie) but my issue isn't with the fact that his wife went back and killed him. It's that, if I understand correctly, if she had not gone back and killed him, he was going to kill himself anyway in order to trigger the 'algorithm'. But if that was the original timeline, then how did everything else happen earlier in the movie, which took place later in the timeline? That's the crux of my problem with the movie. It makes no sense.
The Flying Penguin wrote on Feb 23, 2021, 12:16:Yeah, I suspect this is an inconsistency goof. I think the idea was supposed to be if he died the bomb would go off, burying the algorithm. Unfortunately, that doesn't match up with what else is going on in the film. Although, that is all happening in our past... right? They invert for multiple days to get there. So... yeah, not at all clear. I'd like to hear someone involved in the production address it.
I am confused about the ending. I thought there was a trigger on the algorithm that was radio linked to the antagonist's heart beat, and that if he dies, the algorithm would be triggered, destroying the past? Very confusing. Must watch some explainers on that before rewatching the movie.
However, the ages and timelines don’t quite match up. As we know, it takes one hour to invert back one hour. With that in mind, Max would have had to have inverted himself at a very young age – the maximum age he could have been would be 15 years old, as he would then need to invert for 15 years to be the 30-year-old Neil we see in Tenet. Also, 15 years of oxygen so he can invert all time... The Protagonist could also keep young Max in one time period by constantly inverting – but that seems like an awful way to grow up
The Flying Penguin wrote on Feb 25, 2021, 13:58:So, you are saying when Washington first (from our perspective) meets Neil (Pattinson) at the club, Neil has previously "finished" inverting himself and is now back into the "normal" flow of time. Right? Assuming this is what you are saying did Neil simply do one huge inversion at some point and is not reliving his life in his own past? Is it possible to travel forward? Is Neil inverting himself separately each time? If so, that would mean traveling back to the future multiple times too. These ideas are a lot easier to consume when the magical time travel happens instantaneously in some impossible to understand way. But when you have to live through the time travel it seems to add another level of confusion.
You're only traveling back in time while inverted. They spend most of the main part of the movie not inverted. When they're in Mumbai, or stealing the item from the armored car, Neil is not inverted, otherwise he would seem to be moving backwards, and he would need to carry oxygen.
So, you are saying when Washington first (from our perspective) meets Neil (Pattinson) at the club, Neil has previously "finished" inverting himself and is now back into the "normal" flow of time. Right?
The Flying Penguin wrote on Feb 25, 2021, 15:26:Hmm, that causes problems though. Neil indicates (claims?) he has known Washington for years. But for that to be true, and for Washington to have just met him, that would mean Neil would have to be from "years" in the future. Which would mean, he had to invert for years, which would mean he would age those years. The more I think about it, the more this movie is simply a total mess which makes no sense.
Yes. And no, you don't un-age traveling inverted. You still experience aging and the progression of time, you're just inverted compared to the rest of the world. As far as we know you can only travel forward (normal time) and backwards at the same pace (it takes an hour of your time to travel backward one hour).
Which is why, like I said before, I don't think Neil can be Kat's son. He would have had to spend 15+ years inverted after he grew up, got his PhD, trained, and had adventures with the an older version of the protagonist.