[SPOILER] Discussion/Speculation Thread

An original action espionage film releasing in IMAX on August 12, 2020
KEM
Posts: 503
Joined: December 2019
SINCEPTION wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 11:59 pm
Were all the words from
Sator
Square in the movie?
Sator = the name of the villain
Ratos = name of the inversion machine
TeneT = name the organization
Opera = prologue
but where was?
Arepo? o_O
Arepo is the name of the painter that made the forged Goya’s

User avatar
Posts: 836
Joined: December 2009
Location: Valencia, CA
KEM wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 12:04 am
SINCEPTION wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 11:59 pm
Were all the words from
Sator
Square in the movie?
Sator = the name of the villain
Ratos = name of the inversion machine
TeneT = name the organization
Opera = prologue
but where was?
Arepo? o_O
Arepo is the name of the painter that made the forged Goya’s
oh ok,thank you :p :wave:

User avatar
Posts: 2565
Joined: December 2016
To be specific
ROTAS is Sator's construction company that built the freeports holding the turnstiles.

User avatar
Posts: 87
Joined: March 2017
A couple questions that might have already been answered a while ago, but I'm still not clear on these things:
1. How do bullet holes and/or wounds "materialize" if a person or thing is shot by an inverted person? Like in the scene where JDW fights himself in reverse, I get that his inverted self shoots the bullet holes in the glass, but in normal time, how do those bullet holes appear there? And when inverted Neil is shot and killed at the end, does the bullet somehow come out of his head from his perspective without him being aware of it??

2. In the beginning of the film, the scientist tells JDW that the inverted objects are the detritus of a future war (if I'm remembering correctly). What is this war exactly, and who are the parties involved? I get that people in the future are using Sator to carry out their plan to invert the entropy of the whole world, but where does this war fit in?

User avatar
Posts: 1227
Joined: July 2013

User avatar
Posts: 3046
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Vader182 wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 11:40 pm
I think I got to the bottom of why nobody can agree on how the macguffin works. Some of the dialogue more or less contradicts other dialogue. See here:
KAT: Tell me you’re going to kill him.
PROTAGONIST: I can’t.
KAT: Why not? I think you’ve probably killed a lot of people.
NEIL: Not with a dead man’s switch.
PROTAGONIST: The fitness tracker he wears.
KAT: He’s obsessed about his health.
NEIL: It could be linked to a switch. Probably a simple email burst that reveals the location of the dead drop. Set the fire, if his heart stops.
PROTAGONIST: His death activates the algorithm. He dies, the world ends. No one dares kill him.

This quote itself is fairly contradictory. It clearly states his dead man's switch could either send an ...email... or also "activates the algorithm" which will then cause the world to immediately end. Then there's this:

PROTAGONIST: Do you know what a Hypocenter is?
It’s ground zero for an underground nuclear test.
Sir Michael Crosby told me about a detonation in Stalsk 12 on the 14th.
The dead drop is at the bottom of the Hypocenter.
That explosion seals up the algorithm.
IVES: Then we better get it out of that hole before the bomb goes off, eh?
Then there's this. So clearly, while the movie says that the algorithm is in a black box, and his dead man's switch "activates the algorithm", the goal is to "seal up" the algorithm with an explosion.

IE, the movie simultaneously says they're trying to "seal up" and "activate" the algorithm at the same time, but these events don't appear to be causally linked...right? Since if "sealing it" brought it into the future, he wouldn't need the dead man switch (as Ruth said previously). But "seals" implies something different than "activates" as in destroys the world, so ultimately, I guess all the confusion boils down to what we think "activate" even means. Is it the email? Is it the bomb itself? Is it the future? Does the future have a way to "talk back" to him?
TL;DR, It's pretty much left completely to our fucking imagination. So...we were all right... and we were all wrong. How fun


-Vader
This part I don't think contradicts itself if we consider the (very flawed) "logic" of instantaneous transmission.
PROTAGONIST: His death activates the algorithm. He dies, the world ends.
This sounds like a metonymic expression to me. His death is not directly causing the activation of the algorithm but rather it notifies the future people of the location of the algorithm (via email), they dig it up and activate it but since they activate it, it would immediately have a ripple effect on the past, destroying all life. This all sounds logical... until you start wondering why doesn't Tenet JUST DIG UP THE ALGORITHM BEFORE THE FUTURE PEOPLE!!!???

This part makes no sense. Instant transition only makes sense if only the future people and Sator know where the drop box is (like with Sator's gold - that instantenous transition is logical because only the two parties know where to look for it)! But Tenet clearly knows now where to dig as they are on the site of the explosion :P

User avatar
Posts: 19956
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Yes I think that’s right, but
If Neil’s right and what’s happened happened, doesn’t that’s mean Sator must know his plan failed if the world “exists” in the weeks between the opera house and the car chase? if What’s happened, happened how could the whole premise of the film be the future (army?) trying to change the past? Perhaps Neil is wrong, but odd for him to say that then.

I suppose this is why Neil also mentions the possibility of multiple realities, but I thought the point was Tenet relies on the assumption of a single timeline, hence why they look into the reflection in the window by the turnstyle to see if they come back in.
I get these are all deliberate paradoxes probably on agency and determinism, but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t seem hazy and contradictory.

-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 85
Joined: November 2014
Location: Belgium
Do you guys think the movie would be better received in general if the story was less complex and focused more on the cool concept of Inversion? I just love the idea that if you want to go back in time you have to actually travel through time which is running backwards. The ideas Nolan had could have maybe been simplified a little bit?

Posts: 12
Joined: August 2020
speedy117 wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 7:44 am
Jayp wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 5:57 am
See mate, it may sound paradoxical but when you play with time you will 100% deal with paradoxes. Like Neil says in movie “whatever happened, happens” so both team will work according to intel given to them by each other
This may seem lengthy but just bare with me
There is a concept called bootstrap paradox which is common in time travels or modifications
Let’s say I got a book at my doorstep at 10:00 AM. I read the book and gave it to you at 2PM you read the book and somehow time travelled to 10:00AM and left the book at my doorstep. So there is no origin of book, it only exist in universe outside of space-time continnum. Now Change book with info and you and me with red team and blue team
I hope this helped
I guess that makes sense. So is the info the red team provides to the blue team the same info the blue team provides to the red team? It's just a loop of transferring the same intel?
Not exactly same but like blue team will give intel that don’t try to avoid blast, it will happen just get algorithm out
Red team will be like watch out that buildings gonna reassemble
Looks funny but somehow like these different intels

Posts: 12
Joined: August 2020
LelekPL wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 7:09 am
Jayp wrote:
September 8th, 2020, 6:14 am
Vader182 wrote:
September 7th, 2020, 6:16 pm


okay but this is where it loses me:
how the hell can algorithms be "in physical form." For example, bombs are chemical reactions... not.... math(??) or equations(??) in "physical forms" that are "activated."

It would makee more sense that these are bombs/devices that are made with the algorithm, but the movie states (as you point out) the modernist lego is the algorithm, which....


am I crazy, or is that complete nonsense and makes more or less zero god damn sense

help me out here lol


-Vader
Let’s say I am a mad scientist and I developed a formula or algorithm to reverse entropy of whole universe and thus wiping out previous generations so my generation could live with plenty of natural resources.
So I wrote the formula on a paper and made a version of it like H2O is formula and Water we can see in physical form.
Now I realised what great mistake I am making by wiping out my previous generations I am risking my own generation’s existence.
So what I did was I torched the formula written on paper. So no one can know the formula. I sent back in time the one I made physically called as “Algorithm” also I killed myself.
Now people of my generation still want to try and wipe out previous generations. They had 3 options
1.Force me to make another “Algorithm” which is not possible because I killed myself or I won’t like Protagonist I won’t give up infront of their torture.
2.Formula written on Paper but I burned that paper so only place it lives is in my head or was in my head
3.The one physical formula “Algorithm” which is sent back in time.
So they chose or only had 3rd option.
I have tried my best still if you got questions I am ready to answer
Well...
They would also have a fourth option. Instead of having this convoluted messaging system with a Russian oligarch in the past, why wouldn't the people from the future invert themselves to the point right before the scientist sends the algorithm to the past and kills herself, steal the algorithm from the scientist and activate it? Seems much easier considering the technology at their disposal.
Simplest answer
What happened happens
But
As future people believed they can change past so they must have tried and failed so that might be topic for another movie :D

Post Reply