What movie has the most realistic time travel?

Demolition Man

>>87353112
That's a stupid question. It's been decided that it is Primer long ago.

>>87353112
Timecrimes and Primer

>>87353112
life is strange

>>87353112
Unironically Harry Potter 3
Obviously it's the DULLEST FRANCHISE etc but the time travel was actually surprisingly well done

Interstellar

that book was so fucking boring

>>87355281
>80 page book
>boring

>>87355337
still boring as fuck

>>87354223
>>87354252
>Primer

How I wanted to enjoy this movie. This movie "makes you think"? Maybe if you're a twentysomething, sick of the Hollywood crap out there, but not really educated enough in classic science fiction to recognize when someone is recycling old paradoxes, and not mature enough to require character development from the figures on the screen. For the rest of us, it does not matter how much the filmmaker supposedly "captures the atmosphere" of engineers who speak in monotone. As Sontag said, the audience should not be called upon to react as if what is happening in fiction is actually happening in real life. (If I make a boring film in which people really go to the bathroom, is that brilliant as well?) The cinema verite style here does not work and is not appropriate, and despite the barrage of early 10-star reviews - obviously planted by cheerleaders connected with this project - that signals a failure by the filmmaker to engage his audience, which is, yes, his job. Smugness about how people "don't get it" is not film criticism - at any rate, we do get it, because the story is paper-thin. Show, don't tell - give us action (and I do not mean superficial action as in "Independence Day"), not relentless unemotional dialog that appeals to young, largely male, geeks. (All of the important male characters here are married, with kids - what irony!) Film, like any other art, is communication, and while this film has potential, that makes the inept execution of it all the more disappointing. Actually, I would recommend that people see it, with the caveats that I've given above, because it is an example of a good idea; however, in no way does this film deserve such effusive, histronic praise. Oh, and incidentally - electrical current is measured in amperes, not in "volts." (Volts measure voltage, duh.) So much for the snobbish techno-wow jargon by these so-called engineers at the beginning!

File: primer.jpg (226KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 960x1440px

Primer. It's a shit movie though.

>>87355281
the sequel was better

>>87353112
>most realistic time travel
Are you aware of how stupid this sounds?

>>87354208
Demolition Man isn't a time travel movie.

>>87353112
Looper

>>87353112
time travel by jumping to the adjacent dimention/alternate reality
its the only most realistic time travel

>>87355513
Every movie is traveling forwards through time at a rate of 1 second per second. You're right though.

Terminator 1, 12 Monkeys, and the Harry Potter series have paradox-free time travel.

Primer has paradox-free time travel *and* explains how you don't end up floating in space, so Primer wins.

File: Morlock-leader.jpg (48KB, 382x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 382x500px

>>87355281
YOU UTTER PLEB YOU

>>87353112
Time travel backwards is impossible.

Interstellar had the only accurate 'Time Dilation' on film.

Predestination.

>>87355801
>Time travel backwards is impossible.
There's no theoretical reason for it to be impossible, but there's also no known mechanism by which it could be possible. It is also questionable from a storytelling point of view, because it draws attention to free will not being real, and generally we like to pretend characters can make choices.

Relevant short story:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436150a.html

>>87353112
None because time travel isn't real.

>>87355801
>Interstellar had the only accurate 'Time Dilation
>accurate
wow

I mean, it wasn't completely wrong, but to say it was accurate? wew...

>>87356088
Fuck off T'Pal, we've been over this.

>>87353112
Birdman.

>>87356088
Haha, I forgot they actually believed this in 2017

>>87353112
Having time travel in your setting quite literally means anything and everything is possible. So >>87354208 takes the match on points.

>>87356085
>There's no theoretical reason for it to be impossible

Yes there is. It's a logical impossibility.

Leaving realism aside, Prince of Persia is a nice flick too.

>>87356239
>Having time travel in your setting quite literally means anything and everything is possible
You severely lack imagination. And movie experience. If you had any of those you wouldn't have said such bullshit.

>>87356278
There's no logical reason why reality has to obey causality. It's only Occam's Razor that lets us assume it does. That's not the same as causality violation being impossible.

>time travel
>realistic

uwotm8

>>87356351
But time travel violates any and all physical conservation laws. It makes everything equally bullshit.

>>87356278
>>87356360
>There's no logical reason why reality has to obey causality
True. We only assume it does because we've never seen it doing otherwise. Einstein's equations lets you choose between a universe where you can go faster than light and a causal universe, we assume ours is causal because it makes life much simpler and we have no evidence of time travel.

>>87355801
>backwards
Look at this pleb chained to 3D

>>87356437
We've modified conservation laws a few times before. We thought kinetic energy was 1/2 mv^2 at some point. If time travel is possible we would just have to modify it again to generalize it until it worked. But that's not what I was talking about and I assumed it was not what you were talking about either. I was referring to, for instance, primer that, just because it has a time travel machine, doesn't mean the guy in it can do anything he wants to because, like shown, he has to do it over and over and never gets it quite right. At the same time he also doesn't get laser beams coming out of his eyes and never goes around flying about like superman, so saying anything and everything is possible is quite an exaggeration.

synchronicity

Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future

>>87355697
Wells is a hack.