Tenet (2020)

It's been a while since I saw it, idk the exact dates or timeline. Some reddit people made this

Right, but there's still no time jumping. The fundamentals of the tech as explained say that they reverse time for matter entered into the machine. Protagonist goes forward, then back, then forward again , then way back where he controls basically all the events we saw, then forward again.

There are two copies until one of them reverses time and goes back, they only overlap for a while. Knowing what events will occur doesn't change the fact that the events occur. Like Neil dying, he knows when he will die but he can't change that.

Lendarios said:

So if the protagonist, creates tenet 20 years in the future, then Patterson's character stayed in a dark room 20 years reversing time until the current present arrived, at this point being probably 60 years old? At which point he uninverts himself(because he is speaking normally to present time protagonist), then contacts present protagonist and the events of the movie unfolds?

Click to expand...

He most likely didn't just sit in a room but, uh, yeah, did you even watch this movie? There are no time jumps.

Lendarios said:

Cars always drive normally from the perspective of who is driving. You can be an inverted person and get into a regular car and go forward, or decide to drive in reverse but you have to look at the rear view mirror.

Click to expand...

Sure. But if you do an accident with a normal car, it would just crash and flip normally, roll down a hill normally, etc.. it follows the normal laws of gravity in the time line.

Similarly, an inverted guy could pick up a non-inverted gun and shoot it, but from the perspective of the inverted person, he would "catch" the bullet just like a non-inverted person would "catch" an inverted bullet, "undoing" the bullet hole create upon impact.

If both gun, bullet and shooter are inverted (or none of them are), it looks normal for their respective perspective.

Since the car "un-crashes" from the perspective of people in the regular timeline, similar to how inverted bullets "undamage" a bullet hole and jump back into the gun, the car must be inverted.

If the car was normal and only the Protagonist was inverted, the crash would not seem normal from his view (and instead would seem normal from people watching in the normal time-line). However, that's not what happens. The car un-crashes and un-flips in ways that are impossible physically in the normal flow of time (but look like a normal car crash to the inverted protagonist). Hence the car must be inverted.

He spent that time (at least it is implied) setting up all the infrastructure and organization you see them using in the movie. He's the guy pulling all the strings, even if he doesn't know it when we first meet him in the movie.

Finally had a chance to watch this. I liked it, and I think I benefited from watching with a good set of headphones. Did a quick check on my 5.1 system after viewing and the dialogue is definitely still muddied on the HBO Max copy.

Movie definitely loses sight of its own mechanics, especially re: the hotly debated Saab. There's an error here however you look at it but too many inconsistencies to say what precisely. If Nolan had left out the sequence of the Saab being blown up by Sator, it would've been a lot less confusing. But assuming Sator and his lighter are inverted, the Protagonist is inverted, the oxygen around the car is forward, the Saab and the gas inside it could be either... no combination of red/blue makes the fire -> ice -> hypothermia progression make sense.

But beyond that you have inverted people with their skin exposed to a forward sun and not freezing their tits off, so - "don't think about it, just feel it".
Lofty concept, well executed by Chris Nolan given the potential messiness of moving backwards through time. Could've used a review/edit from his brother probably.

The only reason there's room for debate and assumptions is because the movie went way over its allotted amount of plotholes and paradoxes and simply didn't have space for any more. The car was not inverted. They specifically explain to the guy the difficulty he will have driving a non-inverted car. Which is bullshit anyway, under the rules as presented it would be impossible. Even if you ignore the physics of an internal combustion engine. The protagonist is moving through time in reverse. In order for him to drive the car while he is inverted he would have to be taking it back in time with him. The entire premise of time inversion, while sounding pretty cool, is flawed at its core.

you motherfuckers are gonna make me watch this again, I think I hate you

Definitely no time jumps. We don't know exactly when in the future Patterson is recruited so trying to figure his age is pointless.

They do mention people inverting and then re-entering to revert their time. Patterson even mentions he did it during the final mission when the protagonist asks why he's not inverted.

The vehicle crashing in reverse is supposed to be just because it was driven by an inverted person. Kind of like how when he fights himself the laws of physics appear to break down. Yeah there's holes in that but its one of those things you have to accept in a time traveling movie, because obviously it doesn't really exist. Having a fully functional and scientifically accurate explanation for time travel is a pretty ridiculus standard.

The one thing I'm stuck on, and is probably pretty simple, is why were there 3 protagonists in the airport? I get the first time he went through and the time he went inverted, but I'm not clear what the purpose of the one that was unmasked was

Ambiturner said:

The one thing I'm stuck on, and is probably pretty simple, is why were there 3 protagonists in the airport?

Click to expand...

Approaching and then entering the turnstile from either direction means approaching it from both sides, since a forward and inverted person must align at that exact moment (remember, "look through the window to make sure you see yourself approaching in reverse from the other side"). So we have one protagonist in an early point in the story who approaches but doesn't enter the turnstile, and another who moves backwards through time to enter it and then exit on the other side. From the perspective of the past protagonist moving forward through time, his future self would emerge from the turnstile on both sides simultaneously. 1 observer + 2 emerge = 3

Diagram also helps;

Lendarios said:

I forgot that that kickass guy specifically told the protagonist that thing about the car.
Good catch.

Click to expand...

The exact line from Ms Soldier Lady (not Kickass) is;
I can't vouch for the handling. Friction and wind resistance are reversed. You are inverted, the world is not.

To me, this suggests the car is inverted. An inverted car would have "friction and wind resistance reversed" when passing backwards through time.
Also, there's this in the airlock just before.


Sator's car is inverted and it makes sense he would have others lined up.
But in reality, it doesn't matter anyway because nothing makes the lighter+gas = fire + ice combo make sense.

Barellron said:

The exact line from Ms Soldier Lady (not Kickass) is;
I can't vouch for the handling. Friction and wind resistance are reversed. You are inverted, the world is not.

To me, this suggests the car is inverted. An inverted car would have "friction and wind resistance reversed" when passing backwards through time.
Also, there's this in the airlock just before.


Sator's car is inverted and it makes sense he would have others lined up.
But in reality, it doesn't matter anyway because nothing makes the lighter+gas = fire + ice combo make sense.

Click to expand...

Her response is to his question of "Can I drive "a" car?" Which means she is referring to non-inverted cars.

Barellron said:

Approaching and then entering the turnstile from either direction means approaching it from both sides, since a forward and inverted person must align at that exact moment (remember, "look through the window to make sure you see yourself approaching in reverse from the other side"). So we have one protagonist in an early point in the story who approaches but doesn't enter the turnstile, and another who moves backwards through time to enter it and then exit on the other side. From the perspective of the past protagonist moving forward through time, his future self would emerge from the turnstile on both sides simultaneously. 1 observer + 2 emerge = 3

Diagram also helps;
View attachment 353818

Click to expand...

Yeah super obvious when remembering the entire reason they were there was to revert