Toki wo Kakeru Shoujo Discussion (GO WATCH THIS)

arkv said:
The aunty flat out says that she remembers her liking the guy, therefore she must have done something to make her think that.

arkv said:
Because it doesn't make sense, how does he even know that the painting exists?

arkv said:
When he arrived back in the future he could have bought another pebble and returned to see her again. Also, don't say that the pebbles are too expensive to buy because otherwise he wouldn't have wasted money to see a painting.

symbv said:
Liking which guy?

He read about it in some document. Why it does not make sense?

As I said, it is not as if time travel is unlimited. It is clear that there is some limitation about the use of pebble. And nobody even said it is something one can buy so you are jumping to conclusion about the expensive to buy idea. One main theme in the movie is how one can waste invaluable opportunities on frivolous things - Makoto using the pebble time and time again on some most trivial reason is contrasted by the fact that this pebble must be something not easy to come by and has limited lifespan/power.

arkv said:
The aunty said that she liked Kousuke.

arkv said:
The aunty didn't even know if the painting was worth anything, so I doubt that he read about it in a document.

arkv said:
Also, even if he did I can't think of any rational reason to go back in time just to see an average painting. Besides, if the painting was so amazing then somebody would have replicated it in the future.

arkv said:

So you are saying that he wasted a rare device just to go and look at a painting?

symbv said:
She was repairing it in a national museum and she did not realize it was some national treasure?

symbv said:
Jumping to conclusion again. What made you conclude that someone would have replicated it so well that it looks just like the original?? Even now we have tons of painting that were destroyed in war without any good replicates left. Also, it is not uncommon for a person to want to see the original even after he sees a replicate.

symbv said:
The important thing is not to impose your idea onto other's decision. He deemed it important enough to use a rare device to check a painting before it was destroyed. You say he "wasted" the device. To him it is something that is worth the effort.

arkv said:
She says that she isn't sure if it is worth anything.

arkv said:
Because the painting was present in modern war free times and so if it was important then somebody would have made a copy of it.

arkv said:
I thought of another thing wrong with this, why did he even travel back to the time period in the movie? The painting wasn't there until a while after he arrived.

arkv said:
Also, the painting was clearly not very important to him since he left without looking at it.

symbv said:
And you took it on her words? She is saying it more like compared to other treasures it may not worth a dedicated visit to seek it out.

symbv said:
What made you think "the painting was present in modern war free times"?
And anyway as I said, just a copy may not be good enough. I have seen copies of Mona Lisa many times but I still want to go to Louvre to see the real painting.

symbv said:
The painting was always there but it was just not displayed.

symbv said:
The correct thing to say is: he had to go back right after saving Makoto, so even if the painting was important to him he had no choice.

arkv said:
Surely she would have had people inspect it to see if it were worth anything before she made that statement.

arkv said:

Because there was nothing to suggest that Japan was at war during the film. That is the Mona Lisa, this was just some painting which people weren't even sure was valuable.

arkv said:
Why didn't he go to a time when it was displayed then?

arkv said:


What makes you say that? He could have used his final charge at any time.

symbv said:
You are still mixed up with what she meant. She said it only as a remark to address the guy's strong attachment to seeing the painting, NOT the worth of the painting itself.

symbv said:
You got pretty mixed up here. The painting is clearly valuable (as any painting that is displayed in a national museum should be), but then the point is not how valuable it is but how important it is to Chiaki. To Chiaki it may be even more important than Mona Lisa.

symbv said:
How did he know from the future? It is not as if all the display record of the paintings can easily be found even today, and after wars etc you don't presume it is easy to tell exactly which date it is in display? All he knew is that the painting existed in certain years in that museum and so he traveled back to that time.

symbv said:
The correct thing to say is: he had to go back right after saving Makoto, so even if the painting was important to him he had no choice.

arkv said:
The aunty didn't even know that Chiaki wanted to see the painting.

arkv said:
The problem is that the film never explains this, good films explain why characters possess certain feelings.

arkv said:
He was there for at least half a year before the painting actually arrived in the gallery, surely he should have leapt around to find a time period where it was there rather than waiting.

arkv said:
He needed the final charge to return home and the only way to use it up would be to leap through time. Therefore he still had the final charge and could have used it at any time.

symbv said:

arkv said:
The problem is that the film never explains this, good films explain why characters possess certain feelings.

symbv said:
And it was explained to the extent that we know he cared about the painting because of the war and the longing of the past. You could argue that more could have been revealed but its omission does not necessarily make it a bad movie.

arkv said:
He was there for at least half a year before the painting actually arrived in the gallery, surely he should have leapt around to find a time period where it was there rather than waiting.

symbv said:
It should be: Before it was ready to be displayed in the museum (it is a museum not an arts gallery mind you). He knew it would be displayed so he stuck around to get into his new life. Nothing odd here.

arkv said:
He needed the final charge to return home and the only way to use it up would be to leap through time. Therefore he still had the final charge and could have used it at any time.

symbv said:
Actually he did not say that he needed the final char to return home. In fact he said he used the last charge to save Kousuke. It seems that the design of the item is that the return of the long time leap is not counted as the charges.

arkv said:
Not necessarily, she worked behind the scenes so it is possible that it wasn't even on display for the public at the time.

arkv said:
It does though, he goes to the past solely to see the painting and then doesn't even bother to go and look at it. How is that good writing?

arkv said:
He never went to the art gallery in the film though, surely he would have at least been checking every couple of days since it was the only reason given for him coming to the past.

arkv said:
You are mistaken here, the film shows that he got that final charge back since the main character went back in time to before he needed to use that charge (this part is a plothole since the charges are supposed to persist through time shifts). Also, the device does not do that as before he gets the final charge back he mentions how he will be unable to return to the future as a result of saving Kousuke.

symbv said:
Yeah, not on display for the public is one thing, being in the collection is another. If it is in the collection of the museum then it is of course valuable.

symbv said:
He actually checked about it, the thing is. The fact that at the end he could not see it can arguably be called as good writing, as he found something that perhaps means more to him than the painting.

symbv said:
How many times did I have to tell you that it is not an art gallery??? It is the national museum.

We did not get to see him go to the museum, but from what he said we could deduce he must have checked about it.

symbv said:
The main character went back in time because he used the last charge. And "he mentions how he will be unable to return to the future as a result of saving Kousuke" is simply wrong. What happens is that he had to return as a result of saving Kousuke, not the other way round.

arkv said:
The painting was there to be restored, after the restoration she made the comment which implies that it had been appraised.

arkv said:
Not really, considering that if he considered the main character more important than the painting then he still abandoned her.

arkv said:
It was his only reason to go to the past, it is bad writing for him to not visit it at least once during the film.

arkv said:
You need to watch this part again, what happens is:

The main character uses her last charge to undo the phone call from Chiaki
Chiaki uses his last charge to save Kousuke
This somehow gives the main character her last charge back
The main character uses her last charge to go back in time to before Chiaki uses his last charge
Chiaki regains his last charge
Chiaki uses that last charge to return to the future

symbv said:
OK, this is how it goes: Makoto went back in time because Chiaki used the last charge to save Kousuke. Chiaki had to go after he revealed his secret to Makoto. Makoto found that because of time leap back she got one charge back. She used it to leap back to a time when Chiaki still got one charge, and he used to charge to go back to future. Do we now agree this is what happened?

arkv said:
Yes. He only had to go since in that original time period he revealed the secret, this was not an issue when the main character mentioned it to him again since he didn't break the rule that time. The problem that arises as a result of this is that he leaves immediately despite being able to use the charge whenever he wanted.

symbv said:
Thing is he has already revealed the secret already, so he had to go, but it is only because he did not have the last charge earlier so he had to disappear (die?). With the last charge back he still had to leave but at least he got the charge to return to the future.

arkv said:
This doesn't really make sense, the film handled time travel incredibly poorly and so I don't really want to get into a debate over that but technically he never revealed the secret because that event never occurred due to the main character going back in time.

arkv said:
. If other leapers retained knowledge then he would have known that he revealed the secret to her and would not have been so surprised when she told him that he did.

symbv said:
No, as long as Makoto remembers the secret the secret should be deemed revealed. And thus the rule is already broken unless you can reverse the result of the revelation (that is, back to Makoto not knowing the secret).

symbv said:
We never know how many leapers are out there. As far as this film is concerned only Makoto and Chiaki have the power.

arkv said:
Why does he tell her to wait for him then? If he is going to die for breaking the rule then saying that would make no sense.

arkv said:
That is irrelevant, what I was saying is that it is a plothole for Chiaki to somehow know that the main character was leaping despite not possessing knowledge of what occurred before her leaps.

symbv said:
If he got no charge and had to leave then he seems to just disappear, but when Makoto got back to the time when Chiaki had one last charge, Chiaki could just go back to the future, and it is always possible that he may meet her again in future.

symbv said:
Chiaki knew that someone was playing with time as he had the experience, and he suspected Makoto may know about it. Why is it a plothole?

arkv said:
Earlier you said he broke the rule, what you are saying now contradicts that because by breaking the rule there must be some penalty.

arkv said:

Except that he didn't have an experience like that because he had no knowledge of telling the main character that he was from the future. It is a plothole because it means that he remembered what happened before the time leaps which isn't possible because he didn't remember telling the main character.

symbv said:
No contradiction. He had to leave the present. I said that earlier too.

symbv said:
What do you mean by "he had no knowledge of telling the main character"? I think he remembers he told her the secret. And it is also clear that Makoto knows his secret. That means the revelation has taken place and its effect is still there.

arkv said:
Why though? This is another problem, the film never explained what happens when you break the rule.

symbv said:

DId we watch the same movie? He clearly has no memory of telling her, it takes her like a minute to convince him that he did. Therefore there is no way that he could have known that the main character was time leaping because that shows that other leapers do not retain knowledge.

symbv said:

DId we watch the same movie? He clearly has no memory of telling her, it takes her like a minute to convince him that he did. Therefore there is no way that he could have known that the main character was time leaping because that shows that other leapers do not retain knowledge. It is clear that she remembers, right? So the result of Chiaki's revelation stays, so Chiaki still has to shoulder the consequence of the revelation.

arkv said:
This is going nowhere, what I am trying to say is that a huge plothole exists in the film since Chiaki somehow knows that Makoto has been time leaping despite the fact that leapers are not aware of leaps made by other people as shown by Chiaki not knowing that he told Makoto the truth about him.

symbv said:
No there is no such huge plothole. Chiaki definitely can tell something not right when time leap happens. It is how he managed to know Kousuke's accident and save him.

And my argument about the rule-breaking still holds. Makoto still knows the secret and so Chiaki had to leave.

arkv said:
No he can't, otherwise he would know that he told Makoto his secret. He knew about Kousuke's accident because Makoto cried about it afterwards so he leapt back in time to undo it. He says this in the film.

arkvThe rule breaking point is meaningless to discuss since the film fails to say what the consequences for breaking a rule are.[/quote said:
But Chiaki already said he had to leave because he has revealed the secret. Explanation of why may be better but even without it it does not hurt the storytelling.

symbv said:
He can't what? He has been suspecting about time leap happening which is why he kept probing Makoto about it. Yes, he may not be able to tell at the exact moment when the time leap happens. What I am saying is that he could tell there are people around him using time-leap. It should be clear to him since he knows his device is gone.

arkv said:
How could he tell? By time leaping the original time line is replaced and so the persons in it have no recollection of the original time line ever occurring. This is shown by him not knowing that he told Makoto his secret.

symbv said:
Not necessarily. He lost the device and so would be on alert to detect traces of information that tells him someone was using time-leap. But that does not mean he remembers everything he was going to do during the future.

arkv said:
There is no information that would suggest that though since when a time leap occurs the original time line is no longer remembered.

symbv said:
Since Chiaki has been inquiring about Makoto, we know Chiaki has been doing searches and also correctly suspecting that Makoto holds the device. The time-leaps may make his search difficult but it does not mean he came to conclusion that Makoto holds the device without any search or investigation on his own.

arkv said:
There was no evidence to suggest that she had leapt through time, for there to be a person would have to be able to retain memories from the original timeline.

symbv said:
No evidence to suggest Makoto had leapt through time? So what are we seeing Makoto doing in the movie?

arkv said:
....Only she can remember the original timelines, everybody else forgets them because after she leaps they disappear.

symbv said:
Yeah, but as I said Chiaki would suspect someone is using the device because he lost it and could not find it. So I would say that he would keep on alert to find traces of time leap being used. This would be how he came to suspect Makoto got the device. True it is not shown clearly in the film but I would say that this is what happened.

arkv said:
Why would he suspect Makoto of all people? There was no evidence to condemn her and so his accusation was baseless.

symbv said:
Precisely, this means he must have done his own investigation to reach that conclusion. Granted it is not shown in the film but we don't know what he did so it is jumping to conclusion that his accusation w baseless.

arkv said:
What research could he do? There is no way he could have known she was leaping.

symbv said:
Who knows? As I said, I agreed there are things unexplained although it is not as many or as big as you claimed. I would take his research to be one of the unexplained things. He clearly identified Makoto as being related to time-leap.

arkv said:
How can you defend a movie that leaves out such critical details? I can forgive it for not explaining minor things but integral plot points need to be explained.

symbv said:
Well, just like when I read a science fiction, particularly the new wave type, I don't need everything explained in my face. If this kind of details are omitted it does not hurt my enjoyment as I know that the focus is not on that.

arkv said:

There is a big difference between leaving things up to the reader's imagination and the omission of key plot details.

symbv said:
The thing is I do not take those details as "key plot details". It does not hurt the story if we are not told how he came to conclude Makoto had the device.

arkv said:
How doesn't it hurt the story? By your logic if Chiaki asked Kousuke if he could travel through time with no explanation then that would also be fine.