If You Could Turn Back Time
by David Ferris
You remember the ending of the original Superman movie starring
Christopher Reeve, directed by Richard Donner: Superman, too late to
save Lois Lane, flies around the world at tremendous speed, reversing
events so he can have another chance to save her. The facts seem
straightforward, but I find that people do not agree on the
interpretation of this scenario - and, in particular, what it means to
spin the world backwards.
For the purposes of this article, I am
going to dismiss the idea that Superman is just physically making the
earth spin backwards and making events physically run backwards, rather
than reversing time. Although that may be as plausible as the magical
memory-erasing kiss from Superman II (directed by Richard
Lester), I will work on the assumption that Superman is actually making
time go backwards, or is actually going back in time.
I personally favor the idea that he is
propelling himself backwards through time (perhaps by flying faster
than the speed of light) rather than making time go backwards (perhaps
by creating some kind of space-time vortex.) But this is where most
people start to take sides. When Superman goes back in time (or makes
time go backwards) does he go back to a past where he gets to relive
these events and make different decisions (like in Groundhog Day, or Donnie Darko,
or like returning to a saved point in a video game)? Or does he
go back to a past where his past-self is still busy trying to save the
world and he is free to do other things such as saving Lois Lane
(following the time travel logic of movies like Back to the Future, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and any number Star Trek episodes)? Some people are averse to any suggestion of two co-existing Supermans.
There
are compelling arguments on both sides. While the two-Superman
time-loop theory explains why Superman is so nonchalant and apparently
unconcerned about stopping Lex Luthor’s missiles (let alone saving the
children on the bus or keeping the train from derailing) it does
present a paradox if the earlier Superman is still supposed to go back
in time. Once Lois Lane has been saved, what is his motivation for
turning back time? And if he doesn’t go back in time, then how does
Lois Lane get saved? For this to work, we have to assume other things
are happening off-screen: the original Superman is doing pretty much
all the same things we saw before (including being late to save Lois)
and the Superman who traveled back in time will have to convince the
original Superman to do the same (in order to complete the time-loop
and avoid a temporal paradox.) Maybe that’s what he’s going to do when
he tells Lois “I have to go.” He has to go intercept his past self and
explain how he was too late to save Lois and will have to go back in
time in order to rescue her.
Of course there
are other possible permutations, none very satisfying: That Superman
goes back in time, saves Lois, then goes back in time again in order to
complete the time-loop (leaving his original self free to go forward in
time.) A terrible sacrifice indeed. No wonder he hangs
around for so long after rescuing Lois - what else has he got to look
forward to?
Or perhaps once
Lois has been saved, there’s no need for the original Superman to go
back in time, so the Superman who went back in time ceases to exist. In
this theory of time-travel, you can erase the cause of your own action
without erasing the effect your action. So when Superman tells Lois “I
have to go” it’s because his time really is up and he is about to fade
out of existence - as a direct result of having saved her life!
In
contrast to the two-superman time-loop theory, there’s a simplicity to
the singular Superman who goes back in time and gets to make different
(and presumably more time-efficient) decisions so that he arrives in
plenty of time to save Lois Lane. Furthermore, if for some reason he
didn’t get it right the first time he went back, he can reboot this “do
over” until he does get it right without worrying about running into
other incarnations of himself. This model of time-travel doesn’t suffer
from any obvious paradoxes, but it also isn’t as well grounded in the
logic of serious science-fiction - and we still have to assume Superman
does a lot of things off-screen before showing up to rescue Lois and
exchange pleasantries.
I
don’t know if the writers actually debated the mechanism of Superman’s
backwards trip through time, or if they bothered to work out what else
Superman would need to do differently after going back in time. Perhaps
they were clever enough not to try. Or perhaps they didn’t care, simply
satisfied at having found a narrative means to show how deeply Superman
cares about Lois Lane.
~~~
This week the Gutter welcomes Guest Star, David Ferris. David Ferris spends a more than average amount of time considering the paradoxes or debating the logic of time-travel , though by day he is just another mild-mannered insurance administrator in the metropolis of Toronto, Canada.
Tags: Back to the Future , Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure , Christopher Reeve , Donnie Darko , Gene Hackman , Groundhog Day , Lex Luthor , Lois Lane , Margot Kidder , movies , physics , Richard Donner , Richard Lester , Star Trek , Superman , time travel
I'm fairly sure the writers of the increasingly lame Superman film series didn't think about much at all. In fact, Dave, you've probably now offered more time and energy to the subject than any of the actual screenwriters. (Remember, these were the artistes who posited Luthor's "evil genius plot" to steal nuclear missiles should hinge on a U.S. military convoy stopping at the sight of a prone Valerie Perine.) The question that always dogs my mind - and actually dogged my mind when I saw the film as a kid - is why Superman didn't reverse time to an earlier point; perhaps a point at which he could more conveniently stop Luthor's plot?
—John Crye
Hi John,
You idea about Superman reversing time (or flying backwards through time) to an earlier point isn't a bad explanation of what Superman could have done to buy himself more time with Lois. He goes back in time, stops the missiles before they launch, then waits around for Lois' car to stall so he can provide some roadside assistance.
For your suggestion I'd give you a "No Prize" except this is DC, not the Marvel Universe.
Although I have to admit, having recently re-watched that part of the movie on TV, it doesn't look like Superman turns the world back any farther than the point where the ground cracks open under Lois. Also, if the nuclear missiles don't explode in space, that plays hell with the continuity for the next movie, where that explosion is what breaks Zod & Co. out of the Phantom Zone.
—David Ferris
I'm inclined to agree with John, considering how many plotholes and lousy writing went into those movies, that the writers obviously spent little, if any, time considering the implications and requirements of their story's ending. I'd be willing to bet that some committee of non-writers who ran the movie studio had something to do with alot of the lameness of those movies.
I've never been able to reconcile time travel with causality, much less what we understand of our universe's structure. Time paradoxes like in "Terminator" are fun to write, but I've got real doubts about them ever being possible. I wonder if time travel would be more like dimensional travel? Not necessarily like "The One", but where you seem to be traveling back in time, but actually are visiting another dimension? I'd think a fun story could be written out of someone who thinks he's fixing the past, but every time he returns to his own time, nothing's changed.
—
Nefarious Dr O
Hi Dave,
I'm very amused at what a strong reaction your ponderings provoked for me. It turns out I am very sure that Superman made the world spin backwards and that reversed time. Then he got to save Lois in addition to all his other doings. It doesn't mean that I think that's in any way logical or practical, just that I am fairly certain that's what happened in the context of the film. I had no idea I had any opinion on the subject whatsoever. Whaddaya know?
—weed
Why does she remember the earthquake if the bomb doesnt' go off?
—Brian
I think the both bombs go off and that Superman doesn't go far enough back in time to stop them - only far enough back to better deal with the consequences of the explosions and earthquake.
It is puzzling why he wouldn't have gone back the extra 10 minutes to stop the bombs going off - or even stop the bombs from launching in the first place. Maybe he was too focused on saving Lois and so didn't think it through logically before he flew backwards through time. Maybe it hurts going back through time so he only went back as far as he had to in order to save Lois.
—David Ferris
Let’s say you’ve just invented a time machine. Your hand is on the dial,
ready to master the energies of the fourth dimension. Depending on when
you’re living in the history of the universe, this might be science
fiction or just the latest invention. Spaceships, atomic bombs, the
internet, all were once wild speculative dreams.