Hahahahah forget logic this is an animation have fun thanks for sharing Ricepirate ahahaha. Some people just love spewing their logic when this is meant to be a humorous gag. Great use of Zelda's theme :)
freaking awesome and shadow its just a funny video to watch it wasnt meant to be picked apart by that logical criticism
Great! But @Shadowlink82. It's not impossible if it hasn't been proven impossible. Notice how you say " look up he 3 theories of time travel" ? Those are theories. It's an idea of something, but isn't true or untrue.
I don't want to be 'that guy', but the time travel in this is impossible - Allow me to explain. It might get a bit confusing, so try to follow along.
I will dub the first Henry who goes back as "X", and the second who goes back and dies as "Y".
In the beginning of the film, every human looks different. This implies that, in the past, there was no Y corpse that got infused with the puddle. When X goes back in time and collects the sample, Y appears, dies, and gets infused with the puddle, thus creating the Henry-ish future. Then, X decides he wants to prevent this. He goes back (thus becoming Y), and gets killed by X, and the Henry-ish future is created (this then repeats for X). This is a causality loop, or predestination paradox.
I'm sure you know all that already, but let's analyze it for a bit. Why, in the beginning of the film, did everyone look different? If the Henry-ish future was made long ago when Y died, shouldn't everyone look like Henry from the start?
"No, the Henry-ish future was created when X went back."
Okay, so we can conclude that this timeline is dynamic, meaning that one can go back in the same timeline, change something, and thus alter the future. In a dynamic timeline, you cannot see a future version of yourself, because you haven't gone back to become that future self yet. But if the timeline were actually dynamic, where did Y come from? If it is dynamic, Henry would go back, get the sample, return, and be done. But no, Y had to come in, die, change the future and cause X to become Y, thus causing Y's own existence. But that right there doesn't happen in dynamic timelines, it happens in fixed timelines. Fixed timelines are timelines where all events that happen cannot be changed, and if your future self comes back and slaps you, no matter what - You will soon build a time machine and slap your past self. Now that brings us back to the start - If this were actually a fixed timeline, then everyone should look like Henry at the start of the film.
To sum it up, this film uses two different versions of time travel at once - dynamic, where one can change the future by going back in the same timeline, and fixed, where whatever happens must happen no matter what.
"Alright, but what if there are multiple timelines, not just one?"
That is also impossible. Let's say X goes back to the past of a different timeline, Y appears and dies, thus creating the Henry-ish future for THAT timeline. Sure, that makes sense - But wouldn't X have to travel back (thus becoming Y) to that same timeline to cause that future? Since the time machine sends someone to a different timeline (as what happened with X), wouldn't Y have to?
This proves that the only way (there are other ways involving multiple timelines, but those are far too confusing and I don't want to get TOO in-depth) the time travel in this film could be possible is if Y reprogrammed the time machine to send him back in the same timeline.
Still confused? Look up '3 Theories of Time Travel'. That should explain the three types of time travel more in detail, along with examples.
Thanks for actually reading this, and not thinking "TL;DR" and skipping it like an A-Hole (pun intended).
Dude, that was hilarious! Kind of saw the ending coming though...