Since Nolan and his work are in the headlines right now, I think it's time to continue the discussion about how ABOVE levels Tenet is to everything else.

Right. I re-watched Tenet and thought about it and it doesn't make any sense at all.

Scenario
A chases B (who has a non-inverted gun) and B runs into a Turnstyle, inverts then exits the Turnstyle and shoots A in the head and runs away.

From B's perspective, he runs towards the turnstyle and notices the inverted version of him (in rewind) catch a bullet from wall through A's head, then he enters the turnstyle, exits, points his gun at A and fires, and the bullet goes through A's head and into the wall behind him. then he runs off.

From A's perspective, as he chases B, he should see a second, inverted B, rewind towards the turnstyle, then point a gun at him, then a bullet from behind A should pass through A's head, into inverted B's gun, then inverted B should rewind into the turnstyle as normal B enters, then both B's disappear.

The problem is this. As A chases non-inverted B, the bullet is already in the wall, meaning it has already been fired, and passed through A's head. In other words, since the bullet is already in the wall, there should already be a bullet hole in A's head, since the bullet passed through his head before it hit the wall, so it cannot be lodged in the wall without also already having passed through A's head.

A's perspective should be that he already has a bullet wound, then the bullet travels from the wall, through his head (healing him), and back into inverted B's gun.

But if that's right, when does the bullet wound in A's head first form? When does the bullet first appear in the wall? The concept of firing a bullet backwards in time does not make any sense and I think it breaks the idea of using guns in combat.

I genuinely hope someone can explain this because to me it makes no sense. For example, when inverted Sator shoots non-inverted kat, the bullet is already in the glass. If that's right, then Kat should already have a bullet wound (since the bullet passed through her before it hit the glass), and him shooting her should heal her, not wound her.

[EDIT]

Already, people don't get it.

Imagine the timeline of an inverted bullet fired into a wall. Fired, enters wall. Remains in wall for however long it takes a bullet to decay (assume 100 years).

From regular time, the bullet hole would appear 100 years before the bullet was "caught" by the inverted gun, then at the moment it was "caught", the hole would dissapear.

So now replace "wall" with a person's head. The bullet hole would already be in their head until the bullet was caught through it. It doesn't make sense for there to be no wound before being shot by an inverted bullet.

[SECOND / FINAL EDIT]

I am literally applying the same logic to bullet holes.

When an inverted bullet is fired into a wall. There is a hole in the wall, then the wall repairs when the bullet is caught.

By the same logic, when an inverted bullet is fired into a person, there should be a wound in the person, then the person should heal when the bullet is caught.

There is no explanation for why bullet holes in the glass exist before the bullet is caught, but a bullet hole in Kat does not exist before the bullet is caught.

If you can and want to pinpoint it at all - primarily:

- Is it because of the science-fiction concept of time and entropy?

- Is it because of the at the core archetypical spy-thriller red string and the (therefore) likable protagonist and his allies?

- Is it because of the element of uncertainty and being kept wondering, guessing and theorizing?

- Is it because of the whole spectacle?

- Is it because you were impressed by Kenneth Branagh’s resting heart rate?

Or because of something else entirely?

I’m just curious.

Kenneth has elaborate plans to kill Protagonist but miraculously changes his mind because of this line. There's a bunch of stuff that annoys me about this movie but this moment takes the cake. Just too convenient. Since I didn't really understand the relevance of the opera scene I'm sure there's something I'm missing here. But overall there are too many miserable people on yachts for this film to be much fun.

Title.

Just trying to know if there's a read about Tenet I can get into.

A particular scene is still giving me a mental headache that I can’t quite resolve. From the forward perspective the, let’s call him P1 (Protagonist 1), he and Neil enter the turnstile room; there is no one else present. P1 sees the bullet holes and knows something is about to happen; Neil is puzzled by this. They stand in the room for a while, alone. The turnstile begins to rotate. Then, on both sides, figures appear: on the left, the inverted Protagonist—let’s call him P2—with whom P1 begins to fight; and on the other side, the no-longer-inverted P2, who briefly fights Neil. However, Neil recognizes P2 and lets him go. So far, so good. But from this perspective, we face a problem: during the time P1 and Neil are in the room—before the turnstile has rotated—P2 is, so to speak, non-existent. Yet, from the reverse perspective, it all makes more sense. P2 is flung into the warehouse by the turbine exhaust, begins fighting Protagonist P1 (from his own point of view), works his way back toward the turnstile during the fight, enters the turnstile, sees himself already fighting Neil on the other side so confirming he can enter the turnstile, steps inside, the door closes, and on the other side—no longer inverted—he begins fighting Neil. Now, however, if we try to run both perspectives simultaneously, we encounter a problem: P2 enters the turnstile *after* having fought P1. And from the other side, we have P2—who has already entered the turnstile—re-entering it, so to speak, in reverse. The turnstile rotates, the doors open again, and no one emerges on either side. We are then in that period of non-existence where only P1 and Neil are standing in the room, wondering where the bullet holes came from.

I’m referring specifically to the finger countdown during the Tallinn highway chase, not the later interrogation in the blue room.
From the forward Protagonist’s perspective:
Sator threatens to shoot Kat and counts down.
The Protagonist throws him the empty orange case.
He secretly throws the Algorithm piece into the inverted Saab.
But from inverted Sator’s personal perspective, shouldn’t the order be:
He sees the Algorithm fly backwards from the Saab into the forward Protagonist’s hand.
He sees the empty case travel back toward the Protagonist.
Only afterward does he perform the countdown and threaten Kat.
Therefore, Sator already knows that the case is empty and that the Algorithm’s forward-time destination is the Saab. Why does he still threaten Kat and demand the case?
Is he deliberately completing a fixed causal loop—because his threat causes the Protagonist to attempt the deception that reveals the Algorithm’s location? Or is there another tactical reason he still needs the orange case?
Could Sator theoretically choose not to perform the countdown after seeing the handoff, or is that impossible under the film’s “what’s happened, happened” rule?

Only thing missing is the 1943 Indian coin and nylon plastic zipper pull.

The key that unlocks the entire movie for me is the conversation between TP and Neil at the very end; specifically:

“The Protagonist: But can we change things if we do it differently?
Neil: "What's happened's happened." Which is an expression of faith in the mechanics of the world. It's not an excuse to do nothing.
The Protagonist: Fate?
Neil: Call it what you want.
The Protagonist: What do you call it?
Neil: Reality. Now let me go.”

Here, I interpret Neil’s “What’s happened’s happened” as past tense, present tense, and future tense.

The “mechanics of the world” in TENET’s universe must be (4 dimensionally) deterministic in order for revering an objects entropy to hold its logic.

Neil’s character seems to be the only one who has fully confronted this notion. If we are able to go back in the past without changing it, then that path of action was inevitable from the beginning. He’s realized he has no free will, that he is just a helpless actor in one big cosmic play. He then adds, “that’s not an excuse to do nothing”, to illustrate that he is not condemned by knowing this but rather he is liberated.

Much as the Abusrd Man accepts that he will never know the secrets of the universe but continues to fight for those answers and live his life passionately; Neil accepts that what has happened, and what will happen, have already happened but continues to “weave another past into the fabric of the mission” with a smile.

P.S. Pattinson’s performance in this scene is unmatched.

I just watched tenet for the second time and now think I understand how the time reversal works, my only question is how do reversed objects work?

I understand people being reversed and the actions coming from said people then also become reversed like when the protagonist shot at himself.

But how can objects alone be reversed without a person causing the initial action such as the scene at the beginning when the protagonist catches/drops the bullet.

I’m not sure I’ve explained my point clearly but I guess my question is, can anyone explain how objects can be reversed, and/or how a reversed action can be caused by someone who is not reversed like the bullet catch/drop.

Why does The Protagonist have trouble opening the door to the turnstile in the Freeport? Every time I watch the film, I wonder this because all Neil has to do for him is press a button and the door opens. Maybe I’m missing a detail.

Kat is a fantastic character with a great arc. She’s a well written female character and I will not stand for the slander any longer.

That guard wasn't hurting anyone? For most of the film he doesn't kill anyone actively involved in the operations, so why does he kill that guard, when he could have just shot his leg or something?

A short scene but it makes me wonder about his morality.

I really don’t think he’ll live up to Tenet, especially after audience reception, he has to dumb everything down now. Tenet was Nolan firing on all cylinders with no compromise.

I still liked Oppenheimer, it was the first film I saw that felt like the soundtrack was the main character, the momentum with the soundtrack overlaying the dialogue throughout was super interesting.

I just feel like The Odyssey didn’t have anything interesting about it, super conventional, weird casting choices, all politics aside the casting takes you out of the film with every character that is introduced, nothing feels authentic.

red for conventional time flow, blue for inverted, of course

(also I should say I believe TP's car was inverted, and it's the one behind a veil on the conventional side of the Tallinn turnstile that the inverted group informed those left on the conventional side to bring with them later so that it's waiting for TP when he asked for the car, also speaking of, that explosion was a little weird but I didn't include it here, the explosion happened inverted, but heat exchange happened conventionally, and dust seemed to rise conventionally)

So in the forward timeline, we know Neil's dead body rises up, and is shot by a FORWARD moving bullet which embeds inside his brain, opens the door and moves backwards to the turnstile

This means that for inverted neil, while he is running from the turnstile towards the gate, he has a bullet in his head?? And after LOCKING the door (in his perspective), the bullet leaves his head and goes back into volkov's gun and neil falls dead to the floor.

How did he carry out the door mission while having a bullet in his head the entire time? xD

This time, Fable takes a shot.
https://tenet-timeline.tiiny.site/

I went into this movie expecting to be challenged, but by the end I realized I wasn't just confused I don't think I actually understood what happened.

Afterward I watched a few explanations and realized I'd missed a lot of details that the movie expects you to catch on the first viewing. At the same time, I can't tell whether I'm missing something obvious or whether Tenet is simply a film that's almost impossible to fully understand without multiple rewatches.

I wrote this post in my native language, then asked to AI to translate but the post is totally human lol.

Premise: In this movie, dialogues are sporadic and rich in meaning. Nolan leaves nothing to chance, and every line has a purpose—particularly the phrases spoken by Neil, who was instructed to let the young Protagonist do his thing for the simple fact that it worked ("what's happened, happened").

After the end of the film, the Protagonist spends fifteen years with Max (who is Neil) and Kat. In addition to the clues already mentioned, Neil drops not one, but two lines that make it clear he knows, but cannot be explicit because doing so would risk compromising the plan.

1. At their first meeting in Mumbai, Neil asks if he would ever take a woman or a child hostage. This question refers to the fact that Neil believes the future Protagonist, to safeguard the project, allowed a child and his wife to be held hostage by Sator without doing anything to stop it, because Sator himself was part of Tenet's plan. In my opinion, this question from Neil is the result of a journey of personal growth that took place during his recruitment by the Protagonist.
2. With a certain arrogance near the end of the film, Neil challenges the Protagonist by asking if he is "absolutely sure he won't even look at Kat from a distance," because he knows that the Protagonist will eventually spend a good portion of his life with them.

Beyond these two phrases, Neil is clearly instructed to intervene only if the plan is compromised (for instance, when the young Protagonist tries to unmask the inverted future Protagonist); otherwise, he must have total faith in the Protagonist. However, his determination to save Kat when she is shot by the inverted bullet could be partly because he is saving his mother, and partly because he knows he grew up with her: Neil knows that the young Protagonist's instinct to save Kat is correct because he knows he grew up with his mother, meaning she was indeed saved—which is also why he is fairly relaxed about Kat's recovery.

With these points cleared up, one of the main criticisms of the Max = Neil theory is the duration of the inversion required for him to be at the Opera; however, this applies not just to Neil, but to anyone. If TENET is founded in the future, then anyone recruited by the Protagonist in the future would have to travel back many years. Now, it makes perfect sense for the Protagonist—who has no private life and no friends—to invest in young Max (especially since Neil knows so much, meaning the future Protagonist's trust in him is absolute). Therefore, he would start recruiting and training him immediately, parallel to his academic life until Neil turns 25 (a total of about 15 years) and earns his degree in physics.

They spend part of this time together, while during the other part Neil studies and the Protagonist organizes the logistics for a 15-year inversion (Neil will be 40, the Protagonist 65-70) to continue training while inverted in order to return to the period before the movie's opening scene. On this point, I would like to note that living in inversion does not necessarily have to be a titanic effort like the highway chase. If well-organized, they could easily spend 15 years in a room doing nothing and without needing masks (as we see, for example, when they take Kat back to the freeport or on the ship). They could very well "waste" 30 minutes a day to perform daily activities by re-inverting themselves (eating, personal needs, acting as a sort of half-hour of daily privacy) and then meet at the turnstile to spend the next 24 hours inverted, training in the room or something similar.

Thus, not only Neil but also the Protagonist travel back about fifteen years. At that point, an older version of the Protagonist remains in that timeline to execute the plan flawlessly (for example, it is much easier to call Priya than to communicate between the past and the future). In my opinion, this is precisely why the Protagonist gained the upper hand: he had the courage and the ambition to travel back in time two decades to orchestrate everything in real-time and beat the antagonists to the punch.

During the first meeting with Neil in Mumbai, Neil is not surprised to find himself in front of the Protagonist because he was trained to follow him, but he stands frozen for a few seconds, thinking: "I left you just a short while ago as a seventy-year-old, so this is what you looked like when you were young." In all of this, Sator unknowingly plays exactly into the future Protagonist's hands (who is never shown to us but is also present in that timeline) and retrieves the algorithm precisely thanks to the young Protagonist (as Priya confirms to us). The Protagonist is willing to leave young Max and Kat hostage to ensure Sator acts as a pawn so the plan works, just as Neil hints at during their first meeting in Mumbai.