Don't worry, I've both read Homestuck and watched Dr. Who. I can do a stable time loop pretty easily.
What I'm annoyed about isn't the time loop, it is the fact that Peters motivation for wanting to destroy the human race was never explained. In fact they didn't even explain how Railly recognized Peters, as she spots him before Cole. Cole might have a chance of knowing him from seeing the same events in his childhood, but Railly wouldn't.
The time stuff is fine, I get that easily. But the end is actually full of plot holes.
I'm just saying (at length) that I don't think Peters' motivation is the point. It happened.
I considered mentioning something like that episode of Bablyon 5 (one of the few
without time-travel in it...
![Wink ;)](http://97.107.128.126/smf/Smileys/aaron/wink.gif)
) called "A View From The Gallery". A 'breakout story', of sorts, the plot follows the station mechanics/maintenance men (Mac and... Bo/Beau?) around B5 during a crisis. The crisis is happening, and M&B are involved (definitely helping the efforts, on at least a couple of occasions) and interact with what is happening, and make comments intended to interact with the fourth wall. But the battle is a background. The cause behind the Hostiles' actions is incidental, although is given a reasonable justification through some secondary (but, outside this episode, normally primary) characters' overheard/witnessed dialogue.
To that end, I feel free to give Peters (again, if he's the 'incidental antagonist', as I'm assuming) a reasonable justification of him just being crazy enough... And has the means. (If he had had a different means he would have done that, instead. If he lacked any sufficiently/potentially civilisation-ending means he could have gone all Boston on a more limited target. Or stewed in a fugue of his own making until dying, unhappy and friendless.) The result is not so vague. It happened, caused chaos, loss of reliable records from which the surviving/recovering future civilisation drew in order to (mis-)target their mission. Not an intentional effect... And the cause, or the motivation to the cause, is... Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film.
This isn't a plot hole. It's a "do we need to explain
everything?" fact that 'is'. How did the younger version of Peters get to school? Did he walk, or take the schoolbus? Was he home-schooled? The answer might explain something (various different susceptibilities to various possible bullies, or chance to be a bully himself... and/or perhaps he had time to think... muse... stew, even... while on his own), but need not be included if (in some people's opinions, at least) the character's intentions can be painted by their on-screen actions...
(Maybe there's a film or series of films out there (conceptually!) that covers how things got into that state, and how it progressed... Leaving 12M, retrospectively, as a 'breakout' film, just like M&B had their moment in the spotlight, against the background of B5... I see that as potential in the superset of all possible films, not as a hole in the subset of this one film's plot.)
The Railly spotting bit? No, can't remember enough fine detail within the movie to comment. You can
have that point, in lieu of me having any immediate idea about it. Could have arisen due to a capricious cutting-room-floor incident.
fakeedit @Tiruin: Wasn't when you posted... But I think
I've said all I really can say about 12M. Very little of which needed to be said anyway, methinks... There'll be something new coming up in a while, though, I'm sure, whether I'm involved or not!!!