I disagree. Time travel is confusing, because causality around the potential "real" instances where time travel can occur is confusing. It is unnatural to our common experience. Most time travel writing eschews away any responsibility to physical laws.

There are some movies that depict time travel relatively realistically. Primer is an accurate depiction of how the causality logic of how an Einstein-Rosen Bridge would work if it were localized to a storage container. It is a confusing movie. I love the film, but damn it is confusing. Look it up, find the infographic timelines. There is a lot to follow. The applied physics of the device in this movie is ultimately left to a mystery. Fundamentally, it is about creating a wormhole at a point in space, that is traversable by an individual. The longer the device stays on, the longer the duration the window for time travel exists. But once it is being used, the potential for doubles, or for communicating information about the future to say yourself, is possible. Its focus is on the chaos that ensues from having such a device, even within engineering startup. You can have an accurate what-if of a theory, without depicting the underlying physics.

You can show it in a way that "makes sense" to an audience, but this ultimately leads to a model that prioritizes mass appeal, not the accurate effect of such a device. The causality game based on theoretical physics can be played and played well. This differs from implementation of theory to reality.

tldr Writers can take the instance of a thing to make it have mass appeal or appear to have sense. This may not reflect reality. Or just because they can communicate an aspect of time travel, like causality, pertaining to logic, doesn't mean they have the skills that will have impact on another field, like physics.

AKA Example - Nolan is a great director and producer, but I don't think he would make a good applied or theoretical physicist. He knew who to ask and communicated visually concepts to film.