Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:00 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
LOOPER 
Author Message
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:56 pm
Posts: 90
Post Re: LOOPER
Saw the film last night, and enjoyed it on the same level as most others. Right now, and 3.5 rating from me. I do have a question, that will require us to ignore Rian Johnson's explanation for the time being. Or maybe not.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A question came up in the group that I saw the film with. I dismissed it immediately, but now I can't seem to shake it. Is it possible that the Rainmaker child is JGL as a kid? I know, I know, my response was no way at first. However, Jeff Daniels told JGL the story of how he picked him up as a younger adult or teen and made him a Looper. Is it possible that he picked him up in the future? Others have mentioned that the 30 years is just an arbitrary number, so it could have been 20 years when Jeff found him and brought him back with him to start the program.

This may cause another Loop with another chicken/egg explanation. Or it could form a Loopty-Loop (my scientific name for it) where JGL grows up without a mother (the first mother, actually aunt), then Jeff Daniels brings him back in time to be a Looper, which causes the events that make the new kid version of JGL the Rainmaker, thus creating another Loop to be closed. JGL killing himself closes both loops as kid now grows up with real mother and therefore does not get recruited by Jeff Daniels.

I already hate even reading my own explanation, but as I said, I can't shake it. Maybe someone else can and put me out of my misery? My friend mentioned the fact that Johnson at the end kept showing a close up of the side of all three character's heads, and said it couldn't have meant nothing. Fuck I have a headache.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:17 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
jnice wrote:
Saw the film last night, and enjoyed it on the same level as most others. Right now, and 3.5 rating from me. I do have a question, that will require us to ignore Rian Johnson's explanation for the time being. Or maybe not.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A question came up in the group that I saw the film with. I dismissed it immediately, but now I can't seem to shake it. Is it possible that the Rainmaker child is JGL as a kid? I know, I know, my response was no way at first. However, Jeff Daniels told JGL the story of how he picked him up as a younger adult or teen and made him a Looper. Is it possible that he picked him up in the future? Others have mentioned that the 30 years is just an arbitrary number, so it could have been 20 years when Jeff found him and brought him back with him to start the program.

This may cause another Loop with another chicken/egg explanation. Or it could form a Loopty-Loop (my scientific name for it) where JGL grows up without a mother (the first mother, actually aunt), then Jeff Daniels brings him back in time to be a Looper, which causes the events that make the new kid version of JGL the Rainmaker, thus creating another Loop to be closed. JGL killing himself closes both loops as kid now grows up with real mother and therefore does not get recruited by Jeff Daniels.

I already hate even reading my own explanation, but as I said, I can't shake it. Maybe someone else can and put me out of my misery? My friend mentioned the fact that Johnson at the end kept showing a close up of the side of all three character's heads, and said it couldn't have meant nothing. Fuck I have a headache.

In the crucial moment
[Reveal] Spoiler:
when JGL made the ultimate decision, I thought that would be the big reveal. For about half a second. Then I realized, no way, JGL / Bruce Willis would have some sort of TK abilities were that the case. And after the movie, my wife admitted to having the same momentary thought at the same moment, only her "no way" realization was that there's no way the movie would have JGL sleep with his mom.

That said, that would have been a really interesting way to go with the loop. As it is, I think the similarities in the characters are more symbolic than anything else. Which is also cool.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:10 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
jnice wrote:
Saw the film last night, and enjoyed it on the same level as most others. Right now, and 3.5 rating from me. I do have a question, that will require us to ignore Rian Johnson's explanation for the time being. Or maybe not.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A question came up in the group that I saw the film with. I dismissed it immediately, but now I can't seem to shake it. Is it possible that the Rainmaker child is JGL as a kid? I know, I know, my response was no way at first. However, Jeff Daniels told JGL the story of how he picked him up as a younger adult or teen and made him a Looper. Is it possible that he picked him up in the future? Others have mentioned that the 30 years is just an arbitrary number, so it could have been 20 years when Jeff found him and brought him back with him to start the program.

This may cause another Loop with another chicken/egg explanation. Or it could form a Loopty-Loop (my scientific name for it) where JGL grows up without a mother (the first mother, actually aunt), then Jeff Daniels brings him back in time to be a Looper, which causes the events that make the new kid version of JGL the Rainmaker, thus creating another Loop to be closed. JGL killing himself closes both loops as kid now grows up with real mother and therefore does not get recruited by Jeff Daniels.

I already hate even reading my own explanation, but as I said, I can't shake it. Maybe someone else can and put me out of my misery? My friend mentioned the fact that Johnson at the end kept showing a close up of the side of all three character's heads, and said it couldn't have meant nothing. Fuck I have a headache.


Aside from that contradicting the themes of the movie, here's a pratical reason why it can't be true:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
JGL's Joe doesn't have any TK powers. Cid and The Rainmaker both do.

Also, he would have banged his own mom, which is just disgusting. Only time travel plotlines in Futurama can get away with someone banging their relative.

The storylines of Joe' youth and Cid's youth are supposed to mirror each other for thematic reasons, but they aren't supposed to be the same. Joe sees Cid in himself, realizes what could have been for him (and what can be for Cid), and makes his sacrifice.


EDIT: Old Bonesy beat me to it. Good on him. He's a sharp guy.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:18 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 415
Post Re: LOOPER
[Reveal] Spoiler:
A question came up in the group that I saw the film with. I dismissed it immediately, but now I can't seem to shake it. Is it possible that the Rainmaker child is JGL as a kid? I know, I know, my response was no way at first. However, Jeff Daniels told JGL the story of how he picked him up as a younger adult or teen and made him a Looper. Is it possible that he picked him up in the future? Others have mentioned that the 30 years is just an arbitrary number, so it could have been 20 years when Jeff found him and brought him back with him to start the program.

This may cause another Loop with another chicken/egg explanation. Or it could form a Loopty-Loop (my scientific name for it) where JGL grows up without a mother (the first mother, actually aunt), then Jeff Daniels brings him back in time to be a Looper, which causes the events that make the new kid version of JGL the Rainmaker, thus creating another Loop to be closed. JGL killing himself closes both loops as kid now grows up with real mother and therefore does not get recruited by Jeff Daniels.

I already hate even reading my own explanation, but as I said, I can't shake it. Maybe someone else can and put me out of my misery? My friend mentioned the fact that Johnson at the end kept showing a close up of the side of all three character's heads, and said it couldn't have meant nothing. Fuck I have a headache.



That was kind of an icky theory.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
First Young and Old Joe show no kind of psychic abilities and they would recognize themselves as a kid. Second if your theory is correct that would mean Young Joe was having sex with his mom Emily Blunt. I don't think that was a pervy angle the director was going for.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:19 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: LOOPER
As others have said, I don't think that theory really holds up (but incidentally a friend I saw the movie with initially thought the exact same thing). One theory I have heard before that's kind of interesting is:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
that Kid Blue (Noah Segan) is actually the young Abe (Jeff Daniels).


Wed Oct 03, 2012 7:48 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
As others have said, I don't think that theory really holds up (but incidentally a friend I saw the movie with initially thought the exact same thing). One theory I have heard before that's kind of interesting is:

[Reveal] Spoiler:
that Kid Blue (Noah Segan) is actually the young Abe (Jeff Daniels).


I thought the exact same thing for most of the movie, and wondered if it would pay off at the end. And I guess it didn't, except maybe subtly
[Reveal] Spoiler:
with his really upset look at dead Abe.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 9:46 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: LOOPER
Actually Kid Blue's arc as a whole ended a bit anticlimactically. It sort of felt like it was building to something bigger, as if something was cut or was initially planned to play out differently.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:30 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
Actually Kid Blue's arc as a whole ended a bit anticlimactically. It sort of felt like it was building to something bigger, as if something was cut or was initially planned to play out differently.

That was another complaint I had, I didn't find Kid Blue to be a very interesting character because of how undeveloped he was, so I felt that the film would've better off without his character altogether if they weren't going to do anything interesting with him.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:59 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:56 pm
Posts: 90
Post Re: LOOPER
Thanks for the replies to my previous post. Headache is dissipated. I had thought of the TK thing later on, but not the mother thing. Gross.

Regarding the themes:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
I did enjoy the similarities between Joe and Cid. As someone mentioned before, a strong theme on the importance of a parent figure in the life of a child. Young Joe (YJ) realizing that he hadn't changed a bit as Old Joe (OJ), and his willingness to sacrifice himself to give another kid a shot at a life with a mother was pretty dramatically potent. Bruce's tortured OJ ranks as one of his best performances, and I was genuinely as conflicted as he was with his decision to murder 3 young children. That is, of course, until the end. YJ grew more in his last moments than he had in 30 years, and made the right and only decision in those circumstances. It was not a "gotcha" twist, but a natural epiphany for YJ to have, and the film made me have it at the same moment. This is one of those films that is sticking with me and getting better the more I think about it.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:51 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Vexer wrote:
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
Actually Kid Blue's arc as a whole ended a bit anticlimactically. It sort of felt like it was building to something bigger, as if something was cut or was initially planned to play out differently.

That was another complaint I had, I didn't find Kid Blue to be a very interesting character because of how undeveloped he was, so I felt that the film would've better off without his character altogether if they weren't going to do anything interesting with him.


He's what? The 5th or 6th most important character in the movie? I'd say he's pretty well developed for the purpose he serves. He's got clear motivations for his actions and he serves the screenplay as yet another point of contrast to Joe.

I'm not saying he's the most three dimensional character ever written, it's just odd to criticize the movie for how it handled a character an inferior movie would treat as non-descript Henchman #1.

jnice wrote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
It was not a "gotcha" twist, but a natural epiphany for YJ to have, and the film made me have it at the same moment. This is one of those films that is sticking with me and getting better the more I think about it.


Well said there. I completely agree.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:30 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: LOOPER
Turns out there is more to the Kid Blue story

Quote:
There's been a big theory that Abe, Jeff Daniel's mob boss from the future, is actually Old Kid Blue, Noah Segan's cowboy-mouthed gat man. The movie does not explicitly say one way or the other. There is an answer to this, and it was in a previous cut of the movie, and writer/director Rian Johnson 100% knows the answer to this. But should he tell anybody?


Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:44 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
Turns out there is more to the Kid Blue story

Quote:
[Reveal] Spoiler:
There's been a big theory that Abe, Jeff Daniel's mob boss from the future, is actually Old Kid Blue, Noah Segan's cowboy-mouthed gat man. The movie does not explicitly say one way or the other. There is an answer to this, and it was in a previous cut of the movie, and writer/director Rian Johnson 100% knows the answer to this. But should he tell anybody?


I definitely thought that while watching. I was waiting for the explicit reveal, which if it came I missed. But Kid Blue's reaction to
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Old Abe's death makes more sense if he's Young Abe. Although what happens to future (pre-sent-to-the-past) Old Joe when Young Joe kills Kid Blue is now hurting my brain. If Kid Blue does die, which I guess isn't explicit either.


Anyway, I've gone through a bit of a cycle with this one. At the close I was overwhelmed by how much I enjoyed it. Then over the next day or two little inconsistencies and plot holes and problems nagged at me. Now, more like a week out, I can't get it out of my brain and it seems to be deepening for me the more I think about it. Certainly the most rewarding sci-fi movie-going experience I've had since... I don't know, Children of Men?


Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:55 pm
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: LOOPER
Bones wrote:
Certainly the most rewarding sci-fi movie-going experience I've had since... I don't know, Children of Men?


I'll second that.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Also, I think Abe looks at his hand in a strange way after breaking Kid Blue's fingers, though maybe that's looking too far into it.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:19 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 773
Post Re: LOOPER
Where's the hyperbolic backlash for this one?

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Thu Oct 04, 2012 9:46 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
I really liked this one...but can't decide if I like it better than 12 Monkey's (and primer) yet or not.

These are the two questions that keep bothering me. One is a paradox, one is just lazy writing by Rian Johnson (unless it was explained in the film and I missed it. I can't believe nobody has asked this yet, that's why I fear I may have missed this explanation in the movie.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Why does the syndicate send the old loopers back in time (to have their loop closed) alive? Why can't they just shoot them, put them in a body bag, then throw them in the time machine and send them that way? They still are able to get rid of the body, and no mistakes can happen in the past to change the future. It can't be because "you have to be alive to time travel" because they are sending silver (and gold) too, and the people still have clothes on. They could just send them back dead (still with bars of silver attached to pay for disposal) and make it simpler on everyone.

2. When young joe shot himself, didn't that render everything old joe had done in the past mute? If young Joe killed himself, then he wouldn't be alive to come back in time and thus kill the present syndicate as well as the wrong little boy.


# 2 will require some extra thought...but what is the deal with 1? I guess there wouldn't be a movie, but I just don't like sloppy writing...there should be an explanation.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:05 am
Post Re: LOOPER
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
I really liked this one...but can't decide if I like it better than 12 Monkey's (and primer) yet or not.

These are the two questions that keep bothering me. One is a paradox, one is just lazy writing by Rian Johnson (unless it was explained in the film and I missed it. I can't believe nobody has asked this yet, that's why I fear I may have missed this explanation in the movie.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Why does the syndicate send the old loopers back in time (to have their loop closed) alive? Why can't they just shoot them, put them in a body bag, then throw them in the time machine and send them that way? They still are able to get rid of the body, and no mistakes can happen in the past to change the future. It can't be because "you have to be alive to time travel" because they are sending silver (and gold) too, and the people still have clothes on. They could just send them back dead (still with bars of silver attached to pay for disposal) and make it simpler on everyone.

2. When young joe shot himself, didn't that render everything old joe had done in the past mute? If young Joe killed himself, then he wouldn't be alive to come back in time and thus kill the present syndicate as well as the wrong little boy.


# 2 will require some extra thought...but what is the deal with 1? I guess there wouldn't be a movie, but I just don't like sloppy writing...there should be an explanation.


I checked out Rian Johnson's explanation for some things on slashfilm.com, and he actually answered my first question.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
He said he had an explanation drawn out in his head, but didn't film a scene to add it to the movie...Apparently, everyone is nano-tagged, and when somebody dies, a signal is automatically/instantly sent to the authorities. The only way to not have a signal sent is sending them back alive first. Also, they made a major mistake shooting his wife and that is why you see them burning the village to try and cover it up.


In my opinion, he was being lazy....20 more seconds of dialogue could have explained it.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:23 am
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:56 pm
Posts: 90
Post Re: LOOPER
Mark III wrote:
Where's the hyperbolic backlash for this one?


Is this a statement, or are you trying to summon some backlash? Well, as mom always said, if you don't have something vitriolic and hyperbolic to say, then don't say anything.

Maybe I'm remembering my mother wrong.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:08 pm
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:43 pm
Posts: 773
Post Re: LOOPER
jnice wrote:
Mark III wrote:
Where's the hyperbolic backlash for this one?


Is this a statement, or are you trying to summon some backlash? Well, as mom always said, if you don't have something vitriolic and hyperbolic to say, then don't say anything.

Maybe I'm remembering my mother wrong.


I don't even know what my motive was. It seemed like a statement when I wrote it but I'm sure I had an agenda. I liked the movie well enough and have no specific complaints. When something is really good, like The Beatles (or choose something that you and others and critics and the rest find really good that isn't The Beatles), that thing is often praised past the point of its actually quality thanks to community effort. 'Overrated' despite being as good as the collective effort would have us think.

_________________
Which are you drinking? The water or the wave?


Fri Oct 05, 2012 2:48 pm
Profile
Post Re: LOOPER
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
I really liked this one...but can't decide if I like it better than 12 Monkey's (and primer) yet or not.

These are the two questions that keep bothering me. One is a paradox, one is just lazy writing by Rian Johnson (unless it was explained in the film and I missed it. I can't believe nobody has asked this yet, that's why I fear I may have missed this explanation in the movie.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
1. Why does the syndicate send the old loopers back in time (to have their loop closed) alive? Why can't they just shoot them, put them in a body bag, then throw them in the time machine and send them that way? They still are able to get rid of the body, and no mistakes can happen in the past to change the future. It can't be because "you have to be alive to time travel" because they are sending silver (and gold) too, and the people still have clothes on. They could just send them back dead (still with bars of silver attached to pay for disposal) and make it simpler on everyone.

2. When young joe shot himself, didn't that render everything old joe had done in the past mute? If young Joe killed himself, then he wouldn't be alive to come back in time and thus kill the present syndicate as well as the wrong little boy.


# 2 will require some extra thought...but what is the deal with 1? I guess there wouldn't be a movie, but I just don't like sloppy writing...there should be an explanation.


I checked out Rian Johnson's explanation for some things on slashfilm.com, and he actually answered my first question.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
He said he had an explanation drawn out in his head, but didn't film a scene to add it to the movie...Apparently, everyone is nano-tagged, and when somebody dies, a signal is automatically/instantly sent to the authorities. The only way to not have a signal sent is sending them back alive first. Also, they made a major mistake shooting his wife and that is why you see them burning the village to try and cover it up.


In my opinion, he was being lazy....20 more seconds of dialogue could have explained it.


I recall JGL saying that for some reason disposing a body in 2074 future was difficult--maybe not impossible, but harder than just zapping a dude back into time. And when
[Reveal] Spoiler:
Bruce Willis' wife gets killed, they do burn the village down.
So those two things together were enough for me, and I really didn't need the details. It was confident enough in its detailed depiction of the world that I didn't feel the need for exposition.

As for your second question, that was my biggest sticking point with the logic of the movie. The movie does, however, establish the rule that
[Reveal] Spoiler:
once a Loop comes back in time, anything you do to the Looper happens to his Loop in basically real time (in 2044) and doesn't negate anything the Loop did between the moment he popped into 2044 and the moment the change is manifested in him. This is established with Paul Dano. By the time his Loop gets to the killing floor, he's basically a limb-less husk. Which, if you follow Paul Dano's de-limbing through time and back to his Loop, how did he walk to the killing floor with no legs? Answer: he didn't--the change happens to him the same moment it happens to Paul Dano. That's the rule the movie sets up. So when JGL kills himself, it manifests in Bruce Willis real time.

I do agree, though, that the ending might not follow the rule perfectly. If you apply loops to Paul Dano, then it goes like this: 1) Old Dano comes back singing, messes things up. 2) Young Dano gets caught and de-limbed. 3) Old Dano is de-limbed at the same time and then killed. (now: guessing) 4) Limbless Dano is kept alive and in 2074 sent back in time. 5) Young Dano kills de-limbed Old Dano, collects his gold. 6) Young Dano grows into Old Dano, gets sent back into time, comes back singing. It's a loop, but at least it's contained, which is why Abe calls it dangerous. But Abe also says to kill Young Dano would be more dangerous, since then there's no Young Dano to grow into Old Dano and get sent back. So yeah, when the Young Looper is killed, it should probably do something different than when the Young Looper is kept alive. But... I have no idea how you possibly could have 1) figured out exactly what the hell would have happened and 2) depicted it visually in the movie. So, I suppose I'm fine with how they did it.


Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:46 pm
Post Re: LOOPER
Not sure what to make of this. Maybe it was the hype but this felt like a top notch 3 star film to me. I think JGL is a talented actor but watching him do a Bruce Willis impression just turned me off.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Was anyone else reminded of the alternative ending of The Butterfly Effect where the character goes back and kills himself in the womb?


Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr