Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Options
1…456810

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    sReq | uTeK
    Registered Users Posts: 5,999 ✭✭✭sReq | uTeK


    red dave wrote: »
    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    Hi all saw this today and while it was a brilliant movie a few things don't hold up.

    The event at the end of the movie is what is meant to have been the catalyst for SID becoming the rainmaker. That's pretty evident. However the story falls down here. Bruce willis has killed himself so he doesn't escape like he does in young joes timeline thus this event never happened at the farm in his timeline so there shouldn't be a rainmaker unless SID is actually destined to be evil all along thus completely negating the need for Joe killing himself at the end of the movie

    No its not.

    The rainmaker came about in Bruce Willis normal timeline when he had no interaction with sid as a youngster....so the interaction that he actually did have could mean there is no rainmaker at all...or whatever but your point is incorrect.

    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.


  • Options
    #213
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,095 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.

    Rather than repeating myself: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81044991&postcount=150

    The 'risk factor' in the film is that the future is not yet determined. It's all uncertain, and that's why Willis is so desperately trying to save his future relationship. His 'memories' are fuzzy and unclear because we're seeing a paradox play out, one in which actions could and will have major consequences.

    Does it make 'sense' in the traditional sense? No, it's a film about time travel after all, and we're asked to buy into the internal logic of the film. Given how nicely Johnson managed to work everything out within its own abstract rules, I was more than happy to suspend disbelief.


  • Options
    #214
    i71jskz5xu42pb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭i71jskz5xu42pb


    OK, an alright film, not up to the hype (is anything?) but you could pass your evening worse ways.

    A question though:
    When the first looper goes missing and they find his present day self, rather than simply kill the present day looper they decide to call in the doctor, carve directions into his arm and start slicing bits off him.
    Why bother, would killing present day looper not have been simpler?


  • Options
    #215
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,144 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Kannon Creamy Pellet wrote: »
    OK, an alright film, not up to the hype (is anything?) but you could pass your evening worse ways.

    A question though:
    When the first looper goes missing and they find his present day self, rather than simply kill the present day looper they decide to call in the doctor, carve directions into his arm and start slicing bits off him.
    Why bother, would killing present day looper not have been simpler?

    THey explained it in the film with a throw away line, killing the younger version could mess up the whole timeline, theough I don't see how removing all his limbs wouldn't mess it up either tbh.


  • Options
    #216
    i71jskz5xu42pb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭i71jskz5xu42pb


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    THey explained it in the film with a throw away line, killing the younger version could mess up the whole timeline, theough I don't see how removing all his limbs wouldn't mess it up either tbh.

    But they did kill him, didn't they?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kannon Creamy Pellet wrote: »
    But they did kill him, didn't they?

    They killed the future version, the last we see of the present version he is attached to a life support machine (seemingly)


  • Options
    #218
    red dave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 845 ✭✭✭red dave


    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    red dave wrote: »
    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    Hi all saw this today and while it was a brilliant movie a few things don't hold up.

    The event at the end of the movie is what is meant to have been the catalyst for SID becoming the rainmaker. That's pretty evident. However the story falls down here. Bruce willis has killed himself so he doesn't escape like he does in young joes timeline thus this event never happened at the farm in his timeline so there shouldn't be a rainmaker unless SID is actually destined to be evil all along thus completely negating the need for Joe killing himself at the end of the movie

    No its not.

    The rainmaker came about in Bruce Willis normal timeline when he had no interaction with sid as a youngster....so the interaction that he actually did have could mean there is no rainmaker at all...or whatever but your point is incorrect.

    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.


    Lol, oh yeah sorry i forgot to add "IMO".


  • Options
    #219
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    The event at the end of the movie is what is meant to have been the catalyst for SID becoming the rainmaker. That's pretty evident. However the story falls down here. Bruce willis has killed himself so he doesn't escape like he does in young joes timeline thus this event never happened at the farm in his timeline so there shouldn't be a rainmaker unless SID is actually destined to be evil all along thus completely negating the need for Joe killing himself at the end of the movie

    It's a time travel movie. You're not supposed to think about it too much...


  • Options
    #220
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Goldstein wrote: »
    This $hit is to film what instagram is to photography. A plague that needs to end.

    I really enjoyed Looper but whoever decided this was a good idea came close to ruining the entire first half of the film.

    ...and that's just the trailer.

    I agree. I remember seeing the mother figure walking up her stairs with those light things going across the screen.

    She's just walking up her stairs guys, cop on.


  • Options
    #221
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.

    You shouldn't be so arrogant when you're talking about something as ridiculous as time travel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    sReq | uTeK
    Registered Users Posts: 5,999 ✭✭✭sReq | uTeK


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.

    You shouldn't be so arrogant when you're talking about something as ridiculous as time travel.

    I'd refer you to my original post. Thought it was a brilliant movie just a lot of the plot is skewed especially the rainmaker in willis timeline.

    Anyhow that's my 2 cents sorry if I offended anyone. Pew pre


  • Options
    #223
    ArthurG
    Registered Users Posts: 1,306 ✭✭✭ArthurG


    Thought this was average at best, better than a lot of action crap, but not the cerebral adventure I'd been told to expect.

    The time travel paradox elements were interesting enough, but once we got to the farm / Akira TK psycho kid stuff, it slowed down a lot and lost my interest.


  • Options
    #224
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    sReq | uTeK wrote: »
    It's funny that you take such a tone as a definite when clearly it's incorrect.

    We hear young Joe (Sgl) state at the end, I see it before my eyes a mother willing to die and a kid going down the wrong path, we also see Sid, aka the rainmaker getting shot in the jaw something that is mentioned as one of the rainmakers defects. All of this is as a direct interaction with willis. All of which never actually happened in willis timeline as he kills himself collects the gold and has a nice 30 years. There can be no rainmaker in willis time line as the farm scene never took place due to him closing his loop. Simples

    I'd suggest you re watch the movie again.

    You have to remember how the mother and son acted before younger Joe showed up at her farm (and therefore acted in the timeline where Joe never showed up, ie Bruce Willis's time). He would act up because he didn't believe she was his real mother and she would flee from her son any time he got mad (and hide in a safe). Its only in the timeline where JGL shows up that they get a reconciliation, that she manages to calm him down and he starts to believe she is his mother. In the timeline without that, its likely that Sid continued to grow more powerful, thinking she wasn't his real mother, constantly acting out without her doing anything about it. In this timeline he becomes the rainmaker simply because he grew up with no parental authority figure and because he was angry at the world for what happened to him, for being left with a woman who he believed wasn't his mother (also, given the scene where she fails to shoot the mute guy, its maybe implied that she could have gotten killed at some stage from her unwillingness to kill others and so have left Sid alone at an early age).

    Basically, in my view, its only in the timeline where young Joe sows up that there is a chance the rainmaker wont come about.


  • Options
    #225
    adamski8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭adamski8


    Why do they have to close the loop? Why not let them die of old age? Didn't see it answered yet. I think it was to cover up all possible evidence but that doesn't seem like a great reason.


  • Options
    #226
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    adamski8 wrote: »
    Why do they have to close the loop? Why not let them die of old age? Didn't see it answered yet. I think it was to cover up all possible evidence but that doesn't seem like a great reason.

    Maybe it's to avoid them meeting the people they've killed in the future, and possibly warning them about being sent back, or otherwise interfering with things.


  • Options
    #227
    adamski8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭adamski8


    The King of Moo wrote: »
    adamski8 wrote: »
    Why do they have to close the loop? Why not let them die of old age? Didn't see it answered yet. I think it was to cover up all possible evidence but that doesn't seem like a great reason.

    Maybe it's to avoid them meeting the people they've killed in the future, and possibly warning them about being sent back, or otherwise interfering with things.
    Bags are over their heads so I doubt it. And why 30 years then?


  • Options
    #228
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,144 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    adamski8 wrote: »
    Bags are over their heads so I doubt it

    They say why they have to do it in the film. The loopers know too much about the crime organisations and their use of time travel basically.


  • Options
    #229
    The King of Moo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭The King of Moo


    adamski8 wrote: »
    Bags are over their heads so I doubt it. And why 30 years then?

    They can take the bags off though, once they've shot the person. I assumed the bags were only there so they wouldn't realised they'd killed themselves till after they'd pulled the trigger and got the gold.


  • Options
    #230
    Clanket
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Clanket


    Thought it was a good film but not as good as the reviews/promos were making out. This decade's The Matrix it certainly isn't. However, the acting, makeup and look and feel of it were great.

    I have one question I don't think anyone has talked about. When Bruce Willis lives out his 30 years and meets his wife, the bad guys kill her in the future. So if this is the case and there's no problem killing in the future, why the hell do they send people back in time to be killed?


  • Options
    #231
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Clanket wrote: »
    I have one question I don't think anyone has talked about. When Bruce Willis lives out his 30 years and meets his wife, the bad guys kill her in the future. So if this is the case and there's no problem killing in the future, why the hell do they send people back in time to be killed?

    It was talked about. They say killing in the future becomes more difficult due to personal tracking chips and such. When the goons kill his wife, they burn the entire village they were in to try and cover it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Mannix1888
    Registered Users Posts: 35 ✭Mannix1888


    Watched this the other night, excellent movie that is living up to the reviews.


  • Options
    #233
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users Posts: 4,973 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    why cause all the fuss getting them to kill them selves, just let someone else do it.


  • Options
    #234
    BraziliaNZ
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,671 ✭✭✭BraziliaNZ


    I thought it was great. On a side note Emily Blunt is just so hot.


  • Options
    #235
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Saw it last night, very impressed, like the original aspect of it anyway.

    Good stuff.


  • Options
    #236
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,668 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Actually on that subject, how original is it? The basic premise - a guy with a gun standing in an empty field waiting for a blindfolded man from the future to appear so he can shoot him - is fairly original, I guess, if totally absurd. But the rest of the film feels like a re-thread of every other popular time travel film ever made.

    This month's issue of Sight & Sound suggested the following breakdown:

    18% The Terminator
    15% Twelve Monkeys
    13% Timecop
    12% Back to the Future
    10% La Jetée
    8% Timecrimes
    7% The Butterfly Effect
    6% The Matrix
    5% Primer
    3% Children of Men
    2% The Kid
    1% Days of Heaven

    They forgot Children of the Corn.

    Note: This isn't intended this as a criticism. Looper is probably one of my favourite films of the year. But it definitely builds on rather than breaks genre conventions.


  • Options
    #237
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users Posts: 11,287 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Sad Professor wrote: »
    Actually on that subject, how original is it? The basic premise - a guy with a gun standing in an empty field waiting for a blindfolded man from the future to appear so he can shoot him - is fairly original, I guess, if totally absurd. But the rest of the film feels like a re-thread of every other popular time travel film ever made.

    This month's issue of Sight & Sound suggested the following breakdown:

    18% The Terminator
    15% Twelve Monkeys
    13% Timecop
    12% Back to the Future
    10% La Jetée
    8% Timecrimes
    7% The Butterfly Effect
    6% The Matrix
    5% Primer
    3% Children of Men
    2% The Kid
    1% Days of Heaven

    They forgot Children of the Corn.

    Note: This isn't intended this as a criticism. Looper is probably one of my favourite films of the year. But it definitely builds on rather than breaks genre conventions.

    Well its not totally original, but the concept of just shooting the person and also the possibility of killing yourself etc, I thought that was fresh.

    Also in the sense that it's a business model as well, the Loopers didn't do it out of a vendetta, they did it with no questions asked.


  • Options
    #238
    madmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 4,364 ✭✭✭madmoe


    fitz wrote: »
    What's melting my brain atm is Sarah running her fingers through Joe's hair in the last scene.
    The subtle suggestion of a paradoxical loop is too much to ignore...

    EXACT same thing here! My mates that saw it with me reckon it's nothing but it was very subtle...kinda like those did they in LOST and they ALWAYS meant something more!!

    Cheers,
    M


  • Options
    #239
    Naos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,728 ✭✭✭Naos


    No matter how hard I try, I just cannot see Bruce Willis in JGL. I really wish they didn't bother with the makeup, it was distracting.


  • Options
    #240
    redt0m
    Registered Users Posts: 346 ✭✭redt0m


    Originally Posted by fitz viewpost.gif
    What's melting my brain atm is Sarah running her fingers through Joe's hair in the last scene.
    The subtle suggestion of a paradoxical loop is too much to ignore...

    Must have missed this - what was the relevance of it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,144 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    redt0m wrote: »
    Must have missed this - what was the relevance of it?

    He said his mother used to do that when he was a kid. I don't think it means what they think it means though.


Advertisement