Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137

johnny_ultimate · 02-10-2012 12:49am

Sshhh with all this talk of sequels, they might actually make the damn thing :pac:. I think as a standalone, clever thriller this is perfectly realised with very little need for expansion. I think the sense of mystery and ambiguity in some respects only enhances it. Hopefully Rian Johnson will move onto other things and continue his creative streak, maybe with another fantastic episode or two of Breaking Bad along the way

krudler · 02-10-2012 1:21am

Its like The Matrix in that regard, it talks about a bigger expanded world outside of what we see in the film but its self contained too so doesn't really need to go there. But since this is Hollywood and anything remotely successful is treated as a new franchise oppurtunity I wouldnt be the least bit surprised to see more Looper set films.

Mickeroo · 02-10-2012 12:14pm

It works great as a stand-alone movie I'd rather not see a sequel. If they have to make another though I guess it would focus on the kid maybe, I think bringing Joe back into it again would kind of negate the story of this film too much.

fluke · 02-10-2012 12:23pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Sshhh with all this talk of sequels, they might actually make the damn thing :pac:. I think as a standalone, clever thriller this is perfectly realised with very little need for expansion. I think the sense of mystery and ambiguity in some respects only enhances it. Hopefully Rian Johnson will move onto other things and continue his creative streak, maybe with another fantastic episode or two of Breaking Bad along the way

I really really hope there isn't a sequel. I know if it makes money then yeah they’ll make a sequel but this movie had two strong elements to it –

time travel and mutants

. Whatever they do in a sequel it will simply will be a retread of one or both of those concepts. Oh and

the lead character is dead

, so any connection to the first movie is limited, unless the go down the adventures of Rainmaker route...

I’m so fed up of sequels being made to films that really don’t warrant sequels (Taken for instance). There was a time when I heard a sequel was being made and was excited but now every bloody action/sc-fi/comic book movie is made with the focus on setting itself up for a sequel than in telling a solid story. Okay there are some exceptions that lend themselves to a bigger universe, comic book movies in particular. If this, or Inception or Dredd* don’t get a sequel then I’ll be happy.

*yes I went there

Mickeroo · 02-10-2012 12:47pm

20 million in it's opening weekend in the states beaten to the top by Hotel Transylvania, what was the budget on this?

don ramo · 02-10-2012 12:50pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

20 million in it's opening weekend in the states beaten to the top by Hotel Transylvania, what was the budget on this?

$30 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looper_%28film%29

i think it will be a financial success:D:D

Mickeroo · 02-10-2012 12:55pm

don ramo wrote: »

$30 million

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looper_%28film%29

i think it will be a financial success:D:D

Only after seeing your comment in the Dredd thread. I can't believe it only cost 30 million! I would have guessed closer to 100, astounding achievment in fairness.

Banjaxed82 · 02-10-2012 2:51pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Only after seeing your comment in the Dredd thread. I can't believe it only cost 30 million! I would have guessed closer to 100, astounding achievment in fairness.

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

Mickeroo · 02-10-2012 3:06pm

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

True, I just thought it looked like a much more expensive movie.

krudler · 02-10-2012 3:41pm

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I don't know if it's that astounding. It's probably just financially correct. These ridiculous 100 million dollar blockbusters could be shot for half, but its easier to market something when it costs a sh!tload, therefore being a proper BLOCKBUSTER!!

The difference between Looper and 100 million dollar budget is that Looper wasn't shelling out stupid money on superfluous nonsense to inflate the budget. The cloth was well and truly cut according to means.

30 mil is nothing in blockbuster terms, even animated movies easily cost 150 million+ these days. 30 mil is less than some movies marketing budget these days. Looper does look great for its relatively low budget, some decent effects and shots.

Bullseye1 · 02-10-2012 4:23pm

Hoping to see this tonight. Excited by the positive reviews.

Whispered · 03-10-2012 3:12pm

Really really enjoyed this film. So much so I came looking for this forum to see what others had to say about it

When it ended there was a good few seconds of dead silence in the cinema. Always a good sign I think.

Sir Gallagher · 04-10-2012 2:41am

Whispered wrote: »

Really really enjoyed this film. So much so I came looking for this forum to see what others had to say about it

When it ended there was a good few seconds of dead silence in the cinema. Always a good sign I think.

There was silence because there was no music and it felt a little awkward.

I was entertained by this but the more i think about it the more it annoys me. I felt slightly ripped off, i mean, the second half of the film is set on a farm... what an absolute buzzkill after being immersed in that cool futuristic metropolis in the first half.

JGL's CG face was a bit jarring at times but to be honest it was better than his real one.

The parts with the kid, although not the worst child actor, were just a little bit farcical. Although the part where he tripped on the stairs and went mental was cool and pretty freaky.

Another thing which bugged me was that the future seemed like a much nicer place than the present(2044) i thought it would have been better to have shown the future to be completely messed up because of the Rainmaker therefore adding much more weight to how important it was to kill/change this kid for the sake of mankind.

There were some very cool scenes and ideas in Looper but as a whole it just was a bit of a let down.

Unintentional funny moments: When the dad from Raising Hope shows up at the door.

Bruce Willis doing some kind of mid air boogie when Cid goes mental at the end.

Duggy747 · 04-10-2012 9:25am

Enjoyed it, great first half to the film but it hits the brakes come the farm. A good 20 minutes would have been cut and nothing would have been lost from it.

Ending didn't seem to impress people in the cinema, I thought it was a bit of a let-down considering all that went before it. The lack of music does make it a sort of awkward ending.

There's only so much a film can do on time-travelling that hasn't been done before but this was nicely executed and made it feel somehow fresh.

The bikes should have been removed from the film, added little to it and just looked horrificly bad like the scene with young Joe zipping through the fields on it, looked like cheap TV.

I'm not going to bother talking about the time travel aspect, too early in the morning for me :pac: One thing I'm left with is that, from what I think, Cid would still become the Rainmaker, regardless of what happened to him because he existed in Old Joe's timeline despite he had never been in contact with the kid. The same timeline where he killed his old self and lived out the next 30 years of his life.

Good solid film that's let down in the middle but picks up nicely again towards the end.

krudler · 04-10-2012 11:37am

I was listening to the slashfilm podcast talking about it and one of the reviewers made a good point, in the scene where the younger Paul Dano character is being mutilated by the doc and his older self is starting to lose his fingers and nose, wouldnt that mean that the older version would have lived for 30 years with all these mutilations? If they cut up the younger one, he'd still be alive to become the older one and come back but he'd be missing his fingers and nose for years, or is it an alternate timeline? if young Joes memories are affecting old Joes ones its the same principle.

Otacon · 04-10-2012 11:47am

krudler wrote: »

I was listening to the slashfilm podcast talking about it and one of the reviewers made a good point, in the scene where the younger Paul Dano character is being mutilated by the doc and his older self is starting to lose his fingers and nose, wouldnt that mean that the older version would have lived for 30 years with all these mutilations? If they cut up the younger one, he'd still be alive to become the older one and come back but he'd be missing his fingers and nose for years, or is it an alternate timeline? if young Joes memories are affecting old Joes ones its the same principle.

Abe - "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg..."

Sad Professor · 04-10-2012 12:01pm

None of the time travel in the film makes sense. The film is littered with paradoxes. There's no point thinking about it too much.

senordingdong · 04-10-2012 12:07pm

indough wrote: »

i dont know if im taking this up wrong but it sounds ridiculously contrived. why wouldnt they just kill the person in their present?

This.

don ramo · 04-10-2012 12:09pm

time travel doesnt exist as of yet, so untill it does everything is a theory, there are probably 100 different theories, but you have to remember you cant cover everyone's theory cause your not working with scientific fact

krudler · 04-10-2012 12:10pm

senordingdong wrote: »

This.

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

johnny_ultimate · 04-10-2012 12:12pm

Easiest way to send back a ****load of gold too.

Time travel UPS is a bitch.

fitz · 04-10-2012 12:46pm

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...

phil1nj · 04-10-2012 12:59pm

krudler wrote: »

Rian Johnson addressed this in an interview where he basically said the Loopers have to kill themselves as otherwise they'd have to live for 30 years knowing who their murderer will be, and that would have bigger consequences for the timetravel aspect.

???? But the loopers do know who there murderer will be, it's themselves (hence closing the loop). They know this information in the past when their contract is terminated via a "golden payday", they then have 30 years or so to live with this information. Surely the problems arise when they don't go through with this (as is seen twice in the movie with BW/JGL and Paul Dano's future self). Or am I missing something here?

I will say this, the more I think about this the less sense it makes. I think the movie is more about possible alternative realities crossing than time-travel. I've seen an interview with the director where he says that everything stems from one deviation in the timeline. I think that is an over simplification and leads to more questions than it answers.

Mickeroo · 04-10-2012 1:03pm

phil1nj wrote: »

???? But the loopers do know who there murderer will be, it's themselves (hence closing the loop). They know this information in the past when their contract is terminated via a "golden payday", they then have 30 years or so to live with this information. Surely the problems arise when they don't go through with this (as is seen twice in the movie with BW/JGL and Paul Dano's future self). Or am I missing something here?

I will say this, the more I think about this the less sense it makes. I think the movie is more about possible alternative realities crossing than time-travel. I've seen an interview with the director where he says that everything stems from one deviation in the timeline. I think that is an over simplification and leads to more questions than it answers.

If the guys in the future don't close the loops then their timeline would no longer exist as the loopers would never have retired. They have to send the bodies back for this reason.

One thing that confused me though, how do Jeff Daniels & Co. know so quickly when a Looper doesn't kill their mark? I couldn't see any reason they didn't just pretend to have shot their future selves then get the hell out of the city with their gold. Was this explained?

oxygen · 04-10-2012 1:47pm

Actually Im starting to get this now… I can see now why a looper has to kill himself, thats fine.

Say for example, Bruce Willis is not killed by JGL(his younger self) but by just some random other looper. If JGL finds out who killed Bruce Willis (his older self) he could try to kill that looper (or even all other loopers) causing the time lines to get messed up in a big way.

But there still are couple of other things I don’t get:

1.
I know it’s impossible to dispose of a body in the future but why send a perp back from the future to the past to kill them? Why not have the looper kill the perp in the past. That way the perp would completely vanish, including the effects of any crime he commited. (For example, if he stole money off the gangsters in the future, they would have it back).

2.
Im ok with the changes made to a past self effecting the future self immediately. i.e. when the looper had his fingers cut off in the past, immediately he lost his finger, and it was completely healed over as if it was an old scar. (It wasn’t gushing blood) But when they cut off his foot, immediately he couldn’t drive the car. Why would someone with no foot start to drive a car even? If that is immediately an old scar he presumably has been living with it for years.

phil1nj · 04-10-2012 2:41pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

If the guys in the future don't close the loops then their timeline would no longer exist as the loopers would never have retired. They have to send the bodies back for this reason.

I understand that but my question was about Krudler's post that the loopers have to kill themselves otherwise they would have to live for 30 years knowing who their killer was. My point was that the loopers knew this already (hence the final payoff). There is a far bigger risk to timelines by them not killing their future selves (hence Abe's concern at having a guy from the future running around in the past when Paul Dano fails to dispatch his future self, which was your point).

Also, this film plays pretty loose and fast with rules of time travel from other sci-fi movies and popular culture (each to their own I suppose). Surely the final scenario should have seen JGL's gun jam or misfire to prevent all of the various paradoxes that will undoubtably occur by taking himslef out early from the equation (e.g. all those people lives cut short by Old Joe killed in the past would surely cause major rifts in the pasts time lines etc). Or maybe I watch too many sci-fi movies:D

Jimdagym · 04-10-2012 2:55pm

Loved loved loved this. Saw it in Carlow afternoon in an empty screen

Was anyone else watching it and thinking that maybe the rainmaker was a good guy that we were hearing about from a skewed bad guy POV? Closing all the loops is hardly a heinous act.

Otacon · 04-10-2012 3:01pm

Otacon wrote: »

Abe - "This time travel crap, just fries your brain like a egg..."

BTW the reason I posted this earlier is because I believe the director is basically telling us with this line [and one from Bruce later in the movie, where he says something like 'That doesn't matter'], that yes, the time-travel logic is unsound but if you just go with it, you may enjoy the movie more...

Mickeroo · 04-10-2012 3:01pm

Jimdagym wrote: »

Loved loved loved this. Saw it in Carlow afternoon in an empty screen

Was anyone else watching it and thinking that maybe the rainmaker was a good guy that we were hearing about from a skewed bad guy POV? Closing all the loops is hardly a heinous act.

Fair point, maybe he actually was going all superhero on their asses. Society seems to have degraded quite a bit in the movie though, the loopers didn't exactly strike me as being all that secret/illegal in the movie. They weren't shy of showing off their blunderbusses in public for example, and their HQ even had a basket for them out front.

homerun_homer · 04-10-2012 4:39pm

I sorta looked at the Rainmaker closing off the Loops as him maybe trying to stop any possibility of someone going back in time to mess with his rise to the top of the mafia/criminal underworld and lessen the chance that someone like Joe would try and change the future.

Looper *SPOILERS FROM POST 137*

Comments

Looper SPOILERS FROM POST 137