Looper

That need only exists for people who don't want to radically alter the future. The mob liked how the future turned out, more or less, since they had their profitable business operations. If, however, your goal is to radically fuck with the timelines, a younger looper death wouldn't be a problem.

But that still doesn't work. Assuming Young Paul Dano is not actually dead after his mutilation, still, he is obviously radically different than what he was in the life that was lived by Old Paul Dano before he was sent back to have his loop closed. In other words, the timeline is radically fucked with either way.

Yeah. About the only explanation I can come up with for that is that deaths affect timelines more because mutilated people can still interact with people, have children, and so on, while dead people are completely removed. But that's a pretty weak explanation.

*shrug* Despite the various logical inconsistencies, I really liked this film. But it's a film best appreciated for its characters & story, not for how well it has worked out all the time travel details.

So... you're only allowed to time travel if you go back in time and start a new universe time line.

BOOOORRRINNNNGG

And if you know that going back only breaks off a new timeline, going back won't change anything in your original timeline, it will just let you benefit from greater knowledge once you jump to an alternate timeline. All you can do is escape the time line you're in - you can't save it.

Totally agree.

I finally saw the movie on a flight and enjoyed it despite the typical time travel paradoxes. I just accepted that time travel is just a catalyst and liked the older Joe's brushing off the explanation of time travel and paradoxes instead of getting too deep into Star Trek-like technobabble.

However, one thing that bugged me was the part where they showed young Joe actually killing Old Joe and the time continues on to thirty years into the future. I assume it's just another timeline but they don't mention it other than young Joe screaming that he'll try to fix it.

I thought they did a great job of making JGL look like Bruce Willis, although they could have made him have a widow's peak. I kept staring a JGL's upper lip, noticing it's much thinner like Bruce's.

That's Old Joe's timeline, his version of history.

Absolutely. There are some stories which maintain a sharp, rigorous approach to time travel, somehow weaving a good story together with a universe in which there are no paradoxes because they didn't happen last time, won't happen this time, and in the end, can't happen, ever. I'm thinking of By His Bootstraps, or Primer, or even Terminator. I love this kind of story, but it's very hard to write.

Then there are time travel stories where the primary point is to showcase unusual circumstances and amusing scenes, period. Issues of paradox, free will and causality are skipped lightly past because the writers have little or no interest in them. Here I'm thinking of Doctor Who or Back To The Future. I can enjoy that sort of timey-wimey approach too. Looper is best appreciated as that kind of movie.

I saw it this weekend, liked it a fair bit. Good child actor, and I liked the way they casually wove the most absurd lifestyle-job combo possible into the 204x dystopia. Silver and gold as the currency of death had style, so the issues with consistency there didn't bother me, and it seemed plausible that there was a whole infrastructure built into that city to handle the needs and wants of loopers. I liked the unflinching look at how Willis was simply differently selfish.

I was curious if there were any theories (I didn't see any in the thread, but I might have missed it) as to how casually shooting Bruce Willis' wife in the future is ok, but killing anyone else requires time travel. I mean, they even had a stun gun right there, which they used on Willis, but you'd think generally carrying lethal weapons would have gone out of style if the consequences for shooting someone were so dire.

I assume it's because she wasn't a US citizen.

In the future there would probably be around 2 billion Chinese. I think they could afford one to get murdered...

By heavily implied, Elyscape means you'd have had to have dozed off for most of the film not to catch on.

I saw the house burning, but it still seems really dumb to send them in with guns if killing is a big enough problem to warrant breaking the law for time travel, which must be pretty serious as well. Anyway, I had a bit of a mental crash at that moment since I'd been focused on hints of what a nonlethal force future looked like and trying to figure out how that was enforced.

Pogo linked this earlier, Ten Mysteries in ‘Looper’ Explained by Director Rian Johnson.

I like that a lot less than the loop-close handwave. Thanks for pointing it out. Typically, one does not hand minions deadly force unless they are ok to use it, but I guess at least he's aware of the problem.

Well I'd guess it's because they're sending them in against someone who has a lifetime's experience in exercising deadly force himself. It was probably intended as enough of a threat to subdue.

Finally saw this. Really liked it. Admittedly, it's hard not to like it after seeing the craptacular A Good Day to Die Hard yesterday. Bruce Willis, do good movies! Anyway, I followed the link listed above and read this as a response to my primary issue with the film.

Seems to me that the easiest way to address this paradox is to simply say that Cid's a monster and will grow up to be a monster no matter what. The writer of the article says 'we're just seeing the final one', but I don't know if there's any reason to assume that. Earlier in the movie Sarah had a line that it's easy to get an infection on a farm and the bandage on Cid's face is prominent in the ending moments. 'He saw his mom get killed' could easily apply to the aunt he believes is his mother. It seems reasonable to assume that it all happens over and over again because Cid's just a bad seed.

Of course, the end is a whole lot less happy (and it isn't exactly happy anyway) that way.

I was really expecting that whole Jeff Daniels was in the past would come into it. I guess it wasn't necessary, but it seemed like something that could tie in.

Still, great film. I felt bad for the clumsy gat-guy. Also for Garret Dillahunt.

I was certain for the whole movie that clumsy gat guy was young Jeff Daniels, and that's why he got kicked around so much but not actually told to take a hike. Nothing else to add. Overall, good movie, definitely falls apart in the time travel logic but that was OK.

Watched this last night. Decent enough. If I had to summarize it, in terms of overall feel, I think I'd go with David Fincher's 12 Monkeys.

I don't believe this film should be mentioned in the same breath as 12 Monkeys, but that movie really holds a special place in my heart.

If I had to summarize 12 Monkeys, in terms of overall feel, I think I'd go with Equilibrium.

Yeah. I don't get the same surreal feeling watching Looper that I do when watching 12 Monkeys.

edit: whoa, I totally wrote that backwards.

If you like 12 Monkeys, check out La Jetée, at least part of the inspiration for it.

Don't get me wrong, I did not intend to place this film anywhere near the same shelf as 12 Monkeys.

To put my comment in perspective, for the most part I find David Fincher's films to be grim, unsettling, vaguely misanthropic exercises in style over substance. Gilliam, for all his flights of fancy, at least provides interesting characters to chew the scenery. This film just seemed like a bunch of people occupying spaces and wearing costumes to give the camera something to focus on besides urban squalor.

Sure, the time travel conceit was interesting, but it didn't really seem to matter, as I don't feel the story went far enough with it. It just felt half-baked.

Also, I'll see your La Jetée, and raise you:

Ah, I skipped over the Fincher part and didn't realize that was less of a dig at 12 Monkeys and more at Fincher. I disagree with you about Fincher, but I get what you're saying now.

I love Zodiac, but the rest of his films leave me cold. Almost literally. There's something about them that just rubs me the wrong way, like an undercurrent of pure nihilism.

Even stuff like Benjamin Button or the Social Network?

I am not a fan of some of his work (Alien 3, Panic Room, and Zodiac left me pretty cold personally) but then other stuff (Fight Club, the Game, Se7ven, Button) totally redeems him.

Alien 3 and Panic Room were pretty shitty. Zodiac was okay. Totally agreed on Fight Club, Se7en, and Button. The Social Network was pretty damn good too, what with Sorkin's snappy dialogue and all.

The Social Network was leaps better than I had expected it to be.

How on earth can anyone like Benjamin Button? I knew I would never forgive it when the butterfly happened. Though I must confess I subscribe to the view that if a work of art or entertainment can accurately be described as sentimental I will almost certainly hate it. Probably not a popular view so fuck y'all in advance.

I loved Fincher's Dragon Tattoo even if I have a reservation or two about it. @Omniscia's observation on their mood seems apt, but I like them for the nihilisminess.

Discussing Fincher I'm amazed no one has mentioned The Game. One of my favorite films of all time, and it hits a number of emotional beats -- better than his other work in my opinion.

I loved the hell outta that movie too.

Oh wow I totally forgot about The Game. What a fun and weird movie.

MY KINGDOM FOR A DISLIKE BUTTON.

I loved The Game until I watched it again and just kept getting distracted by everything that had to go right in order for that movie to make any sense.