re: just finished looper

I thought he looked plenty like a 30-years-younger Bruce Willis, if you're only considering what Willis looks like right now.

Thought it was an entertaining movie but, maybe I missed something. Wasn't the whole gist of loopers was the disposal of bodies because bodies could not be hidden in the future? If so, what was done with the body of Bruce Willis's wife? There was no hesitation shown in blowing her away.

Since young Joe kills himself, does that mean that all the people old joe killed while he was looped back to the past come back to life or are they dead now?
I know I'm getting caught up in the time travel aspect of the movie but I was just wondering what some of y'all think about it.

In my opinion, the whole point of the end--that is, the part of the movie after JGL shoots himself--is to give you time to think about JGL's mistake. The rainmaker became the rainmaker without the help of BW. He'll become the rainmaker anyway.

I finally watched this movie tonight, and it was really good. The time travel could have been handled better though (I have a feeling they were aware of this, thus the brief reference to not picking it apart in the diner scene). Let me break this down for everyone, since people don't seem to get it.

My boy totes is correct. This movie attempted to use two separate theories and blend them in an illogical manner. A single timeline was applied to people, yet an alternate timeline was applied to everything else. For example, the messages carved in people's arms point to a single, fixed timeline. But if we're operating under a fixed timeline, then how are actions taken that shouldn't have been possible? How does a man with no feet operate a car, or climb a fence? It's inconsistent logic.

Another example is the end when young Joe shoots himself. If that had actually happened, then Old Joe never would have been in that field. The truck full of gold bars never would have been driven out there, etc. Time should have basically reset to prior to Old Joe ever going back and created what my homey Stephen Hawking (and to a lesser extent Kip Thorne) likes to refer to as a closed timelike curve. This would have basically created a loop within which hundreds or thousands of iterations of this movie could have played out. Now it's possible that this did actually happen in the film's universe, and what we saw was just a single iteration. It would also explain the initial creation of the "rain man" as referenced by Old Joe in the diner scene. The movie gave us no indication that this actually happened though.

watched it last night.

old joe was not the cause of the rainmaker being the rainmaker. he killed older joe the first time he was sent back.


it won't apply to joe because of the suicide, but the way the movie/time travel was portrayed, a looper is essentially immortal. they live 30 years, get sent back in time to be killed by their younger self who is sent back in time in 30 years to be killed, etc. that's kind of fricking with my head this morning.


aside from the frick in my mind, i enjoyed it. excellent performances all around.


when jeff daniels was telling joe to learn mandarin, is it because he knew that's what he'd need to be fluent in, since he is from the future?

i finally watched this movie and loved it.
i watched it twice over in a row and then went online to see if my theories would hold up with the directors explanations of the end.
i don't think they did.
i thought that joe and cid might be the same guy.

but i liked this theory as well...

quote:

---

What if Cid is Joe & Sarah’s kid. He has so many powers because he is TK & can loop (maybe loopers have to have a genetic component as well) they all went back in time to stop him from turning into the rainmaker. Sarah had a druggie past also so they were bound to run into each other!

---

who knows?...

it was interesting though.

quote:

---

Freed from the mechanical arguments, the movie does what it wants with time travel. Mainly, because it is far more concerned with the philosophical ramifications. It's really asking the question that if you could go back in time and murder Hitler as a child, would you? Would that be ethical?

The movie argues that no, it is not. Because that child is a different person than the monster he will become.

---

I enjoyed Looper, but it doesn't take anything seriously and handles the philosophical shite very badly. Do they know how time travel works? No, but one thing I'm pretty certain about is that it wouldn't work in contradictory ways that conveniently match what a director wants at any point in time. The rules should be consistent and they are not in extremely blatant ways.

The movie doesn't touch on whether you should kill Hitler as a child. It could have been. For whatever random reason they had for the telekinesis in the first place, given the kid's ability, he could have grown up into a walking Death Star who did really bad things later in life.

All he really did that we know of is that he had paid assassins killed and during the process his henchmen accidentally killed old Joe's wife as collateral damage. He, the Rainmaker, was a man seeking vigilante justice, not a genocidal maniac seeking world domination. Old Joe, the former assassin, was trying to save his innocent wife and his own skin. Asking whether the child should die in this example is not a complex philosophical question. As I said, badly done.