Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Looper - Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-10-2012, 16:58
The Terminator
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,877
Spoiler
The Terminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-10-2012, 17:28
SlashNX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,457
Ah, thanks, some of that makes sense to me. But:
Spoiler
Spoiler
SlashNX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 17:32
SlashNX
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South
Posts: 3,457
Spoiler
Spoiler
SlashNX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 17:55
rombod
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CHER LLOYD
Posts: 5,046
Ah, yeah that was what I feared. Thanks, guys!
rombod is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 22:12
bvmjain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 68
The director has recorded a commentary track, which is available for legal download.

The idea is, that you rip it to a Mp3 player & listen to it while watching the film again at the cinema.

Of course if you have watched the film recently - and it is still fresh in your memory -you can listen to it at home.

http://loopermovie.tumblr.com/post/3...-up-i-recorded


(Direct link to download below)

http://soundcloud.com/rcjohnso/loope...cal-commentary
bvmjain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 19:07
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,497
Are there alot of holes in this film?
It uses a model of time travel in which changes ripple through. I think this is less coherent than saying the past can't be changed, or that changing it creates new independant timelines. In my view it actually leads to holes, but some would say they are not holes so much as me having wrong expectations about how time travel works.


Spoiler
A few things are said about that.
Spoiler
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2012, 19:54
paperplanes_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 6,668
Saw this yesterday; liked it overall. Interesting concept, some of it left me scratching my head though
paperplanes_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 10:42
MemphisJaxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 627
I'm quite similar to you in this respect, but I didn't really see that many errors (at least in the way time travel works in the film) whilst viewing it. On reflection after the film I did wonder why the main character made certain choices towards the end, when he had other less drastic alternatives.

Great film all in all, very nice to see intelligent Sci-fi again.
Ok, thanks. From the comments i'm seeing here it looks like a very well thought out story. I don't like it when a character seems to make strange out-of-sorts decisions just for a pay off towards the end to make it appear clever and all tie together. I'm acually really looking forward to seeing this now.


Saw it today and really enjoyed it. One of those films that was a teeny bit confusing to follow initially but as it went on, it all made more sense and in the end, it was spot on. very good indeed.
You can't beat a confusing movie done well. I enjoy watching these films a few times over and picking up on different things each time. There are few films out there that allow you this privilege.


It uses a model of time travel in which changes ripple through. I think this is less coherent than saying the past can't be changed, or that changing it creates new independant timelines. In my view it actually leads to holes, but some would say they are not holes so much as me having wrong expectations about how time travel works.


A few things are said about that.
Spoiler
Right ok, thanks for the info. I'll give you my view on time travel to see if it matches up with yours and you might be able to tell me if it syncs with the film.

I've highlighted 'the past can't be changed' as this to me is the first thing that should be questioned to first get your head round TT.

The present may already have been altered by future events.
There are mutliple realities that can be bridged by changing the past.

For me both of these statements must for true for TT to be possible. I hope I am making sense and not waffling! In terms of the film, do either one of these statements apply?

I'll be quiet now.
MemphisJaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 10:59
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
Ok, thanks. From the comments i'm seeing here it looks like a very well thought out story. I don't like it when a character seems to make strange out-of-sorts decisions just for a pay off towards the end to make it appear clever and all tie together. I'm acually really looking forward to seeing this now.




You can't beat a confusing movie done well. I enjoy watching these films a few times over and picking up on different things each time. There are few films out there that allow you this privilege.




Right ok, thanks for the info. I'll give you my view on time travel to see if it matches up with yours and you might be able to tell me if it syncs with the film.

I've highlighted 'the past can't be changed' as this to me is the first thing that should be questioned to first get your head round TT.

The present may already have been altered by future events.
There are mutliple realities that can be bridged by changing the past.

For me both of these statements must for true for TT to be possible. I hope I am making sense and not waffling! In terms of the film, do either one of these statements apply?

I'll be quiet now.
Rian Johnson has been saying that there are plot holes in all time travel movies, and that time travel isn't important it's just a backdrop...
@ravester_2 Definitely didn't explore the intricacies of TT, that just wasn't what it was about. But run of the mill action movie? Really?
In one essay, @charliejane has said nearly everything I've ever wanted to say regarding time travel's use in fiction. http://io9.com/5945991/why-time-trav...hould-be-messy

@rcjohnso @charliejane I disagree. I think science-fiction needs to reflect real science. "Messy" time travel is pure fantasy, IMHO.


@mrTrivates All time travel is fantasy. There is no version of time travel (beyond sub-atomic) based in science.

@rcjohnso we still don't know exactly what dark matter and dark energy are. DE seems to operate inversely to gravity and DM is just weird.

@rcjohnso Therefore, countless possibilities for new discoveries lie on the horizon. Temporal paradoxes cannot be allowed, however.


@mrTrivates What time travel movies would you cite as "scientifically accurate"?

@rcjohnso The recent Time Machine movie, based on H.G Wells' classic was CLOSE. The manner in which she died should have been constant.

@mrTrivates @rcjohnso and there should have been several copies of the lunatic professor.
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 11:43
MemphisJaxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 627
Rian Johnson has been saying that there are plot holes in all time travel movies, and that time travel isn't important it's just a backdrop...
Thanks for the reply but I couldn't disagree more with Rian Johnson. Film makers use the excuse that because TT isn't possible currently and may never be, that technically there is no such thing as an 'inaccurate' TT film.

I would hope that by choosing TT as the focus of the film, a writer/director would be true to the 'laws' in which they adopt. Flitting between laws to suit the story/charactors/plot is simply lazy and turns me off a film.

Just because I don't agree with a films' choosen rules doesn't mean I cannot enjoy the film. For example, The Butterfly Effect and TimeCops. Two very different films but both use the principle of TT causing a ripple through time and changing things when you return. Only the traveller would remember and recognise the change. Despite not subscribing to this myself, I still enjoy both films.
MemphisJaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 13:51
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
Thanks for the reply but I couldn't disagree more with Rian Johnson. Film makers use the excuse that because TT isn't possible currently and may never be, that technically there is no such thing as an 'inaccurate' TT film.

I would hope that by choosing TT as the focus of the film, a writer/director would be true to the 'laws' in which they adopt. Flitting between laws to suit the story/charactors/plot is simply lazy and turns me off a film.

Just because I don't agree with a films' choosen rules doesn't mean I cannot enjoy the film. For example, The Butterfly Effect and TimeCops. Two very different films but both use the principle of TT causing a ripple through time and changing things when you return. Only the traveller would remember and recognise the change. Despite not subscribing to this myself, I still enjoy both films.
He's the director, so I'd go with what he says, and I couldn't see that many plot holes in the film anyway, just bits that perhaps weren't explained very well (but then I don't deliberately go looking for them because I'm not an overly fussy kill joy....)

Time travel is only there to illustrate it's point, it's not a time travel movie, very little time travel is done, it would work equally as well without time travel, he just needs some way to get Old Joe and Young Joe together
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 15:46
MemphisJaxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 627
He's the director, so I'd go with what he says, and I couldn't see that many plot holes in the film anyway, just bits that perhaps weren't explained very well (but then I don't deliberately go looking for them because I'm not an overly fussy kill joy....)

Time travel is only there to illustrate it's point, it's not a time travel movie, very little time travel is done, it would work equally as well without time travel, he just needs some way to get Old Joe and Young Joe together
Ah I see, so in THIS film its not the important part. I get it. Sorry I misunderstood. Brill, i'm sure I will enjoy this. Thanks for the info. I can't wait to see this film.

About the highlighted part, I don't go looking for holes in films but when things are done sloppily it frustrates me and I quickly get disinterested. Kill joy? Never. I spend the joy where ever I go, here you can have some. *sprinkles some joy*
MemphisJaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2012, 16:45
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
Ah I see, so in THIS film its not the important part. I get it. Sorry I misunderstood. Brill, i'm sure I will enjoy this. Thanks for the info. I can't wait to see this film.

About the highlighted part, I don't go looking for holes in films but when things are done sloppily it frustrates me and I quickly get disinterested. Kill joy? Never. I spend the joy where ever I go, here you can have some. *sprinkles some joy*
I will admit I have occasionally notice errors that just killed the entire film for me. Inglorious Basterds, most of it had English subs, except the basic French was subbed in French, which I thought was weird (and made me question whether the more advanced French had actually been translated correctly)...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2012, 15:33
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,497
I've highlighted 'the past can't be changed' as this to me is the first thing that should be questioned to first get your head round TT.

The present may already have been altered by future events.
There are mutliple realities that can be bridged by changing the past.

For me both of these statements must for true for TT to be possible. I hope I am making sense and not waffling! In terms of the film, do either one of these statements apply?
There are several possible models of time travel. In some, there is a single immutable time line. You can go back and change the past, but only if you already did that. Some events have their causes in the future, and some may even be causeless loops, but that doesn't make them paradoxical. So it can be a consistent model, albeit one in which all striving is futile.

The second model says that there are multiple timelines, and when you travel back in time, you effectively travel to, or start, a new timeline with a new version of the future. In this version, if old-you kills young-you that's fine; you don't wink out of existence because it's a different you. We get events whose cause is in a different timeline, and again it's consistent. Arguably striving is still futile, because although you can change the future of the timeline you travel to, the events in the timeline you left still happened and you can't change that.

Looper uses a third model. There is a single timeline and it's mutable. You can travel to the past and change it, and those events somehow ripple through to the future you left. The time traveller's memory of events that happen between his current time, and the future time he left, are more or less fuzzy depending on how certain those now-future events are. His memories of events that happened before his current time are concrete; so his memories get more concrete as time passes. There's no "butterfly effect"; small changes tend to heal themselves rather than magnify. There is potential for paradox. It's not clear what will happen if old-you kills young you. The bottom line in Looper is, what happened in the (current) past, happened, regardless of whether it makes sense.

Rian Johnson has been saying that there are plot holes in all time travel movies, and that time travel isn't important it's just a backdrop...
I don't think there need to be, but movies made using the first two models I describe above can be dramatically tricky because they tend to make striving futile. That said, in the first model it can be satisfying to have fate work itself out and to have things pan out like you always knew they would, albeit in an unexpected way. The Lost TV show, and arguably the first Terminator movie, worked like that. (I'm not claiming those don't have plot holes.)
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2012, 19:54
egghead1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,940
Best Sc-Fi film Ive seen for a while and Bruce Willis never disappoints Ive subtitled the film Die Hard 5 :its The Future

Some quite eerie scenes where the older version of the Looper ,who escapes ,dismembers bit by bit.Emily Blunt and the kid well acted too.
egghead1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2012, 13:22
outatime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 9
Some quite eerie scenes where the older version of the Looper ,who escapes ,dismembers bit by bit.
I like to think it takes a lot to weird me out, but that sequence really disturbed me! Some things just play on my mind like that.

Great movie.
outatime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2012, 16:05
MemphisJaxx
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 627
There are several possible models of time travel. In some, there is a single immutable time line. You can go back and change the past, but only if you already did that. Some events have their causes in the future, and some may even be causeless loops, but that doesn't make them paradoxical. So it can be a consistent model, albeit one in which all striving is futile.

The second model says that there are multiple timelines, and when you travel back in time, you effectively travel to, or start, a new timeline with a new version of the future. In this version, if old-you kills young-you that's fine; you don't wink out of existence because it's a different you. We get events whose cause is in a different timeline, and again it's consistent. Arguably striving is still futile, because although you can change the future of the timeline you travel to, the events in the timeline you left still happened and you can't change that.

Looper uses a third model. There is a single timeline and it's mutable. You can travel to the past and change it, and those events somehow ripple through to the future you left. The time traveller's memory of events that happen between his current time, and the future time he left, are more or less fuzzy depending on how certain those now-future events are. His memories of events that happened before his current time are concrete; so his memories get more concrete as time passes. There's no "butterfly effect"; small changes tend to heal themselves rather than magnify. There is potential for paradox. It's not clear what will happen if old-you kills young you. The bottom line in Looper is, what happened in the (current) past, happened, regardless of whether it makes sense.
Brilliant mate, thanks for taking the time to type all that. It fasinates the hell out of me. As do all things space-y, time-y and continuum-y. I love the idea that information can be passed through the ages to set events into motion and that knowledge of your future/past actions could either change the timeline (your 2nd and 3rd) or are needed to keep it the same (your first immutable) and its the latter that sugguests it's all pre-determind, scary. Its certainly theoretically possible to travel forward in time but with no return. Until we understand time or the lack of it, we are no closer to an answer. Still, fasinating.

Have you seen Primer? What did you think?
MemphisJaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2012, 16:07
Erlang
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Weston-s-Mare
Posts: 2,641
I really enjoyed the film, but I did spot a couple of plot points that had me wondering.

Spoiler


Spoiler
Erlang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2012, 18:08
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,497
Have you seen Primer? What did you think?
It does several things very well, including a good portrayal of a high-tech start-up, and good portrayal of how scientific discoveries are sometimes made, and a good take on time-travel. Essential viewing for the latter. It's also an interesting example of a very low budget film, and that sometimes shows. It doesn't go out of its way to make things easy for its audience.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2012, 18:38
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,478
I really enjoyed the film, but I did spot a couple of plot points that had me wondering.

Spoiler


Spoiler
Spoiler

Spoiler
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 19:02
Markieb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,277
How easy is it to follow?
Markieb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 22:14
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 26,378
Saw this tonight really enjoyed it well written & well acted
welwynrose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 22:26
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 10,497
How easy is it to follow?
Pretty straightforward, apart from the time-travel bits which you don't need to bother about. It's not like Primer.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-10-2012, 22:40
paperplanes_
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 6,668
How easy is it to follow?
Pretty easy to follow unless you start thinking about the in depth time travel in detail.
paperplanes_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2012, 18:40
Ghost World
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pawnee Parks Deparment
Posts: 6,925
Enjoyed the film, but I didn't think it was as good as Inception or Source Code as far as modern "mainstream" sci-fi films go. The time travel paradoxes didn't bother me and I don't have a problem with the process being left suitably vague, but I had the same question as brangdon:

Spoiler
Seems like a pretty big oversight, unless it was answered in the film and I just missed it.
Ghost World is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:37.