RE: what? (spoilers) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


BelfastBoy -> RE: what? (spoilers) (3/10/2012 10:18:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tysmuse

I am not understanding the love for Looper whatsoever.

Zero surprises. Slow third act. And plot holes/questions galore! (why bother sending a looper back to be killed by the same looper, just send them to someone else for execution. How exactly does the future communicate with the past to set up the killings? If killing in the future is SUCH a big difficulty, then why does bruce willis wife get shot by bad guys without any 'oh no, whoops, we've properly fucked up'?? Why did they bother to torture that guy early on when the old version just disappears when young version is actually killed? etc etc...

It's not bad, but four stars would have been generous!?


My question would be - did you enjoy the experience of watching the film? If not, fair enough, that's your opinion and the world thrives on opinion. However, did the plot holes specifically cause your lack of enjoyment? They didn't for me. My earlier posts in this thread are full of nitpicking rhetorical questions, because when coldly analsysed, Looper is riddled with paradoxes and simple plot holes. It doesn't stand up to the kind of scrutiny that something like Twelve Monkeys can sustain. But as a theatrical experience, I still enjoyed the film, despite the inconsistencies. (The more I think about the notion of sending someone back to be killed and disposed of by their younger self, the more laughable it becomes.)

In terms of the torture scene of older Paul Dano's digits and limbs gradually disappearing, my take is that it's purely a visual moment to display the effects of dismembering the younger guy on his older self. The older guy seemed to be getting lured to the torture location (message on his arm) in order to have him killed to 'close the loop', because the film's concept of time travel still required the old guy to be killed while the younger one remained alive. You're right though - killing the younger one would always have guaranteed the death / disappearance of the older one. I guess Jeff Daniels' character just wanted his revenge because, you know, he's a bearded badass from the future, right? [sm=biggrin.gif] Remember the scenes in the Back To The Future films where photos kept on changing depending on events? The scene in Looper - I think - is no profound or credible than them.

Random point - anyone else think that Looper rips off something from Red Dwarf years ago - sending messages to yourself by inflicting them on your arms?




Dr Lenera -> RE: More Bruce Willis please! (3/10/2012 9:11:03 PM)

An enjoyable and surprisingly dark time travel flick that certainly has intelligence but is nowhere near as original as it thinks it is and suffers from some odd pointless elements such as telekinesis. Excellent performances though and a pleasent surprise to have a fairly good film from Johnson.
7/10




Evil_Bob -> RE: Looper (4/10/2012 4:01:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

The second half is ponderous and slow as all hell



Other opinions are just as valid of course, but I've read this criticism many times before and I just don't get it. The movie as a whole runs at a good, even pace.



Because as soon as he gets to that bloody farm the movie (which until that moment had been barrelling along at breakneck speed) comes screeching to a halt, changes genres, then takes off slowly but surely to the unsatisfying end.




waltham1979 -> RE: Looper (4/10/2012 12:36:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob

The second half is ponderous and slow as all hell



Other opinions are just as valid of course, but I've read this criticism many times before and I just don't get it. The movie as a whole runs at a good, even pace.



Because as soon as he gets to that bloody farm the movie (which until that moment had been barrelling along at breakneck speed) comes screeching to a halt, changes genres, then takes off slowly but surely to the unsatisfying end.


[sm=schild15.gif] starts off at break neck speed, comes to a screeching hault and to a slow unsatisfying end?!...sounds like my sex life [:D]




Tafferel -> RE: RE: (5/10/2012 1:11:11 PM)

SPOILERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.



MANY SPOILERS IN THIS RESPONSE BELOW

If you think about the permutations too much, Looper is riddled with time-travel paradoxical plotholes. However, the thing you've highlighted I don't see as a plothole. The death of his wife is Old Joe's motivation to try and change things in the past, but think of her death merely as collateral damage. The Rainmaker's men came for Joe, he's the one who's going to get sent back 30 years in order to 'close the loop'. The wife was shot just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (The fact that, by attempting to change the past, Joe will likely remove himself completely from existence, or else change things so that he'll never meet his future wife, is just one of the actual plotholes.)

Had a few more thoughts on Looper, rhetorical questions as usual!

- The central notion of sending someone back 30 years for killing and disposal is nonsensical. Surely a body can be burned just as easily in 2074 as it apparently can be in 2044? The voiceover attempts an explanation but it's a vague fudge.
- On a related note, if the body has to be disposed of in the past, then why not make the looper's job easier by sending back a corpse?
- Anyone interested in debating the paradoxes should head over to Looper's IMDB page, where discussion thrives. One concept which is probably intended as correct is that Kid Blue is the younger version of Abe. Otherwise the character really serves no function other than as an irritating incompetent. The film seems to be constantly trying to suggest some sort of meaningful connection between them so it makes sense for them to be the same person (while at the same time introducing more paradoxes!)


Oh my god! That makes SO much sense! I was trying to figure out why they had such a weird relationship




Evil_Bob -> RE: RE: (6/10/2012 12:14:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tafferel

SPOILERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.



MANY SPOILERS IN THIS RESPONSE BELOW

If you think about the permutations too much, Looper is riddled with time-travel paradoxical plotholes. However, the thing you've highlighted I don't see as a plothole. The death of his wife is Old Joe's motivation to try and change things in the past, but think of her death merely as collateral damage. The Rainmaker's men came for Joe, he's the one who's going to get sent back 30 years in order to 'close the loop'. The wife was shot just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (The fact that, by attempting to change the past, Joe will likely remove himself completely from existence, or else change things so that he'll never meet his future wife, is just one of the actual plotholes.)

Had a few more thoughts on Looper, rhetorical questions as usual!

- The central notion of sending someone back 30 years for killing and disposal is nonsensical. Surely a body can be burned just as easily in 2074 as it apparently can be in 2044? The voiceover attempts an explanation but it's a vague fudge.
- On a related note, if the body has to be disposed of in the past, then why not make the looper's job easier by sending back a corpse?
- Anyone interested in debating the paradoxes should head over to Looper's IMDB page, where discussion thrives. One concept which is probably intended as correct is that Kid Blue is the younger version of Abe. Otherwise the character really serves no function other than as an irritating incompetent. The film seems to be constantly trying to suggest some sort of meaningful connection between them so it makes sense for them to be the same person (while at the same time introducing more paradoxes!)


Oh my god! That makes SO much sense! I was trying to figure out why they had such a weird relationship




I thought this was the case and I'm surprised they never confirmed it. One is clearly a lot smarter than the other though.




musht -> RE: RE: (7/10/2012 2:36:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Evil_Bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tafferel

SPOILERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

MAJOR SPOILER






















I have an issue with one gaping plot hole.

The entire premise is based around the idea that it is hard to dispose of bodies in the future. There are tracking issues - this is mentioned in the voiceover. It's the entire point of having to send people back in time.

So, if it's so damned hard to kill someone, if it's such a problem that TIME TRAVEL has to be used, why is BruceJoe's Chinese wife killed so blithely? It's that which spurs BruceJoe on to start murdering children, because he needs to save her.

If anyone has a reasonable solution, I would love to hear it, because otherwise it's a worse plothole than any time-related one. Time travel will always cause plot holes, this is separate.



MANY SPOILERS IN THIS RESPONSE BELOW

If you think about the permutations too much, Looper is riddled with time-travel paradoxical plotholes. However, the thing you've highlighted I don't see as a plothole. The death of his wife is Old Joe's motivation to try and change things in the past, but think of her death merely as collateral damage. The Rainmaker's men came for Joe, he's the one who's going to get sent back 30 years in order to 'close the loop'. The wife was shot just because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (The fact that, by attempting to change the past, Joe will likely remove himself completely from existence, or else change things so that he'll never meet his future wife, is just one of the actual plotholes.)

Had a few more thoughts on Looper, rhetorical questions as usual!

- The central notion of sending someone back 30 years for killing and disposal is nonsensical. Surely a body can be burned just as easily in 2074 as it apparently can be in 2044? The voiceover attempts an explanation but it's a vague fudge.
- On a related note, if the body has to be disposed of in the past, then why not make the looper's job easier by sending back a corpse?
- Anyone interested in debating the paradoxes should head over to Looper's IMDB page, where discussion thrives. One concept which is probably intended as correct is that Kid Blue is the younger version of Abe. Otherwise the character really serves no function other than as an irritating incompetent. The film seems to be constantly trying to suggest some sort of meaningful connection between them so it makes sense for them to be the same person (while at the same time introducing more paradoxes!)


Oh my god! That makes SO much sense! I was trying to figure out why they had such a weird relationship




I thought this was the case and I'm surprised they never confirmed it. One is clearly a lot smarter than the other though.


I also suspected this and was surprised it was never confirmed. I think one was just more experienced than the other which makes sense, I had no trouble believing that Kid Blue could grow up to be Jeff Daniel's character, although if it was the case I thought you might see more reaction from Daniels given his memories would be changing just like Willis's were.

Thoroughly enjoyed this, went in a completely different direction than I expected it to go which is usually always a good thing as it means that the trailer hasn't completely blown the plot. I though JGL did a great job at being a young Willis although there were a few slips with the hands I think, JGL being a righty and Willis being a lefty. I could be wrong though and it's a very tiny thing to pick up on, but there you go. Still a great film.

SPOILERS

I think one of my favourite scenes was Willis crying after murdering the first kid, really emotional stuff I thought.




horribleives -> RE: RE: (8/10/2012 11:52:26 PM)

What's 'the surprise everyone will see coming' mentioned in the review?




MonsterCat -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 1:59:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Another movie media packaged to be 'clever' ... for dimwits.



There you go again with this snobbery horse crap. I mean, you're entitled to dislike it, but you're doing yourself no favours by being so unpleasant about those who actually dare to have the temerity to enjoy Looper.

Hey, I really liked the flick, and even it is a little bit muddled and not particularly original, I liked that Rian Johnson actually bothered to make a film that requires its audience to keep up with it. Does this make me a dimwit? Seriously, I'm actually interested. Or do you get some kind of pleasure from looking down at people who like the stuff that you don't like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Hey Kimbob Newman, get a real fucking job man, seriously.



Yeah Newman, stop being so positive about stuff and only write reviews our friend can agree with 100% of the time. ARRGH! THE INTERNET AND FILMS!!!




matty_b -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 7:59:50 AM)

quote:

Hey, I really liked the flick, and even it is a little bit muddled and not particularly original, I liked that Rian Johnson actually bothered to make a film that requires its audience to keep up with it. Does this make me a dimwit? Seriously, I'm actually interested. Or do you get some kind of pleasure from looking down at people who like the stuff that you don't like?


It's because some people are so insecure about their own opinions and the fact that they can't even critique properly, that they result to insults about the audience, and those who did enjoy it.

Which, if you think about it, is pretty fucking stupid.

Anyway to get on O/T, Looper was a hell of a lot of fun. The concept got shaky at times, but Rian's palpable energy for how far he could push it, got it through these moments.




Happy Shrapnel -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 9:12:31 AM)

I really can't decide whether I like this movie or not.........saw it on Friday and I'm still mulling it over in my head. Which isn't a bad thing.
Like many people, it wasn't what I was expecting, there were some bits I liked and there was some bits I felt a bit ' Meeah '
And obviously with a time travel movie you open up the whole paradox of time travel ' if's ' and ' buts ' The Kyle Reece conundrom if you will.
I think maybe I need to see it again [8|]

3/5 for me at this stage.




FoximusPrime -> RE: RE: (9/10/2012 11:17:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

I also suspected this and was surprised it was never confirmed. I think one was just more experienced than the other which makes sense, I had no trouble believing that Kid Blue could grow up to be Jeff Daniel's character, although if it was the case I thought you might see more reaction from Daniels given his memories would be changing just like Willis's were.



SPOILERS (obviously):

I briefly suspected this but, not only does the fact that Kid Blue was a buffoon suggest he doesn't become someone as sharp as Abe, but Abe has been in the "present" for well over 10-15 years by the time of the events of the film (as implied by Joe being the youngest Looper he ever recruited i.e. Joe was a kid and was not the first Looper), yet is only in his 50s.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, enhanced further by my realisation part-way through that it was a Western (the lawlessness, the weapons, the black hats, the homestead...) fused with The Terminator. I also quite liked the idea behind the effects of altering time lines: rather than creating alternative lines, it changes the single one, with the future Joe's memories "catching up," along with the suggestion that by the time their loops were closed, the older Loopers already have the memory of them killing their older selves when they were young [sm=52.gif].

I also thought that the kid may have somehow been an even younger version of Joe but that stopped when the whole TK thing kicked in (which I wouldn't have missed were it not in the film, although it didn't detract from my enjoyment).




BatSpider -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 11:44:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Another movie media packaged to be 'clever' ... for dimwits.



There you go again with this snobbery horse crap. I mean, you're entitled to dislike it, but you're doing yourself no favours by being so unpleasant about those who actually dare to have the temerity to enjoy Looper.

Hey, I really liked the flick, and even it is a little bit muddled and not particularly original, I liked that Rian Johnson actually bothered to make a film that requires its audience to keep up with it. Does this make me a dimwit? Seriously, I'm actually interested. Or do you get some kind of pleasure from looking down at people who like the stuff that you don't like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Hey Kimbob Newman, get a real fucking job man, seriously.



Yeah Newman, stop being so positive about stuff and only write reviews our friend can agree with 100% of the time. ARRGH! THE INTERNET AND FILMS!!!


OMG, WTF? There you go driving your Russian WW2 tank over my a$$ again.

You know what? It's simple. Kimbob, Empire, and other media outlets depending on movie interest/revenue to justify their existence praised this one to the high heavens. There's often an agenda to some movie reviews, whether it's a brown paper envelope, trying to appear hip, etc. They've obviously got the loudest voice by far and THEY'RE SHOUTING THAT WE SHOULD LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S 5 STARS. Is that fair and balanced?

I don't like it, and sorry but I trust my critical faculties big-time. And I'm gonna tell it like it is, because some movies are marketed with basically false advertising. If there's one thing I like less than a bad movie, it's being lied to and being told that I should like it.

You might say it's just a matter of opinion... but this shit costs time and money. If I bought an electronic gadget based on a 5-star review and most of it's features didn't work, I'd be pretty pissed off about that too. Only with movies you don't get your money or time back. What I can do is encourage people to be a bit more demanding. The folks I watched it with at the cinema said it sucked too. If consumer rights were applied to movies, Hollywood would be fucked.




shool -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 12:09:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

There's often an agenda to some movie reviews, whether it's a brown paper envelope, trying to appear hip, etc.



And this is Libel.
Are you really suggesting Empire gets a back hander for its reviews? I'd be careful how you respond.

Or could it be that the reviewer actually really liked the movie?




blackduck -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 12:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Another movie media packaged to be 'clever' ... for dimwits.



There you go again with this snobbery horse crap. I mean, you're entitled to dislike it, but you're doing yourself no favours by being so unpleasant about those who actually dare to have the temerity to enjoy Looper.

Hey, I really liked the flick, and even it is a little bit muddled and not particularly original, I liked that Rian Johnson actually bothered to make a film that requires its audience to keep up with it. Does this make me a dimwit? Seriously, I'm actually interested. Or do you get some kind of pleasure from looking down at people who like the stuff that you don't like?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Hey Kimbob Newman, get a real fucking job man, seriously.



Yeah Newman, stop being so positive about stuff and only write reviews our friend can agree with 100% of the time. ARRGH! THE INTERNET AND FILMS!!!


OMG, WTF? There you go driving your Russian WW2 tank over my a$$ again.

You know what? It's simple. Kimbob, Empire, and other media outlets depending on movie interest/revenue to justify their existence praised this one to the high heavens. There's often an agenda to some movie reviews, whether it's a brown paper envelope, trying to appear hip, etc. They've obviously got the loudest voice by far and THEY'RE SHOUTING THAT WE SHOULD LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S 5 STARS. Is that fair and balanced?
I don't like it, and sorry but I trust my critical faculties big-time. And I'm gonna tell it like it is, because some movies are marketed with basically false advertising. If there's one thing I like less than a bad movie, it's being lied to and being told that I should like it.

You might say it's just a matter of opinion... but this shit costs time and money. If I bought an electronic gadget based on a 5-star review and most of it's features didn't work, I'd be pretty pissed off about that too. Only with movies you don't get your money or time back. What I can do is encourage people to be a bit more demanding. The folks I watched it with at the cinema said it sucked too. If consumer rights were applied to movies, Hollywood would be fucked.




Actually no, Empire depends on giving accurate reviews for thier existance. If they deliberatly gave good reviews to bad movies they'd be no better that Paul Ross (does he still do reviews?). The loss in credability just wouldn't be a good business model.

Personally I don't pay much attention to Kim Newmans reviews, decided a long time ago we have different tastes in movies. But I'd never accuse him of deliberately trying to mislead me. Do what I do , look around for a reviewer with similar tastes to you and stick with them for reviews and stick with empire for news and opnions, you'll probally be a lot happier.




BelfastBoy -> RE: RE: (9/10/2012 12:45:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

What's 'the surprise everyone will see coming' mentioned in the review?


That the kid (Cid) turns out, in 30 years time, to be the dreaded Rainmaker - unless, thanks to the film's convoluted take on time travel, Joseph Gordon Levitt manages to change things.




MonsterCat -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 12:57:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

OMG, WTF? There you go driving your Russian WW2 tank over my a$$ again.

You know what? It's simple. Kimbob, Empire, and other media outlets depending on movie interest/revenue to justify their existence praised this one to the high heavens. There's often an agenda to some movie reviews, whether it's a brown paper envelope, trying to appear hip, etc. They've obviously got the loudest voice by far and THEY'RE SHOUTING THAT WE SHOULD LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S 5 STARS. Is that fair and balanced?



You have no evidence to back-up these claims. You're essentially talking out of your butt. Your claims about Empire, Kim Newman and other outlets taking backhanders are specious and libelous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

I don't like it, and sorry but I trust my critical faculties big-time. And I'm gonna tell it like it is, because some movies are marketed with basically false advertising. If there's one thing I like less than a bad movie, it's being lied to and being told that I should like it.



No-one is telling you to like it and no-one is lying to you about it. You can take Kim Newman's review or leave it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

What I can do is encourage people to be a bit more demanding.



Where do you get off trying to "encourage people to be a bit more demanding"? The people who like Looper are no more wrong than you are for disliking it. You sound like a blow-hard snob.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

Or could it be that the reviewer actually really liked the movie?



lol logic.




BatSpider -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 2:08:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

There's often an agenda to some movie reviews, whether it's a brown paper envelope, trying to appear hip, etc.



And this is Libel.
Are you really suggesting Empire gets a back hander for its reviews? I'd be careful how you respond.

Or could it be that the reviewer actually really liked the movie?


Bruv, read closely and you'll notice I didn't single out Empire, and I didn't say all reviews, and I didn't say it's happening now. Brown paper envelope's obviously a crude and ridiculous way to put what I wrote, but let's say in the past media outlets in general may have been awarded 'political points' in one form or another (privilaged set access, etc) in return for guaranteed favourable reviews. And you know what? I'm fine with that, because I understood that it's necessary and take it with a pinch of salt. No problems there.

What irritates me is when a supposed smaller 'quality' movie gets hyped up with overpraise and turns out to be rubbish. That's when I feel that someone else shoved their opinion onto me. A movie should take a lot more than Looper to get 5 stars. Watching this... instead of being immersed in the narrative, I could see all the joins - in the script, acting, directing, and stealing from other movies. So whatever else was wrong with it (a lot)... on a technical level it failed and I think that's pretty objective. I also think it's a stupid and cowardly movie in that it had absolutely nothing to say about anything. For a movie involving time travel, that's just lame.

In my opinion ;-)




matty_b -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 2:12:41 PM)

quote:

And I'm gonna tell it like it is, because some movies are marketed with basically false advertising


quote:

What I can do is encourage people to be a bit more demanding.


Well, aren't you the big hero?

quote:

What irritates me is when a supposed smaller 'quality' movie gets hyped up with overpraise and turns out to be rubbish. That's when I feel that someone else shoved their opinion onto me.


So in other words...you don't like it when the opinion of others doesn't tally with yours.

Gotcha.




MonsterCat -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 2:19:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

I also think it's a stupid and cowardly movie in that it had absolutely nothing to say about anything.



I don't think that really matters in the grand scheme of things.

If the movie like Looper works on an purely entertaining level then it's done its job. But hey, it obviously didn't work for you on that level, and that's fine.

Besides, you didn't answer my question: Am I stupid for enjoying the fuck out of Looper?




BatSpider -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 2:27:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

I also think it's a stupid and cowardly movie in that it had absolutely nothing to say about anything.



I don't think that really matters in the grand scheme of things.

If the movie like Looper works on an purely entertaining level then it's done its job. But hey, it obviously didn't work for you on that level, and that's fine.

Besides, you didn't answer my question: Am I stupid for enjoying the fuck out of Looper?



I reckon your enjoyment of Looper may have doubled or trebled post- reading my opinions




MonsterCat -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 2:32:04 PM)

Obvious troll is obvious. Blocked.




giggity -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 4:18:43 PM)

Yeah i've been thinking batspider was a troll ever since i saw his posts about the dark knight rises, this just assures it. Either that or he's just a massive, moronic, prick.




AxlReznor -> RE: WTF? (9/10/2012 4:24:43 PM)

Gotta admit that that was some pretty damn impressive back-pedalling regarding the libellous remarks, though. If he didn't want to "single out Empire", nor imply that that's what happened here, why the hell would you mention it in this thread in the first place? [;)]

I could be wrong, but I've yet to see a single film be praised by this guy, so... like has been said. Obvious troll is obvious.




the anomaly -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 12:23:59 AM)

SPOILERS ENDING


OK what did not sit well with me was ... how is the rain maker evil?

All we know of him is that in the future he closes the loops. Illegal loops set up by criminals who are sending people back in time to die. The rain maker is basically offing killers. Stopping a criminal process. Sure his goons have caused collateral damage. But alas what else has he done?Taken over all of the organised time and stopped looping. We never find out to what end. He hasnt ruled the world with an iron fist. This isnt judgement day. It isnt the dying world or Kyropton. Hell the future looked better than the present ...

What made Joe think him having a nicer childhood would achieve? Maybe he hasnt closed a loop at all ... well in the sense that he thinks. Maybe his experience as a child of loopers would drive him to get rid of them? Thats just rambling ... but my first point ... anyone?




Happy Shrapnel -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 8:36:17 AM)

Why did they send Loopers back to themselves to kill ?
Why didn't they send them back to OTHER Loopers to kill ? No-one would be none the wiser and they could save themselves a shit load of money.
[8|]




musht -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 11:45:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: the anomaly

SPOILERS ENDING


OK what did not sit well with me was ... how is the rain maker evil?

All we know of him is that in the future he closes the loops. Illegal loops set up by criminals who are sending people back in time to die. The rain maker is basically offing killers. Stopping a criminal process. Sure his goons have caused collateral damage. But alas what else has he done?Taken over all of the organised time and stopped looping. We never find out to what end. He hasnt ruled the world with an iron fist. This isnt judgement day. It isnt the dying world or Kyropton. Hell the future looked better than the present ...

What made Joe think him having a nicer childhood would achieve? Maybe he hasnt closed a loop at all ... well in the sense that he thinks. Maybe his experience as a child of loopers would drive him to get rid of them? Thats just rambling ... but my first point ... anyone?


SPOILERS ... obviously given the question

It was my understanding that he used his super-telekinesis to become the world's biggest crime lord. Closing all the Loops was just one thing he did in the process, and he did it because with his abilities there was no need for them. He's essentially a one of a kind super villain who no one can stop. He's stopping A criminal process because he has his own far more efficient process. I got the impression that he pretty much took over the criminal world out of nowhere and proceeded to control it with an iron fist.

Joe saw his future self about to kill the Rainmaker's mother and knew it would set the kid on the path to become the Rainmaker, so he killed himself and prevented her death. We saw how she could calm him and have a positive effect on him so we are led to believe that with her still alive he may not become a criminal overlord.

The real question is how he became Rainmaker in the original timeline without future Joe to kill his mother, but that's all timey-wimey and confusing so probably best to ignore it




blackduck -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 3:00:48 PM)

Also how powerful can the rainmaker actually be? Were told he's an all powerful super crimelord...but in a world were the authorities have so much control that killing is almost impossible to get away with he can't be all that powerful.




Gretzky -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 4:21:26 PM)

He's very powerful. You can see the mass destruction he's caused on the TV screen Old Joe's wife is watching in the Shanghai sequence...




FoximusPrime -> RE: WTF? (10/10/2012 4:54:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: musht

The real question is how he became Rainmaker in the original timeline without future Joe to kill his mother, but that's all timey-wimey and confusing so probably best to ignore it



Although it makes my nose bleed, I think that there are multiple loops at play that all connect - probably something to do with the "lag" that Old Joe experiences when his past gets changed, meaning that there is enough of a gap between loops for one to have affected another despite a brain-exploding paradox.

I was trying to come up with a time line but kept hitting that...Brick...wall:

- Joe grows old, gets sent back in time
- [INSERT PARADOX HERE]
- Old Joe kills Sara
- Kid loses his shit, becomes unstoppable super-crimelord
- Kid closes the loops, Old Joe's wife killed, Old Joe goes back in time
- Old Joe is about to kill Sara but Young Joe tops himself instead, Old Joe never was
- Kid no longer loses his shit

Apparently the downloadable commentary will be "a bit more technical and detailed" (click) than the eventual DVD commentary, so maybe that explains it a bit more? I can't bring myself to use a bright MP3 player in the dark cinema though, so I'll just put it on when I watch it on Blu Ray.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625