Looper - new standard or let-down? SPOILERS!

[Jim_Campbell]

I was replying to Mark about the system of Loopers and how they operate as established at the beginning of the film specifically, not the film as a whole.

Fair enough. As you were!

Cheers

Jim

[Mark Taylor]

Why? Well the whole concept of Looper is pretty silly, to be frank

And a billionare dressing up as a giant bat isn't?

Hey, billionaires do some crazy shit. Or at least, they should.

I want into this film fully expecting it to be full of plot holes and knowing I'd have to leave my suspension of disbelief behind to enjoy it in the first place

So by that logic, if you had watched TDKR with the same frame of mind it would have been a better film? Does this count for everything? WHat about Prometheus? Or Resident Evil whatever number it is?

Cheers for the reductio ad absurdam. To answer the question about TDKR: No. However it would potentially have been a better film if it hadn't spent the first 30-45 minutes (not to mention the previous two films) building itself up to be something it ultimately wasn't.

I expect a Shakespeare play to have internal logic and consistency. Spongebob Squarepants on the other hand, I'm happy to give a free pass as far as plot holes go. Films can fall into either camp, or somewhere in between, all I'm asking is that they be consistent about it. Changing where they fall on the scale part way through rather spoils the mood.

As for Prometheus, plot holes were the least of its problems. It just wasn't entertaining, and almost all of the characters were complete self-absorbed idiots to a degree where I actually began to hope they would all die.

And as for Resident Weevil whatever-and-a-half, I haven't seen it so I can't comment.

It's about as misleading as you can get.

I think the only misleading being done is by you. To yourself.

Uhuh. In your opinion as a moderator, how likely do you think this comment is to lead anywhere positive?

[Richmond Clements]

Uhuh. In your opinion as a moderator, how likely do you think this comment is to lead anywhere positive?

Oh for fuck sake. If you don't like what I'm saying report me, but don't come of with this shit - how dare you suggest I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

[Mark Taylor]

Well the whole concept of Looper is pretty silly, to be frank. If you can send people back in time (evidently to a variety of different locations back in time, too) there are about a million ways you can use that to kill people without having to bother all the elaborate faff of setting up an agency to hire killers in the past blah blah etc., not to mention actually having to pay them.

I think that the mechanics and rules of time travel are kept vague enough that you can come to your own conclusions about why things are the way they are in the universe of the film. It's a bit of a stretch, admittedly.

True to an extent, but how far can you stretch it. Even if they can't just dump the targets in some instantly lethal location for whatever reason, why on Earth would they actually send live targets back in time in the first place, complete with the risk that they might escape? Kill them first then send the bodies back, then the only job the Loopers have to contend with is disposing of the bodies. Advantages: No chance that the target will get away, much less chance that the looper will screw up. Disadvantages: None.

They can't exactly invoke the 'Terminator Defense' (it only works on living matter!) here because all of their victims are sent back fully clothed, with bars of silver or gold on their backs to boot. Even if they came up with some far fetched variant of the 'Terminator Defense', there's still no viable reason why they couldn't just give the target a pill or an injection which will kill them within a couple of minutes, then send them back in time. Advantages and Disadvantages as above.

Or maybe, hey, they can build a time machine but they just didn't think of that...

[Mark Taylor]

Uhuh. In your opinion as a moderator, how likely do you think this comment is to lead anywhere positive?

Oh for fuck sake. If you don't like what I'm saying report me, but don't come of with this shit - how dare you suggest I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

How dare you suggest my opinion is the product of self-delusion, just because it doesn't concur with yours?

[radiator]

Even if they can't just dump the targets in some instantly lethal location for whatever reason, why on Earth would they actually send live targets back in time in the first place, complete with the risk that they might escape?

Well, in The Terminator, we're told that only living things can be sent back in time - so they can't send back guns, but can send back a robot as long as it's covered in human skin....

It's equally as goofy as anything in Looper, but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film one bit.

As I said though - it is a bit of a stretch.

[Mark Taylor]

Well, in The Terminator, we're told that only living things can be sent back in time - so they can't send back guns, but can send back a robot as long as it's covered in human skin....

I do believe I covered that.

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

Just gave up on this. Incomprehensible pish. Did he kill his old self or not? One scene, no. Two minutes later, yes. I get the possible alternate timelines but the film makes no attempt to explain two jarring contradictory back to back scenes.

[Hoagy]

I'm with the jaded cynical over-exposed to better writing block on this. I wanted to be pleasantly surprised with the inkling it could not cross all paradigms of movie cultures before I sat down to watch. When I start making egg sarnies halfway through a film, it has either got to be an old friend like dial M for Murder or a new upstart I'm consoling my bad choice of hard earned £3.50 being spent on with an egg sarnie. And this was the case with Looper. No, the logical, illogical dismemberment scene did not work for me, even as I tried to stick with it as a fun dismissal of a character I was actually beginning to like. There was and wasn't any need to show an alternative timeline but this did give me hope when I figured out what the intention was. This intention remained isolated within this loop of the film. I think, too busy trying to act like Bruce Willis, not enough both actors trying to act like Joe constantly took me out of the story. Innovative design ideas were sorely under used and all I could think of was X-Men Last Stand when Cid is dispatching a Gat man in the living room. The metaphors were all  lost on me as I tried to keep focusing past deliberate (it seems) sketchy scenes of inconsequential sequences which were driven home by such a lame ending. Metaphors should come a lot easier.

I WAS DISAPPOINTED.
Maybe it's not on my wavelength but Prometheus still stood up as a fine messy space junkie flick. And Anna Karina is way down on my to view list.

[Tiplodocus]

This wasn't quite what I was expecting from the trailers I had seen. Much darker. Found myself enjoying it possibly becsuse it wasn't what I expected but, boy, was it stupid and full of inconsistencies and disregard for internal logic whenit could have been more straightforward.

So i Wouldn't recommend it but enjoyed it which makes about as much sense as the film.


<WHORE ON> I am sure I read a similar hack story but with great art in an issue of Futurequake. TIMEWASTER. <WHORE OFF>

[radiator]

Looper was one of those films that I enjoyed at the time but has dulled quite a bit in my memory. I liked it enough but wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again. Still, it's always good to see that Hollywood can still make decent R rated sci fi movies.