Rian's Forum

A place to discuss Rian's stuff, and stuff that isn't Rian's stuff. Hello!
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:07 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:22 pm 
Offline
Fearless Flyer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:51 am
Posts: 794
SPOILERS, OBVIOUSLY.

http://www.slashfilm.com/ten-mysteries- ... n-johnson/

I'm so glad they did this, because he actually talked about the one thing that was really on my mind:

2. The film surmises Old Joe killing Sarah eventually made Cid become the Rainmaker. But Old Joe can’t become Old Joe without first being killed and letting Young Joe grow up to meet his wife. In that timeline though, Cid would grow up normal because Sarah wasn’t killed by Joe. How does that all work? How does the Rainmaker exist in a timeline where Old Joe didn’t kill his mom?



Okay see, my interpretation was a tad different, because my thought was that Cid watched his aunt die (whom he thought was his mother,) and that's what they were talking about. OTOH, that wouldn't explain his rage against Loopers specifically.

HOWEVER, as I read the script, I also really liked the idea that Old Joe goes back in time to stop the Rainmaker, and, holy crap, CREATES THE RAINMAKER.

Read for Rian's response though. :)

Ooh, another thing that was on my mind in a HUGE way:

7. Was Joe in love with Sarah and was this something explored more in different versions of the script?



Answer:
Johnson said he explicitly didn’t want Joe and Sarah to fall in love because Joe’s decision at the end has to be because he sees himself in Cid, not out of love for Sarah. Instead, their love scene is just “two lonely people in an intense situation together.” Johnson did admit, though, “There are hints that if Joe had lived, something might have happened, but in the context of the story? No.”

See, that's how I felt when I read the script, and in the movie, too, and it made SO MUCH SENSE to me. I'm so glad Rian said this because it makes me like Sarah's character so much more. As a female character she existed OUTSIDE of the male lead. Her role wasn't "to make the dude a better man" or to be some sort of savior to him. She had her own agenda, her own life, and she wasn't just stuck in there for the male lead to have some sort of epiphany.

And I wanted Joe's sacrifice to be for actual good, instead of just "because vagina."

(Also, is it just me, or roes Rian just love to break Joe into teeny tiny little Joe-bits and then throw him in bed with girls? See also: Brick. ;) )

Anyway, check out the whole thing, because it's pretty awesome.

Any further thoughts on this? I am full of Looper thoughts. And feels.

Jules


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:01 pm 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:23 am
Posts: 2683
Location: UK
I'll edit this post if it's answered in the link, but one thing that puzzled me was Sara's claim that her son was ten, not five.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:50 pm 
Offline
Fearless Flyer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:51 am
Posts: 794
I think she did that to throw off whoever might come looking for Cid. She already knew by then that people knew his birthday, so maybe she was feeling a little paranoid over that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:28 pm 
Offline
Fearless Flyer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:51 am
Posts: 794
Ooh ohh, wait, I've got another, in the same vein as the "If Old Joe never comes back for Cid then none of this happens" thing.

So, since memories are hazy and they shift along with the changing timeline, does that mean that Sarah and Cid will forget why Joe died? Because there will have been no Old Joe threat.

Also, would that mean that all the gat men and Abe are still alive?

Hmm


LOOPER TWO. :shock:


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:52 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:23 am
Posts: 2683
Location: UK
Who knows, to be honest; the stuff with Seth doesn't really apply because Old Seth's interactions were limited to his younger self. And there was obviously a reason why Abe didn't want to kill young Seth...


All this time-travel crap just fries your brain like an egg.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
Fearless Flyer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:51 am
Posts: 794
^It really does. But I just think that incapacitating him that much would complicate things just as much as killing him would have. Abe said something about it being either too dangerous or too complicated to outright kill him (can't remember which.) But hacking him to bits, wouldn't that alter the future just as much?

Either way, I have to say that scene was so dang effective. I sat there somewhere between cringing, and in awe of how well it was pulled off. Not only horrifying, but actually subtle enough to be truly creepy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:21 am 
Offline
Pie-Pan Grease

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 1:41 pm
Posts: 2
JulesKD wrote:
(Also, is it just me, or roes Rian just love to break Joe into teeny tiny little Joe-bits and then throw him in bed with girls? See also: Brick. ;) )


I thought it was funny that Noah Segan seems to be an ineffective villain/rival to Levitt and general butt-monkey in this and in Brick.

One thing I don't understand is what changed this time to stop the cycle of Cid becoming the Rainmaker? If it was a repeating cycle of deterministic events what was the external factor that caused Joe to shoot himself instead? The only thing I can guess is there are continuous alternating time lines where the Cid becomes the Rainmaker and ones where he doesn't, and his actions still don't stop the cycle at all.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline
Pie-Pan Grease

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:03 pm
Posts: 1
JulesKD wrote:
Also, would that mean that all the gat men and Abe are still alive?


My read was that everything that Old Joe did stayed - since Cid goes to sleep with a bandage on his jaw, it stands to reason that all the people Old Joe killed are still dead.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:11 pm 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:20 am
Posts: 1136
My interpretation of time travel in this film (and I could be totally off base with this) is:
Changes in the past don't effect those who go back straight away.
Otherwise when they chopped young Seth's leg off, old Seth wouldn't have bothered to get in the car in the first place because he knew he couldn't drive and he would never have made it to the door.
In The Terminator, once someone goes back in time, they're there, even if the futures changes they're just from a possible future.
In Looper when you go back in time, you're there until the point someone changes the future and then you change (or disappear) but everything you do UP UNTIL that point still happens.

MyElbowsFellOff wrote:
One thing I don't understand is what changed this time to stop the cycle of Cid becoming the Rainmaker? If it was a repeating cycle of deterministic events what was the external factor that caused Joe to shoot himself instead? The only thing I can guess is there are continuous alternating time lines where the Cid becomes the Rainmaker and ones where he doesn't, and his actions still don't stop the cycle at all.

I assume that:
In the original timeline (when Joe successfully closes his own loop): Something else causes Cid to become the Rainmaker and take over all the crime organisations. It makes sense that his mum already knows about loopers so there's already some connection there.
In the main timeline (the one we see for the bulk of the film): Cid seeing a looper kill his mum and shoot is jaw is what causes him to take over the crime organisations out of revenge.
In the final timeline (after Joe kills himself): Knowing that a looper died to protect him and his mum sets Cid on a different path, it's up to your imagination to decide what that is.

I'm a hairsbreadth away from creating diagrams with straws here.
Bare in mind this is all my speculation after on viewing. I need to re-watch it and look out for certain things (which probably won't happen till my 3rd/4th viewing).

Edit: Just putting it out there I have no idea when the word Looper or loopers is and isn't supposed to be capitalised. My general rule of thumb is when it's the title of the film it's capitalised when it's the persons job role it's not but I have no clue here.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline
Fearless Flyer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:51 am
Posts: 794
Quote:
Changes in the past don't effect those who go back straight away.
Otherwise when they chopped young Seth's leg off, old Seth wouldn't have bothered to get in the car in the first place because he knew he couldn't drive and he would never have made it to the door.


Except when he got in the car, that hadn't happened yet. Not only would his memories not have changed yet (Old Joe's memories were hazy, and when they started to change, it was a slow process,) but the physical stuff was almost instantaneous. When Young Joe kills himself, Old Joe vanishes the second the wave function collapses and Young Joe is actually, legitimately dead. ( :cry: ) The wave function starts out as a superposition of Young Joe's eigenstate, but once he's clearly, observably dead (to himself, I guess, since he'd be his own observer in this case,) then Old Joe has really no choice but to stop existing. Therefore it stands to reason that once Young Seth loses his leg and it's not magically re-grafting (the wave function collapses and this reality takes place,) Old Seth loses his leg immediately.

Which is why it seems to me that if Old Joe's eigenstate is irrevocably altered to "dead," then the superpositions of the people he affected would have their own wave function collapse too, and he would never have lived to kill those people in the first place.

This is why closed-loop time travel as opposed to multiverse time travel is so tricky. If time travel was a closed loop like this, we probably wouldn't exist, because some dumbass would go back in time and kill everyone's Mom all in one shot or something.

Err, that's if time travel existed at all. Which it doesn't. ^_^



ETA: I might have the wrong idea about superpositions and eigenstates. If so, please correct and educate me. :D But do it simply because my brain is a tiny thing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:03 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:23 am
Posts: 2683
Location: UK
My theory about this is about possibilities and potentials. Like when Old Joe says his memories "aren't memories any more", they're just potential things that happened - but he could still remember his own life, even after Joe had overwritten them. So I think (if you can wrap you head around this; I'm still struggling) that the events of the film stay happened BECAUSE: as long as something has the potential to happen, the future stays possible (even in the present). Even after the possibility has been eliminated (Joe kills himself), until that moment, the possibility was still there. The ripple of time-altering only moves forwards from the present, not backwards.

Have I explained that well? It's just a theory, but I like it and hopefully it makes sense.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:20 am
Posts: 1136
Day Glo wrote:
The ripple of time-altering only moves forwards from the present, not backwards.

Have I explained that well? It's just a theory, but I like it and hopefully it makes sense.

That's a smart way to put it, basically the past doesn't change. Young Joe dies and thus Old Joe doesn't exist but up that moment he did exist. He was merely from a possible future, when young Joe kills himself that possible future is no longer possible so old Joe disappears but until that point the future was possible so he did exist.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:12 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:23 am
Posts: 2683
Location: UK
Yes! Much clearer than I managed. Thanks!


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:28 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:20 am
Posts: 1136
Day Glo wrote:
Yes! Much clearer than I managed. Thanks!

Yay!
It's starting to make sense to me now but that could be because I'm so confused that I don't know how wrong I am.
So to apply that logic to Seth.
Up until the moment he lost his finger, he was from a possible future where he had his finger, as they cut off his finger that future was no longer possible so old Seth's finger disappeared.
It seems simple now. I think it's just initially confusing because it doesn't follow the logic we're used to from other films.
I'm glad old Joe didn't explain it in the diner, it would be one of those exposition scene where I thought "why is the character wasting his time explaining this when he knows they're being hunted?".

I've been having this discussion (as more of an argument) with a friend on facebook, who is dead certain the film doesn't make sense. They ended up using Primer as an example of why. I explained that they're different films with different rules "it would be liked complaining the magic in Lord of the Rings doesn't work the same as the magic in Harry Potter".
But he didn't buy it, apparently all time travel films must follow the same logic otherwise they're cheating. Which is odd considering he's a Doctor Who fan.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:33 am 
Offline
Upper Crust
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:23 am
Posts: 2683
Location: UK
Bring Back to the Future into the conversation. I think Looper is actually really close to the way the time-travel works in that (with the photograph, and Marty's hand fading out until George takes Lorraine back from the other guy at the dance).


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited