Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Check out the trailer Rian Johnson cut to get LOOPER green lit!

Hello ladies and gentlemen, Muldoon here with a tiny bit of "Hey, that's damn awesome." I'm quite certain you all have heard of LOOPER, even if you've not yet seen the flick. I'm not sure what my fellow AICN folk think about it, but it kicked my ass in the best ways possible. It's a film that just oozes cool and is designed incredibly well. It's no surprise that it's two leads give damn awesome performances, but it's the supporting cast, like "Kid Blue" for instance (Noah Segan) who really sold me.

At any rate, I love hearing about how films got put together or what projects "could have been" and there's a strong opinion out there, that if you have a popular actor cast as your lead that money just flies at you. Sadly, that's not the case and even incredibly talented and proven filmmakers still have to provide proof of concept in order to win over investors and financiers. The trailer below is just that, a concept trailer Rian Johnson cut together to visually get across what he expected to do with LOOPER. Check it out. You'll notice specific clips from movies that upon reflection are totally in LOOPER, like color design/shot selection/basic mood. So yeah, have at it.

This is a strange curiosity I thought might be interesting - just after I finished the script for Looper but before we began preproduction I asked Joe to record some voice-over, and with help from my friend Ronen Verbit constructed this "fake trailer" using clips from other movies. This is a fairly common thing to do when you're trying to get a movie off the ground, but it was the first time I tried it. It was meant to show more some of the film's tone, and to show how the odd concept could be presented in a clear and compelling way in the marketing. Zach Johnson did the sketches. Note that we hadn't begun the casting process yet, and the clips were chosen just based on their visuals and not by who is in them. - R. Johnson

 

Looper clip-o-matic trailer from rcjohnso on Vimeo.

 

- Mike McCutchen

"Muldoon"

Mike@aintitcool.com

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Fascinating!

    by Nick Sadler

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:37 p.m. CST

    That Was Cool

    by Rob

    Very cool.

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:37 p.m. CST

    And this is why directors should cut their own trailers.

    by Sardonic

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:40 p.m. CST

    what in the fuck? it's all a blur. i'm in canada

    by chargester

    it's all scrambled like a hotel's pay per view. the fuck?

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Plays fine here.

    by Muldoon

    Perhaps go here: https://vimeo.com/51294350

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 9:52 p.m. CST

    played fine for me

    by MrWonka

    update your codecs and shit, bitches!

  • But THAT was definitely a first. And actually, also happening that I forgot to report, the first time I tried here earlier, I tried to play it another time and my firefox browser just completely crashed to the ground. That's a rare occurrence. And now going directly to Vimeo's site and that vid's page, went to play it -- whammo. FF fall down go boom. oh well.

  • As I'd thought, this had been his main idea. The Philip K. Dick psychic stuff and etc. was all added later after he didn't know how to fill the idea out the rest of the way. It's a good idea too. I'd have the time machine be two ways. One in the "past", a marker where the object/person appears, one in the "present" where they go in. The reason you need an assassin is to place the marker, how the man is killed is up to the assassin so long as there's no evidence. Then again there's not many movies that have been released that couldn't have obviously been better in some way with the benefit of retrospect.

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Major Let Down

    by DangerMan

    I was expecting too much from the movie. Seems like it's underperforming in the states and the China grosses were less than reported.

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 11:20 p.m. CST

    My problem with Looper

    by Garbageman33

    They went to such detail to get the science part of it right. But then the plot ends up turning on something supernatural anyway. Seemed like two movies that were at odds with one another.

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Agreed dangerman

    by Amfpsych

    I really don't get the love - the story didn't grab me at all and that creepy little asshole kid made me want Bruce Willis to kill him or kill me to put me out of my misery

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Agreed amfpsych

    by DangerMan

    I thought Blunt was pretty good, but I just didn't care what was happening. It felt like a very self impressed movie and audiences aren't responding. It's a Netflix watch.

  • Oct. 13, 2012, 11:49 p.m. CST

    The problem...

    by BeMoreFunny

    was that they seemed to forget that we ALREADY KNOW WHAT BRUCE WILLIS LOOKED LIKE WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER! He's been in films and TV shows since he was Joseph Gordon-Levitt's age.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    That voiceover was JGL?

    by Bass Ackwards

    Really masked his voice there.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Also made my browser crash just like theseeker7 described.

    by RyaSKre

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Using Clips from Other Movies is for Pussies

    by Raging Dogs Productions

    That's not a proof-of-concept film; REAL proof-of-concept is getting the money and shooting something impressive yourself. This is a glorified fan-film trailer. And for the "put your money where your mouth is" folks...I hear you, and I would say the same thing. We've been hard at work on "Why Thomas Came Back: A Sequence from 'Come Find Me'" for quite a while now, and the proof of the pudding will be ready for the tasting (fingers crossed) in about a month: www.RagingDogs.com Stay tuned.

  • guess that's why im not a producer.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:59 a.m. CST

    and....i'm done with this site

    by IndianaPeach

    straw meet camel

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:31 a.m. CST

    Aint It Not News

    by Logan_1973

    this site is turning into a Blog.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Very cool, it's bascially like those fan-made trailers

    by 3D-Man

    But actually good.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 2:41 a.m. CST

    THAT ripomatic got a film green lit?

    by twogunjames

    NO offense, but I have seen much better ripomatics than that fail to get a film off the ground. I think Levitt's involvement after Inception is what got the film made, not that poorly done trailer.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 3:53 a.m. CST

    Doesn't play in Australia either...

    by bohdi71

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Derivative.

    by Reelheed

    It'll be a bit like all these other films. But make as much sense as Back to the Future.

  • The second half is by no means bad, but its also not great like thenfirst one. Its just good, not great. The first half however, up until the farm... Wow... I really felt like watching a masterpiece. Still, one of the best movies of the year.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 5:39 a.m. CST

    Inferior/derivative to those influences

    by HELLSFOXES

    On world building Blade Runner > Looper On deep meditation on humanity Se7en > Looper On neo/future-noir thriller style Se7en & Blade Runner > Looper

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 5:56 a.m. CST

    I saw this movie yesterday, i loved it.

    by albert comin

    2012 in SF film is salvaged after all, thanks to Looper and Dredd.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Over hyped!

    by Mr Kite

    Sorry guys, it's just not that good. Its just a 3 star movie. I certainly wouldn't describe it as cool. Whilst I'm at it, Dredd wasn't that good either and definitely didn't live up to the rave reviews it got. Having said that I had seen The Raid before I saw Dredd so that took away some of the impact. PS My girlfriend saw Sinister a few days ago and said it was another over hyped movie that doesn't deliver.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Vimeo not working for me either, found it on youtube

    by ahdvd

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIHY32j1Xio

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 6:31 a.m. CST

    My problem with LOOPER

    by CountOrlok

    Why didn't they just send you back to to have another looper kill you? It would just be another standard kill and they also would not have to pay extra to have you kill yourself.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 6:52 a.m. CST

    my problem with Looper....

    by Righteous Brother

    The only people who use time travel are Crime bosses? And they only use it have Loopers killed? Seriously??

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Ah so it's already become cool to hate Looper.

    by niven

    Can't wait for the Skyfall and Django haters to come soon.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Johnblake i wait eagerly for Hobbit haters as well.

    by Balkin Flabgurter

    BIFUR AND BOFUR DID-NOT TALK LIKE THAT

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    LOL @ MULDOON, I THOUGHT YOU SAID..

    by Balkin Flabgurter

    PAYS fine here! L-O-L

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    My Problem with Looper ....is

    by Mr Underhill

    that it doesn't work. It is a Paradox. The ONLY reason that YOUNGER version is at the farm is due to the OLDER verion coming back to kill the boy. So, if the younger version kills himself then THAT future (& present) cannot happen, so why was he there to kill himself?? This paradox repeats within the film in different contexts. ...unless you take a side door into parallel dimensions, which means ANYTHING can happen. Interesting that the vehicle & the silver bars are still at the farm - even after the older version wasn't there to drive it ....wonder how that happened. M

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 7:53 a.m. CST

    +Monopoly starring Hugh Jackman when he isnt shooting wolverine

    by Balkin Flabgurter

    ( just kiddin )

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 7:53 a.m. CST

    @Mr mr underhill (SOILER ALERT)

    by albert comin

    In the Looper universe, the future people only get affected after the actions of the present person. Since in the movie we see the future people occupy the same timeline as the present people, we only see the effect of prese nt actions on future versions at the same time. We never see a future version in the future being affected by present action. Also, the movie shows, the present actions do have a bit of delay action on the future versions, specially if they are in the present too. There's always a time gap, as if the universe needs a little time to adjust. This is why future Joe doesn't instantly disapears or doesn't even exist after present Joe kills himself. This are the rules of the game the movie set for itself. I had no problem getting into the groove, i accepted those. Others might not accept because it might not make sense to them, and that's fair enough. That is always the problem with time traveling stories, specially when they go into moebius string plotting, when the actions of the present can affect the future and the presence of a future version affects the present of tme characters. I think it's impossible to make a time travel story without paradoxes. The real question then would be how much paradox can you take until it breaks your suspension of disbelief.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 8:04 a.m. CST

    SOILER ALERT

    by This_is_the_Zodiac_speaking

    Asimov is here to shit out his usual smug and mangled verbiage. Watch out.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 8:20 a.m. CST

    yep. bad film.

    by JAMF

    terrible ending. felt like source code all over again. you guys need to get a grip and judge a film objectively for a change instead of fawning because it was low budget and made by an indie geek filmmaker.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Bruce Willis is a ghost and is dead the whole time...

    by The Dum Guy

    What a twist.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Johnblake don't be a dick

    by Amfpsych

    I'm not saying I didn't like looper to be cool - I went in wanting to like it. I just didn't find myself giving a shit about any character. Jgl played a drug addict killer who sold out his only friend, Blunt gave her kid to her sister, and the kid is a bratty little asshole. Bruce seemed cool but wasn't in it that much and wasn't able to accomplish his goal which was selfish anyway (really only wanted to avenge/save his wife).

  • ...SPOILERS Even if those rules don't make sense in the context of our universe, if the universe established in the movie follows them then that's fine. But Looper breaks it's own rules, which is unacceptable. I'm fine with the future being affected after the fact. I'm fine with Willis disappearing only after Levitt kills himself. But if Willis is undone after the fact, then everything Willis did when he travelled back in time should be undone. The other scenario is that Levitt's actions don't affect the future (multiple universes) which would explain why Levitt's death did not change the events that occurred as a result of Willis travelling back in time, fair enough, but if these are the rules of your universe, then Levitt's death would fail to result in Willis disappearing. I'm sorry, but this stuff matters. It would be like an otherwise great movie having a character die and reappear later on with absolutely no explanation, you can't just ignore these problems. The worst thing is that, with a couple of changes and more attention to detail, these could issues could have been addressed, and should have been

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Looper and Walking Dead have too much in common.

    by Metroid_Fetish

    Great ideas that spend way too fucking much time on a goddamn farm.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Metroid_fetish: I liked Hershells farm in TWD

    by kindofabigdeal

    I thought it was cool to see the at a place they thought was safe only to have it fall apart. I also liked when they got overran and everyone got separated for the moment. Having not read the comics I really didn't know who would make it and who wouldn't. Can't wait for season 3 tonight.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    I also really liked Looper

    by kindofabigdeal

    Most trolls are like the Kidd. They just want to hate things to be cool, edgy, and counter geek culture. One of the things that made this movie stand out is the different tones it sets, one being the slow farm buildup of character. And the Akira kid gave us a left turn I didn't expect. I guess people just want a by the numbers movie from Michael Bay instead of leaving their comfort zone and enjoying something for once in their life.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    You can unravel the plot of every movie if you dissect it enough

    by themovieweasel

    There will always be detractors to every movie, no matter how well thought out and planned. The difference is in whether or not a film sticks to the ground rules it has set for itself from the beginning, and also if those rules make the least bit of sense. A movie can make more emotional sense than literal sense, and audiences will buy it. But when there is no real emotion at all, like in a Michael Bay movie, we are more likely to pick it apart on its lapse of logic.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:39 p.m. CST

    multiple universes

    by vaterite

    I'm pretty sure the movie itself asserts that multiple universes exist. If you're paying attention, Young Joe successfully kills old Joe in one of them.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Looper Sucked. <Spoliers>

    by kdoc13

    First, despite the promises from AICN that it did, it didn't account for paradoxes except for the very beginning. When he shoots himself at the end, everything changes again. His older self never came back, went through everything and forces him to kill himself. He loses his reason for doing it, and it never happens. If anything, it starts back over when Bruce shows up in the field again. That's the problem with time travel movies. You can only change an unknown future, and you can never change the past, otherwise there will always be a paradox. Two hours of my life was wasted on Looper. Second, I wish the visuals had been close to this preview. A lot of corn fields, not a lot of futuristic cities. Rian Johnson, I normally really like the guy. The Brothers Bloom is amazing, and a truly underrated movie. He really should build a movie around the Bang-Bang character from that. But there's never been a good time travel movie that solves the paradox problem, and Looper fails miserably at it too. To the point I was actually pissed at the end of it.

  • It's just that EVERYTHING was a paradox. The kid becomes a villain because Bruce killed bis mom because he killed Bruce's wife. But in the timeline where Bruce got married he DIDN'T shoot the kid's mom so the kid would have no reason to kill the wife. And everyone else already mentioned how the ending just breaks the entire story since non of it happens if Joe never gets old enough to become Bruce.

  • ...And the reasons I didn't like it are logical fallacies and just plane stupidity in the script, so saying I must prefer stupid movie's like Transformers because I couldn't tolerate the stupidity of Looper is idiotic.

  • Loopet DIDN'T stick to it's own rules, I state why this is above

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Sorry, that should be MAJORITY aove

    by FreeBeer

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Hmm, not working here in Sweden

    by BenBraddock

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:48 p.m. CST

    It all depends on which time travel rule you believe in

    by ahdvd

    There's differen ideas about it, some believing different versions, the grandfather paradox suggets that if you travelled back in time and killed your grandfather, you couldnt exist, therefor you couldn't travel back and kill him, so everything's thrown nto a state of flux. Then there's the theory of parallel niverses, where time DOESN'T correct itself, you ould o back, kill your grandfather and still be alive. This movie though, sets out the ground rules in Joe's friend. It suggests that time oes correct itself, but it takes time for it to cath up with whatever chainof events are started in the present. That's why his friend's future self sees the words on his arm first and then digits and extremeties disappearing, instead of all of a sudden losing his arms an legs. The guys operating on his present self started with his fingers, then arms, and nose, etc. because they were done in he present, the end result took a moment to catch up with his future self. Same thing with Joe, every time young joe made a decision that he didn't originally make n old joe's past, old joe got the new memories, as they caught up with him. The whole movie is a temporal mess, but a great example if non-linear thinking, with the effect being seen before the cause, and that's why it'a a refreshing change.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST

    ahdvd, no, it breaks it's own rules...

    by FreeBeer

    ...All well and good, except for the fact that when Willis is undone at the end of the film, all his actions would have been undone. Clearly, they are not. It doesn't make sense, even in the context of the films logic. You state the two different time travel rules, the problem with Looper, is that it doesn't know which rule it wants to follow, and ends up following both, and neither

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Looper was an overrated mess

    by jimmy_009

    Not nearly as smart as it wanted to be.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 2:56 p.m. CST

    @Mr freebeer

    by albert comin

    Hello, my swedish friend. Well, i'm sorry you had such problem with the movie, problems i hadn't. Well, it's your opinion you gave a very good explanation for why you think so, and in the end it's your opinion and iresect that. I think the reason we do see the gold and silver in the ed and all his actions, past and present, are not undone is because of that delayed reaction to temporal change that only happens after the fact. It seems that the ral ffected by thechanges ar the tme traveing people themselves and not so much everything around. Butn then again you could ask, why doesn't jst old Joe disapears and his cloths are left behind? I have no answer top that. Well, so far, i enjoyed the movie. The flaws it has, which for me register as lesser, have not ruined my enjoyment of the movie. At least we don't have characers who seem to act outof character all the time, and considering a certain major SF movie from earier this year that suffeed frm that from start to end, i take that as small mercies. Maybe if his yeard had been better serve ith SF i could then have the luxery to be more critical of Looper, perhaps. If that makes any sense.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    @Mr adelai niska

    by albert comin

    The kid who grew up to be the rainmaker didn't target future Joe's wife. She was killed by accident, because one of the goons panicked. The rainmaker was targeing all the loopers in the hope to get to the one wh killed his mother because he didn't knew ho he was, so to revenge he was killing them all, just to be sure. And future joe's revenge, or rather, his atempt to avoid the murder of his wife, was t prevent right from the start that the rainmaker would even exist past the year he was traveling back to. But for his sins, the rainmaker was now of a child's age, and as we had seen in some few scenes before, for all his character flaws, Joe had a soft emotional sport for children, which is why he could connect so easily with the kid. A scene before where he almost runs over a vagrant children is our first clue that Joe is emotional for children. When the older Joe killed that first kid, he cames completly in shock and full of self-hatred. He also hesitated for quite a while when he realised who the second kid in his list was from. Somebody above said that as characters goes the movie is a winner, and i agree. For whatever plot flaws the movie might had, the characters were so interesting and so well played i was totally engaged.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    @Mr freebeer

    by albert comin

    I re-read my post adressed to you, and fucking hell, it's a mess. If you do not understand what i wrote, it will be my pleasure to write a better writen post, all you need is ask, that's it. I'm mortified by the terrible spelling, so very sorry.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Looper broke its own rules? No, it didnt.

    by Darth Furious

    ** spoilers** Im always surprised when I hear some film geek or fanboy spout some wannabe intelligent bullshit to crap on this flick. Think Back to the Furture and it all makes sense. Its very simple. Young Joe is a button man. He lives the good life, getting high and killing folks for the mob in the future. Old Joe is retired and living the life of a used to be badguy. He's clean, married and soft. When his time is up he wants to make sure his reality happens so he can know love and live his life without his wife being brutally killed. Forget the deal I made thirty years ago. When Young Joe fails to kill Old Joe he creates a whole new timeline of events that didnt happen the last time. That causes him to find love sooner and understand that HE is the badguy - not the kid who kills all the loopers in the future. If the kid doesnt see his mother gunned down by a looper in the past, its reasonable to think he wont grow up to kill all the loopers in the future. He will grow up to change things for the good - from knowing patience and love that he didnt know in the other timeline. See what I did there. The end.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Freeber -it doesn't break it's own rules...

    by ahdvd

    SPOILERS obviously. It's all to do with things catching up to the present, think of it like the strings on a guitar, with a guitar that has an infinite number of strings. Each of these strings is a timeline, young joe is moving along one of these, and with EVERY decision he makes he jumps to another string. Along comes old joe, who's past has taken him along a path across these strings, jumping from one to another over the 30 -some years, and his arrival pushes young joe to jump to different strings/timelines than old joe did, but old joe's memories are still of the path HE took, not young joe, as young joe's path has now been changed and his future is in flux. We see though, that every time young joe does something that differs from what old joe did in his past, ONCE HE'S MADE THAT CHANGE, Older joe's memories update to match. Same with when young joe marks his arm to send a message to old joe, until he physically does that in this point in time, there are future possibilities that he won't mark his arm. Once he does, old joe notices the scar, old as it should be, but new to him, and he then remembers that he did it. With regards to what older joe has done in the present, those events have been set in stone because they ARE the past, the only way they could be changed would be to travel back in time again and try to change them. So when young joe does what he does at the end, time catches up there and then, not earlier, and not later - so old joe DID exist, an echo of the future timeline that now no longer exists. That is not breaking it' own rules, that's how it always showed the effects of ANY changes that were made as a result of someone from the future affecting changes in their younger selve's past.

  • ...You basically just listed the problems I had with the movie, not offer an explanation for them. Look at my issues, and tell me honestly you addressed them. You didn't, you just reinforced them

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 10:04 p.m. CST

    Video worked fine... IF you

    by MaxHeadroom

    ... go to the Vimeo site. Other wise, it didn't work for me, either.

  • Oct. 14, 2012, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Let's start with the trailer. (spoilers)

    by Lobanhaki2

    I thought it was cool, a marvelous piece of editing that suggests very well what the movie will be about. Second, as for time travel rules? This is a subset of general fiction rules that I've got, and the basic rule is that no human being is fully capable of fleshing out the implications of an ordinary plot, or set of events. With time travel movies, especially those that explore the paradoxes, that takes on a meta level. (note: I'm going to call the older version of the character Bruce, the younger Joe, to hold down confusion) I don't know whether its just my psychological type, but I tend to go with the flow on a movie, and I saw little to discourage me from that. Yes, maybe the van should disappear. But maybe if it disappeared, it would undo the change, and the universe would have a harder time undoing that than just keeping it. In the meantime, notice something: Bruce is already a remnant of a parallel universe, a version of the loop where Joe shoots a Bruce that didn't escape. By all rights, that Bruce shouldn't exist, since he foils his own murder. If you really think about it... you'll go absolutely bonkers. The way I see it, the loop edits in real time, keeping the consequences of the time travel before hand. So, earlier, Joe's friend starts getting pieces cut off of him, it doesn't set his time travelled future self logically back where he should be, if he had come back without his various limbs. Nope, his current self updates in real time, as the injuries mount. So, if current injuries rearrange things on a future self after the fact, If the universe preserves the causality up to that point (and this is a headache if you consider what happens to the boy if he's redeemed as the movie promises), then the van with all the silver bars, being part of an earlier edition, before Joe took his own life, should still be there. Of course, there are a million ways this could go, but we're writing and and making movies for human beings, not paranormal beings of higher dimension to understand. So, a few dimensions worth of a paradoxical sense will need to be flattened to the four dimensions non-physics trained people like, and can watch. I'd say, don't overthink it, it's just a movie, and by my standards a very clever one.

  • Where is it written that those are the only two options? Time travel doesn't exist, no one KNOWS how it works for sure, but the movie sets out the rules with its examples early on. Even Back To The Future does this, otherwise all the events that change each time Marty comes back to the present, he wouldn't remember the old timeline anymore, and he would automatically remember the new timeline, but he doesn't. Arguing that 'this is how it is' is as arrogant as believeing that we're the only life in the entire universe. Again, we don't know for sure, but it's astronomically impossible.

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Fellow CANADIANS (and Others)...To get it working Just...

    by bs9999

    Get the Modify Headers plugin and add the header for: X-Forwarded-For: 12.13.14.15 For some reason many US sites still allow visitors with this header and fake US address to pass through. It's worked for me for years on many US sites.

  • I just saw it this weekend and as it ended I was silent a little pissed because I felt like it took the typical Hollywood cliche. But after I thought about it on the way home there really was no other way for Young Joe to Stop Future Joe. He had to kill himself! Looper I thought was good because it had decent action, it kept the time element simple, and presented two philosphical questions. First the action was pretty good, had a slick feel to it but had some decent gunplay. The time travel very much like Back To the Future when an event changes it creates an alternate reality nothing too complex. Now the two questions it presented if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler as a kid would you doing knowing what he'll become? The 2nd question if you knew that a child could grow up to do great things almost like a savior would you sacrifice yourself to ensure it? Those are the reason why I feel like it was a good movie.

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Looper also had a kind of Chicken & Egg thing going there.

    by Wcwlkr

    Spoiler Now the plot it developed could kind of unravel on itself. Seeing how the kid would become the Rainmaker because he witnessed a Looper kill his Mom thus making him hate all Loopers. But the Looper only killed his mom because he was trying to kill the Rainmaker who in the future killed his wife. So you have to ask if young Joe had killed his old self like it did in the one timeline, would old Joe have gone after the Rainmaker? The Rainmaker wouldn't have existed because old Joe wouldn't have killed his mom. And if the Rainmaker didn't exists who would old Joe be going after in the past? But I guess even if he didn't create the Rainmaker he would probably be going after the Mob bosses that got his wife killed. See those questions should upset me, but it makes the movie all the more interesting to me LOL.

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    it does follow the rules, except (spoiler)...

    by MateoMcD

    ... Joe heard about the Rainmaker second-hand from old Seth, and there was already the story of him having seen his mom get killed and having a prosthetic jaw (remember the first shot that hit him in the cheek? Wouldn't that get infected and eat away at his face if he'd jumped onto a train by himself?). For the film to truly follow its own rules, we'd have to believe that his mom would have been killed anyway, and he would have somehow lost his jaw. The first can be explained away because, remember, his aunt (who he "thought" was his mom) was killed in front of him... by his own out of control powers! That could have F-ed him up bad enough to make him the Rainmaker... but if that's the case, something must have happened in the course of the film that changed that eventuality. Was it Joe's presence that forced the issue of Sarah being his real mom and him discovering that, being able to be changed by experiencing Joe and Sarah caring and sacrificing so much for him, and realizing that his mother (eventually) gave up everything for him? It's feasible, but if that was the filmmaker's vision, they should have made it clearer.

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    mateomcd, it does not follow it's own rules, I explain why above

    by FreeBeer

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    freebear and scirocco (spoilers)

    by Mr Underhill

    Dear freebear: I think we are on the same page. scirocco: My issue is that as soon as young Joe kills himself his future self ceases to exist. The love affair never happens. He never comes back in time. .....so, younger Joe shouldn't be AT the farm in the first place. Unless you use the parallel universe argument. Which then gets to be a 'Get out of jail free' card, but also reduces the emotional impact. This is also the problem with the earlier use of surgery to attack the older version of a person, by removing limbs from the younger. This would change history, and make the older versions chances of surviving into old age a lot less. In fact he would almost certainly arrived back with a prosthetic limb. It was a ride while I watched it, just doesn't stand up to ANY examination. Think I'll get 12 Monkeys out.

  • Oct. 15, 2012, 5:50 p.m. CST

    freeber, I did read it, but I still disagree (spoiler)

    by MateoMcD

    The rules of Looper make it so that when two versions of the same person inhabit the same timeline, different choices made by the younger version affect the older version, but don't manifest in that timeline until after the choice has been made. That includes Joe killing himself! The same argument can be made for old Seth losing his feet: "but if he had his feet cut off, he wouldn't have been able to drive there in the first place, so how did he get to that spot he drove to?" Because the reverberations don't carry backwards in the shared timeline, they only affect what happens going forward. Young Joe killing himself affects whether old Joe can exist in the shared timeline, but only from the point where young Joe took that different action forward. Previous to that action in the shared timeline, things happened as if that choice hadn't been made, and that's when he drove and crashed the truck, and that's why it's still there. The point at which the rules were NOT followed were when old Seth told young Seth about the Rainmaker becoming who he was because he saw his mom die and had an artificial jaw. Unless we believe that it's in reference to his killing his aunt (who he believed to be his mom) as the event that screwed him up and made him the Rainmaker, it doesn't follow the rules (and forget about the jaw...)... or we can assume that in the original timeline his mom was killed by someone else and that made him the Rainmaker, but somehow that won't happen now because of the changes brought about by old Joe coming back and young Joe consequently making different decisions.

  • Oct. 16, 2012, 7:22 p.m. CST

    The Rules of Looper ..

    by masterblaster

    Haven't seen a satisfactory explanation yet, though I thought the movie was great. Not Rian Johnson's best, but definitely as fun as Brick. As far as I can tell, the rules are this: The 1st version is, he kills his future self, then goes back in time and changes that. But wait... so who did 1st Joe kill? This is the n version of Joe. Bruce Willis' character is the n+1 version of Joe. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt is n+2 Joe. This is how Bruce's actions still effect things in the present. But wait... so how come Joe's actions have an effect on Bruce's memory? ... hell, I don't know. Maybe all the Joe's are just different instances of the same person.

Top Talkbacks