CGTalk > Main > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-07-2012, 07:03 PM   #31
Melvil
Know-it-All
 
Melvil's Avatar
portfolio
Dave
USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
Of course! Not trying to convince you either, and you bring up a lot of good points. You know honestly I want to like this film, so if I hear good answers (like you've given me for my Rainmaker complaint) I'm glad! Cause I want the premise to work, and maybe I did miss something. Unfortunately I'm not hearing anything for the other complaints that work for me, but it's still fun to discuss.


A lot of people are mentioning things, offering solutions, explaining it for the movie and saying when you see things in film you need to assume. I disagree with that line of thinking.

If a character needs to escape a room with a door, and dies trying without ever actually attempting to open the door, that's frustrating as a viewer to see. Sure, someone can assume the door is locked, but assuming isn't enough. We need to see him try the knob, or at least say, "Damn, it's locked." I feel like more and more recently, directors are asking the audience to assume the door is locked without ever telling us that. But on a much larger scale, and often for the movie's overall premise or plot.

There's a difference between mystery, and laziness. It's easy to write a conflict when you don't think it all through. It's easy when you don't have to have the character explain why he didn't go for the door.

It doesn't mean more boring exposition, you reveal these things through the plot. I know it sounds like I just want everything spoon fed, but that's not true. I'm ok with a lot being left in the dark, or hiding clues so that a second or third viewing reveals solutions. But when it comes to basic premise, or the conflict, it needs to be airtight, and if that means explaining the door is locked, we need to hear that.

I guess the reason Looper bothered me so much is I loved the film itself (characters, storyline), and I really wish the writer had spent time really solidifying the premise so the questions I've been asking had real answers, not "it was probably this?" answers. Like if someone was talking to Joe, and said, "You know I always wondered why you fellas don't just teleport them into the incinerator" And then Joe offered an answer. 2 lines. Could have happened at a party or while they were walking. Inception did that a lot, Ellen Page's character was perfect as the audience's voice. She asked all the right questions, and made the premise airtight.

And btw the eagles in LOTR did really annoy me, luckily it was at the end so it didn't ruin my viewing, but yes, that was explained in the book and should have been in the movie. As I said earlier, the rebuttal of, well then it would have been a boring movie! isn't a sufficient excuse for lazy writing. A movie's conflict shouldn't be forced for entertainment value, it needs to be real under the movie's conditions.


I see what you're saying and understand why you would have liked more to be explained explicitly, but ultimately I really don't think that addressing any of these issues in the text of the movie would have made it better. The movie is not about time travel, it just uses it to tell it's story. I feel like that's addressed in the film when Bruce Willis says something along the lines of "I don't want to spend all day here discussing time travel." They could have, but it doesn't really add anything to the story.

I would only consider this laziness if I thought there weren't REAL answers, but I never felt that way. I have no problem leaving things open to a bit of creative thinking (in fact I love it anytime a film gives me that opportunity) if it doesn't directly detract from the story. Since the rest of the movie shows a consistent use of it's established rules, and the storytelling is intelligent and respectful of the audience, I am more than willing to put a bit of trust into it.

I don't think your room with a door analogy fits very well because unlike not knowing if a door is locked until you try it, we are working within a sci-fi world with a complex set of rules that are already well established. More importantly, our characters are not responsible for the system, they just work within it, so the intricacies of how it works has no bearing on them.
 
Old 10-07-2012, 07:42 PM   #32
Darrolm
Frequenter
portfolio
Darrol Moore
Character TD | Generalist
Pasadena, USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 178
It is interesting to see what everyone has to say. I personally enjoyed the film although I did have a problem with the time travel aspect for a while. It just bugged me how everything seemed to create a paradox until I figured out one way it could work. Based on what was happening, I got the impression that they were still pretty limited on what they could do in terms of time traveling. They may have only been able to send them to specific places instead of where ever they wanted and they might have been limited to just 30 years in the past.
 
Old 10-08-2012, 02:06 AM   #33
Bonepuller
Sleepy
Adam Schimpf
Character Animator
id Software
Plano, USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
Of course! Not trying to convince you either, and you bring up a lot of good points. You know honestly I want to like this film, so if I hear good answers (like you've given me for my Rainmaker complaint) I'm glad! Cause I want the premise to work, and maybe I did miss something.
That's interesting, because I think the Rainmaker stuff required at least as much inference and benefit of the doubt as anything else I've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
A lot of people are mentioning things, offering solutions, explaining it for the movie and saying when you see things in film you need to assume. I disagree with that line of thinking.
I do too. And I'll bring up Prometheus again. In that film, you had to just let it go, even people that supported that movie couldn't even make plausible assumptions based on very little evidence, because nothing made sense. Here (in Looper), I felt like a plausible foundation was laid for me to infer certain things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
If a character needs to escape a room with a door, and dies trying without ever actually attempting to open the door, that's frustrating as a viewer to see. Sure, someone can assume the door is locked, but assuming isn't enough. We need to see him try the knob, or at least say, "Damn, it's locked." I feel like more and more recently, directors are asking the audience to assume the door is locked without ever telling us that. But on a much larger scale, and often for the movie's overall premise or plot.

There's a difference between mystery, and laziness. It's easy to write a conflict when you don't think it all through. It's easy when you don't have to have the character explain why he didn't go for the door.

It doesn't mean more boring exposition, you reveal these things through the plot. I know it sounds like I just want everything spoon fed, but that's not true. I'm ok with a lot being left in the dark, or hiding clues so that a second or third viewing reveals solutions. But when it comes to basic premise, or the conflict, it needs to be airtight, and if that means explaining the door is locked, we need to hear that.
I agree with all this completely, 100%. I'm that type too. Often when my wife and I watch a movie at home I'll offer up a 'why doesn't he/she just do _____ instead?' (I don't do it at the theatre). I just think we're talking about a matter of degree here. Like I said, one of my favorite things was the way Johnson laid that foundation of plausibility enough without digging into mind numbing time travel conundrums, especially because of the types of characters involved. If a few of these lowlife mobster thugs would've spontaneously busted into a conversation about the grandfather paradox, it would've pulled me completely out of the movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
Like if someone was talking to Joe, and said, "You know I always wondered why you fellas don't just teleport them into the incinerator" And then Joe offered an answer. 2 lines. Could have happened at a party or while they were walking. Inception did that a lot, Ellen Page's character was perfect as the audience's voice. She asked all the right questions, and made the premise airtight.
I loved Inception, and I love Nolan, but, for me, Inception went too far with the exposition and the laying out of all the rules. I still liked it, but it was just too much for my taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael5188
And btw the eagles in LOTR did really annoy me, luckily it was at the end so it didn't ruin my viewing, but yes, that was explained in the book and should have been in the movie. As I said earlier, the rebuttal of, well then it would have been a boring movie! isn't a sufficient excuse for lazy writing. A movie's conflict shouldn't be forced for entertainment value, it needs to be real under the movie's conditions.
I read the books but I don't remember the explanation for why they couldn't have just dive-bombed the ring into Mt Doom. Still, my point wasn't that 'it's just a movie', I hate that excuse and wouldn't ever try to use it. My point was I felt questions were answered, problems solved, and that the angle of nefarious people exploiting time travel for fiscal gains has been done before...even TimeCop did that My point was just that this is more interesting, and I don't think the writing was lazy and it had a solid, thought through world and plot with a new and interesting twist.
 
Old 10-08-2012, 03:00 AM   #34
Michael5188
another mime
 
Michael5188's Avatar
portfolio
Michael Sime
animator/rigger
NYC, USA
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by fablefox
It is interesting that you angry at a writer and at the same time knew regarding the eagles.


Oh I hope I'm not coming off as angry, and if I am that's not the case.

You know I think at this point debating the movie has made me focus too much on the negatives of it, when really if I watched it again and just accepted these plot points I'd probably like it a lot more.

Anyways, think we've just about covered our discussion, I will end with saying how incredible Levitt was a mimicking Bruce Willis. Right from the get go when he was narrating I was amazed at how perfect the voice was, and then his acting took it a step further. That's a really hard thing to pull off without looking cheesy, and I'd say he did it.
__________________
-Michael

www.MichaelSime.com
 
Old 10-08-2012, 08:24 AM   #35
JoshBowman
Life's More Than What U C
 
JoshBowman's Avatar
portfolio
Joshua Bowman
Animation Lecturer/Student
Sydney, Australia
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,120
Saw it, fun movie, very suspenseful but not something I could watch again already knowing the outcome.

Totally distracted by JGL's makeup for the entire film.

[ SPOILER - Click to reveal ]
Spoiler:

Whole premise didn't work at all because of the time travel looping paradox which can never be changed. Once an event occurs it can't not occur if someone goes back in time because they are already a part of that history by inserting themselves into a past time. Therefore they were already affecting history before they went back in time in the future. It doesn't matter what decision they make for themselves, it's already a part of their history.

That's why the whole narrative didn't work on any level because a fully limbed guy can't come back to the past and start losing limbs because they start chopping up his younger self after his older self returns, the older self would already be living with all those amputations before he returns because for him that history has already played out. Same with the main character's younger self killing himself at the end, if it already happened, his older self never existed in the first place and it would never happen because if at any time the younger version kills themselves then the older version would never be around to come back and affect things in the first place.
__________________
TheJoshBlog - Flickr - Twitter - Tumblr
 
Old 10-09-2012, 07:22 PM   #36
My Fault
2D or not 2D
 
My Fault's Avatar
Brian Nicolucci
Character Animator/TD
The Big Bad/Darkside
USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,981
Rian Johnson released his audio commentary for Looper like he did with Brothers Bloom. Looking forward to watching the film again while listening to it.
http://soundcloud.com/rcjohnso/loop...ical-commentary
__________________


 
Old 10-10-2012, 02:35 AM   #37
unclebob
MALA IPSA NOVA
 
unclebob's Avatar
the bob
b/cs, USA
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshBowman
Saw it, fun movie, very suspenseful but not something I could watch again already knowing the outcome.

Totally distracted by JGL's makeup for the entire film.


IE: your spoiler,

going back in time might not be on that time line but in a parallel universe time line and one could kill ones younger self without affecting the older self thereby avoiding the grandfather paradox.

or we can all just leave the brains at the door and enjoy the movie.
__________________
MALA IPSA NOVA
 
Old 10-10-2012, 07:31 AM   #38
Kev3D
Agent
 
Kev3D's Avatar
portfolio
Kevin Russell
3D Artist
Kevisual
London, GB
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,761
Send a message via MSN to Kev3D
I didn't really enjoy the movie, I just felt it was in some sort of limbo land between action and cerebral thriller, not really doing either well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by unclebob
IE: your spoiler,

going back in time might not be on that time line but in a parallel universe time line and one could kill ones younger self without affecting the older self thereby avoiding the grandfather paradox.

or we can all just leave the brains at the door and enjoy the movie.



If it was a parallel universe, why would his limbs, etc. start falling off?

My understanding is that there is a very hard link of exactly thirty years. When something happens in the past, it effects future self exactly 30 years later.
__________________
3D Reel, Photography and Blog
 
Old 10-11-2012, 07:53 AM   #39
JoshBowman
Life's More Than What U C
 
JoshBowman's Avatar
portfolio
Joshua Bowman
Animation Lecturer/Student
Sydney, Australia
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev3D
If it was a parallel universe, why would his limbs, etc. start falling off?

My understanding is that there is a very hard link of exactly thirty years. When something happens in the past, it effects future self exactly 30 years later.


This is why i had issues with it at a basic level, if they'd implied or stated anywhere in the film that it was a parallel universe then I'd be fine. And anyway if it was a parallel universe then there would be no need for loopers because the future mafia would just be sending people into another parallel universe which wouldn't affect their own, they all seem pretty self obsessed so I doubt they'd care two hoots about causing trouble for their parallel universe selves.
__________________
TheJoshBlog - Flickr - Twitter - Tumblr
 
Old 10-11-2012, 09:24 AM   #40
hypercube
frontier psychiatrist
 
hypercube's Avatar
portfolio
Daryl Bartley
vfx goon / gfx ho
hypercube
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,050
I think it also had to do with the way changes propagate..it's having a retroactive effect, but without taking the time inbetween..ie he didn't suddenly have artificial limbs that he'd used for years appear etc.

That was one of the harder ones to let slide, but it was such a neat visual device I just went with it. It would have been cool to see prosthetics and crutches appear and disappear as he went through different levels of disability.

Definitely not parallel universes though..just something odd about the way changes move forward. Same thing with the Rainmaker paradox. Like you can change present->future->present but not to the point it breaks everything.

I think most movies that end up changing the past or future violate this at some point, and have to just invent a "change wave" of some kind, or "local perception", or some other scheme, otherwise everything would be a total wreck.

Even the carefully plotted and looped Back To The Future II messed up on it for a couple of important instances. But again, the storytelling was working, so it was okay. At least IMO.

I think 12 Monkeys is one of the few that really stuck to it, but that follows the futility model, where what has happened, happened, and you were always a part of it.

There's Primer, but at what cost to the viewer..I think I lost some childhood memories trying to keep that all together in my head.

Or maybe it's just all a load of BS, but none of it stopped me from enjoying this particular movie. YMMV.
 
Old 10-11-2012, 07:44 PM   #41
LuckyBug
Building worlds
 
LuckyBug's Avatar
portfolio
Star Lord
DMP Environment Artist
MPC London
London, United%2BKingdom
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 872
Anybody remembers this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219854/
If you want a guy who meets his younger self just ask Bruce Willis
__________________
www.inbitwin.com
 
Old 10-11-2012, 08:38 PM   #42
hypercube
frontier psychiatrist
 
hypercube's Avatar
portfolio
Daryl Bartley
vfx goon / gfx ho
hypercube
Los Angeles, USA
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyBug
Anybody remembers this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219854/
If you want a guy who meets his younger self just ask Bruce Willis


Someone did..

DISNEY'S LOOPER
 
Old 10-11-2012, 09:05 PM   #43
Darrolm
Frequenter
portfolio
Darrol Moore
Character TD | Generalist
Pasadena, USA
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 178
The way to me that the time travel makes some sense is if you think of a linear pond where there are set events that happen. When you make a change to the surface of a pond, it doesn't branch off, it just sends out a ripple across the surface. Now say that each version of Joe is a stationary point on that pond with the older one further down but at the same time parallel because of time travel. If younger Joe makes a change, it doesn't send older Joe off because it is just like tossing a pebble into the pond. Now if you throw a big enough rock into a pond, it is going to send water flying and probably out of the pond.

It isn't foolproof. I just came up with this example as I saw someone say it was cascading.
 
Old 10-11-2012, 10:11 PM   #44
evolucian
Lurkmeister
portfolio
Lulu
Compositor
Vancouver, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 774
i liked it but i cant fingure what type of movie it was. it clearly wasnt action, perhaps suspense? but not quite. Definately not "thriller". The only time i was "thrilled" was at the very very end, and thats about it. Still, pretty good.
 
Old 10-14-2012, 02:17 PM   #45
karthikarctic
Frequenter
 
karthikarctic's Avatar
portfolio
Karthik Rajendran
Visual Designer
India
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 260
watched it today. Enjoyed it. Great storyline. Has all the elements to entertain. Has a Terminator-esque feel to it. It was interesting to note that the story doesn't talk about the Looping process causing the end of the world or the Rainmaker dying bringing hope to the world. But it rather deals with the underworld's mash-up which is different and original.

Emily Blunt is pretty. JGL has done a fantastic job of underplaying his character which makes him endearing. Bruce Willis is cool as always.

It's movies like this that gives a signal that someone is thinking out there.

Would have like to see more futuristic stuff though...it being 2044 and all.

Good stuff hollywood
__________________
"This is the moment. History could be made...or nothing at all."
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.