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.