Gunstar Green wrote:There were a few elements about the time travel where I had problems suspending my disbelief. I don't need a big explanation about how the time travel works or even for it to make complete sense, but I do need a basic set of rules for it to stick to if I'm going to buy it.
It seemed like the future cherry picked how things changed.
For example:
-Joe's buddy Seth's future version near the beginning starts falling apart because his younger self is being cut up. Well if this had happened to his past self he would have never been sent back to be killed as an old man in the first place in the future because he was a sliced up invalid in the past (even if they had sent stumpy into the past for some reason he sure as hell wouldn't have run away). The movie is full of loads of parodxes like this that I couldn't set right in my mind.
-Why didn't all of the injuries that old Joe caused to the kid and his mom heal up? Why didn't when young Joe kill himself everything that was the result of old Joe being sent back in time cease to have happened? They established the rule that when changes are made to the past the effects are instant but they only followed through with it when it was convenient for the plot or for a dramatic visual gag. The ultimate paradox being that if young Joe killed himself, old Joe never traveled into the past and young Joe never had to kill himself. The same thing goes for if "the Rainmaker" never existed because the kid didn't grow up to be evil and old Joe's loop was never closed. I mean this was the ENTIRE POINT of old Joe trying to kill the kid in the first place because it would've created a reality where he was never sent back in time to be killed (and of course one where his wife was never killed).
I feel like the only way it would have worked is by using the "time traveler is protected by changes made in the past" trope but if they used that then they wouldn't have been able to do what they wanted to do.
Hm, yeah, all valid points. Still though, I thought it was entertaining.
I agree w Luke tho, at least for the last part of the movie, Yong Joe should have just hurt himself, not killed himself. That way everything up to that point would have still happened, and he still would have had to stop Old Joe.
Gunstar Green wrote:I was pretty disappointed by Looper actually. There were a few elements about the time travel where I had problems suspending my disbelief. I don't need a big explanation about how the time travel works or even for it to make complete sense, but I do need a basic set of rules for it to stick to if I'm going to buy it.
That is understandable.
For me suspension of disbelief was already thrown out the window when I walked into the theater so I preferred the way little was explained concerning time travel. Rarely do action movies make sense be it because of time travel (Terminator series) or a one man army (Rambo series) but they get a pass because, well, they are action movies that deliver what they promise. LOOPER isn't trying to be sci-fi; it's an action movie dusted with a few sci-fi elements and I think it accomplished what it set out to do rather well. Definitely in my top ten movies of 2012 so far.
I love the fact that not a scene is wasted in LOOPER. As the Hollywood/writing adage goes "If there is a gun in the scene, someone better pull the trigger". LOOPER does an incredible job of just doing that rather it be literal or not. Every scene has a purpose, and I see less and less of that with every movie I watch.
The mob has a TIME MACHINE and the only use they seem to have for it is disposing bodies. Granted they may be doing more with it that we don't see (and they probably are since they seem to run all the major cities of the world... but not really because they're scared of the illegality of time travel) but as far as the movie tells us... they use this amazing miracle to dispose of bodies.
It would be like modern day terrorists having an atomic bomb that they use as a sofa.
Edit: Also, why are they entrusting the loopers to kill their older selves in the first place? Why would they needlessly take the risk of letting one get away, even if it is a small one?
In any case I still thought it was a well made film, don't get me wrong. I didn't personally enjoy it but I can respect it.
Seeing as this is becoming a franchise (more movies and a tv series in the works) they didn't exactly put their best foot forward. TAKEN was great, TAKEN 2, not so much. Perhaps my hopes were too high, but the story is sloppy, the action scenes are all in shaky cam, and some of the logic is baffling. If you really, really love TAKEN the movie can still be enjoyable, but it didn't work for me.
I'd say if I made a list of every movie I've seen in 2012, TAKEN 2 would probably end up right in the middle. Plenty of movies are worse, plenty movies are superior.
Seeing as this is becoming a franchise (more movies and a tv series in the works) they didn't exactly put their best foot forward. TAKEN was great, TAKEN 2, not so much. Perhaps my hopes were too high, but the story is sloppy, the action scenes are all in shaky cam, and some of the logic is baffling. If you really, really love TAKEN the movie can still be enjoyable, but it didn't work for me.
I'd say if I made a list of every movie I've seen in 2012, TAKEN 2 would probably end up right in the middle. Plenty of movies are worse, plenty movies are superior.
Disappointing, but I'll still go see it. I'm a sucker for Liam Neeson beating people up.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Seeing as this is becoming a franchise (more movies and a tv series in the works) they didn't exactly put their best foot forward. TAKEN was great, TAKEN 2, not so much. Perhaps my hopes were too high, but the story is sloppy, the action scenes are all in shaky cam, and some of the logic is baffling. If you really, really love TAKEN the movie can still be enjoyable, but it didn't work for me.
I'd say if I made a list of every movie I've seen in 2012, TAKEN 2 would probably end up right in the middle. Plenty of movies are worse, plenty movies are superior.
I haven't actually seen Taken, but the concept never really struck me as franchise material.
