Guess what?
No, seriously. I'm proven absolutely correct;
from this interview
Next time give me a challenge!!
No, seriously. I'm proven absolutely correct;
from this interview
Next time give me a challenge!!
Looper - Grade, Review, Discuss, ect.
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
You are still wrong, because the entire basis of your argument is wrong.
You claimed that the writer-director was compelled by external forces to "pad out" a "scant screenplay" from the "core idea" of the loopers. This is, in fact, not correct. It was Johnson's own decision to tell the story this way, and he obviously realized that the looper concept itself wasn't enough to hang a feature film on, so he tied in the larger themes and built the story around those. The looper concept is the catalyst for the real story.
You claimed he should have "stuck to his guns," when in fact he made the exact movie he wanted--he's said as much.
Your assertion that he was forced by others to pad out a short screenplay is simply wrong.
My assertion was that this started as a short film, and the core of that film was not about family and a look violence and raising kids right, as you say, but was about the Looper concept and the idea of meeting and having to kill your future self. That was the core, and the citation I provided proved it. Sorry.. he added the other stuff to it to make a more rounded screenplay.
Even watching the movie you can feel the padding the stretchmarks, and the shift in focus.
Even watching the movie you can feel the padding the stretchmarks, and the shift in focus.
The filmmaker rarely has much control over how his movie is promoted by the studio, including the cut of the trailer.
True.
Clearly the hook of the movie though is not a a sappy drama of violence and family (these are themes that came when the idea was expanded on).. clearly what helped him fill up that blank page was the idea of the Looper and the time travel..
I took issue with your original assertion that the writer/producer was forced by outside interference to pad out his script. This clearly did not happen. You were wrong.
The rest is just you trying to backtrack in order to save face.
No kidding the script began as the looper concept, but you asserted that everything else was added just to pad it out to feature length, as if the writer/director never intended to do so and only did it because of studio interference or whatever your explanation is.
No that was not what I said as an assertion.. the comments of padding being forced by the studio is a comment to be pointedly critical about how the film felt. Critics do this all the time.. sometimes in a critical review, even by professionals like Ebert, the line between fact and how a film felt is blurred because critics will make the comment with equal force. I will apologize insomuch as I can but I will not agree with you at all that I am have, or will backtrack in any way. I was correct about how the idea started I still maintain that much of the rest of the story was padding. It might have had its own sense of heart and emotion, but it derived form a need to turn a short subject to a feature length film.
Critics just make things up out of whole cloth about how a given film was made? I doubt that.
Maybe not, but they will state in an almost factual way how the the film feels, if it ift contradicts some of the actual facts. If a film feels more like a production made by the studio suits, or if a sequel hits all the beats of the original, a critic will state those things as if fact, because that's how it feels when watching it. Usually they are correct, but even if their are not, the film will usually play as if they are.
Right, because nobody could possibly disagree with you about the quality of a movie.
Maybe, maybe not.. I just think that people have to be honest.. honest with themselves!
For the sake of brevity I didn't feel like listing all the plot holes.
But that is a valid one. He's bankrupt, no passport, in another country, and tries to enter an American City that is in lock down.
Plothole!
But that is a valid one. He's bankrupt, no passport, in another country, and tries to enter an American City that is in lock down.
Plothole!
considering how necessary this stupid ugly vehicle was to the resolution of the convoluted plot, they might as well have made him turn to Superman instead of Batman so he could fly. The story would have been the same in every way if they did
Dude, we get it. You didn't like Looper, you didn't like The Dark Knight Rises. Fine. Do you have anything else to add?
The Rainmaker existed before Joe failed to complete his loop the first time. Old Seth was bitching about it when he skipped out on his younger self. Joe had nothing/little to do completely with the Rainmakers rise to the control of the mob in the first few possible futures we glanced upon.
Last edited:
Well yes, but the only thing they'd be able to prove is that illegal time travel took place. In order to convict anyone of the murder they'd need to send an agent back into the past to investigate, collect evidence, find witnesses, and then spend 30 years sitting on it, which is impractical.
While this is true, the Rainmaker isn't the bad guy. His gave crime is closing down the time travel assassination business. In other words, he's forcing the mafia to stop murdering people.
I enjoyed the film a great deal and rated it above-average in the poll. It's easy to get caught up in time travel mechanics and plot holes, but I appreciated the thought-provoking concepts of the movie (nature vs nurture, the importance of proper parenting, self-sacrifice), the acting (Levitt did a good job capturing Willis' vocal mannerisms), and the dramatic scenarios the movie creates.
As an aside, did anyone else think that Kid Blue (the guy who shot off part of his foot) was the younger version of Jeff Daniel's Abe? There was an extreme eagerness to prove himself to Abe on Blue's part and an extreme disdain and judgmentalism for Blue on Abe's part coupled with forgiveness he rarely extended to others and occasional pride in his actions (like when he captured Old Joe). They never showed Abe moving around that much to see if he had a serious limp, but even if he didn't, as he rose up the ranks of the mob he could have gotten a good prosthesis. Notice also that in punishment Abe just broke Kid Blue's hand instead of doing anything permanent like the amputations on the errant looper. It fits the film's overall theme about different types of parenting or the lack thereof. In this case Abe would be serving as a cruel father figure to himself, creating the even more evil but also more thoughtful and less impulsive man he becomes. It's an interesting idea, at least.
As an aside, did anyone else think that Kid Blue (the guy who shot off part of his foot) was the younger version of Jeff Daniel's Abe? There was an extreme eagerness to prove himself to Abe on Blue's part and an extreme disdain and judgmentalism for Blue on Abe's part coupled with forgiveness he rarely extended to others and occasional pride in his actions (like when he captured Old Joe). They never showed Abe moving around that much to see if he had a serious limp, but even if he didn't, as he rose up the ranks of the mob he could have gotten a good prosthesis. Notice also that in punishment Abe just broke Kid Blue's hand instead of doing anything permanent like the amputations on the errant looper. It fits the film's overall theme about different types of parenting or the lack thereof. In this case Abe would be serving as a cruel father figure to himself, creating the even more evil but also more thoughtful and less impulsive man he becomes. It's an interesting idea, at least.
Hmmmm. That's interesting and possible. I thought it was a "prove myself to my father" sort of thing but "proving myself to myself" is far more interesting.
More over he reminded me of Percy from "The Green Mile."
Jeff Daniels was great in the role too, really enjoyed him.
More over he reminded me of Percy from "The Green Mile."
Jeff Daniels was great in the role too, really enjoyed him.