Jump to content

Looper


wasd
 Share

Recommended Posts

Primeiro, esse resumo está mal contado. A bala que fere o Cid não é a mesma que mata a mãe dele. Primeiro ele dispara e acerta de raspão no miúdo, o que faz despoletar o ataque de TK. Depois a mãe acalma-o, ele apercebe-se finalmente que aquela é a mãe dele e aí é que o Bruce a mata. Há dois disparos.

Em segundo, tu continuas a não perceber. Tudo isto só acontece porque o rainmaker é mau no futuro e mata os loopers etc etc. Mas o miúdo só se torna no rainmaker porque o Bruce mata a mãe dele. O problema é que o Bruce só mata a mãe do miúdo por causa do que o rainmaker faz no futuro. Isso cria um buraco enorme na teoria. Sem um não há outro. O Bruce não tem motivo para matar ninguém se não fosse o rainmaker. Mas o rainmaker é criado pelo Bruce 14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continuo na minha, vocês é que estão a complicar isto.



No inicio era assim:

- Young Joe é contratado para ser Looper. Apresentam-lhe as condições e ele aceita.
- Young Joe torna-se Old Joe e aparece um Rainmaker que anda a fechar os loops todos e, ao tentar fechar o loop do Joe, mata-lhe a mulher.
- Para prevenir isso, Old Joe regressa ao passado para matar o Rainmaker, não consegue, conseguindo apenas matar-lhe a mãe, enfurecendo o Cid que, por causa disso se torna no Rainmaker.
- Young Joe torna-se Old Joe, repete-se a história.

Isto é o ciclo normal do Looper, ou seja, neste ciclo os vários Old Joe (não se esqueçam que não é sempre o mesmo mas sim várias versões do Old Joe, várias timelines) nunca percebem que o facto de irem ao passado é que origina o Rainmaker. Ou seja, isto vem acontecendo sempre em loop.

No entanto no ciclo que ocorre no filme, o Young Joe faz algo que outras versões do Young Joe (noutras timelines) não fizeram, ou pelo menos não foram tão bem sucedidas, que é tentar salvar o puto, e explica à mãe que o Old Joe quer matar o puto porque ele no futuro se vai tornar mau etc e tal. É por esta versão do Young Joe dizer à mãe que ele vai ser mau no futuro, e por se matar (salvando-a, ou seja, ela nunca chega a morrer nesta timeline) que ela vai educar o puto de maneira diferente, de modo a ele não ser mau. Isto leva-me a crer que nas outras timelines alternativas o Young Joe nunca chegou a conhecer a Sara.

E aqui fecha-se o ciclo e o Cid nunca se torna no Rainmaker e o Joe deixa de existir. Finito.

A única questão é como é que o Cid se tornou no Rainmaker no primeiro ciclo, antes de ter sido inventado o time travel.


Também já li que o Cid podia ser o Joe visto que no final do filme a Sara vai ao corpo do Joe e afaga-lhe o cabelo como ele tinha contado à stripper que a mãe dele lhe fazia em pequeno. E ele nunca contou isso à Sara...



E ainda, vejam isto.

Beware, MASSIVE SPOILERS for Looper after the jump.



You’ve been warned. Many, many spoilers for the film follow.

Here are ten unexplained mysteries in Looper and Rian Johnson’s explanations to them.

1. The first time Old Joe pops back to the present, he escapes. Later we see him die in the same place. Which happens first and why the deception?

The first time we see Old Joe and he escapes is actually the second time he appears in the straight story. According to Johnson, and evident upon a second viewing of the film, the straight line of narrative is that Joe becomes a looper, closes his loop by killing Old Joe (this is the second time we see the scene in the field), goes to China, meets his wife, then gets sent back without the hood and escapes, setting off the rest of the movie, which is the first and third time we see him.

“The reason I made the break and decided to invert it was the problem, narratively, is our main character is now – for all intents and purposes – Old Joe. Because now we’re following him and I wanted the protagonist to be young Joe,” Johnson said.

2. The film surmises Old Joe killing Sarah eventually made Cid become the Rainmaker. But Old Joe can’t become Old Joe without first being killed and letting Young Joe grow up to meet his wife. In that timeline though, Cid would grow up normal because Sarah wasn’t killed by Joe. How does that all work? How does the Rainmaker exist in a timeline where Old Joe didn’t kill his mom?

Unfortunately, this is the chicken and the egg explanation. There is no answer. One thing is dependent on the other but couldn’t have happened if the other didn’t. I’ll let Johnson take the lead here.

“That’s the Terminator question. If it’s important to you to really justify that beyond ‘It makes sense in a story type way,’ you’ll have to get into multiple time lines existing in neverending loops of logic. You can shoehorn it into making sense,” he said. “For me it’s a trope of time travel movies and there’s a slight amount of magic logic that you have to apply in order for a story like this to make sense.”

He does, however, point to the mention of the Rainmaker having a fake jaw in the future, then being shot in the present, as one particular connection. “That specific thing must have already happened, but he’s still in the timeline where that has yet to happen. Although, in my mind, what happens is cause his memory is shifting to accommodate, that’s one of the things that’s changed in his memory.” I guess we’ll never know for sure but my guess is that this loop has happened lots and times, we’re just seeing the final one.

3. Both times Old Joe comes back to the present, he’s running late on Young Joe’s watch. The time he escapes, it makes sense because of the fight. Why would he be late the time he dies too?

Johnson surmises that he was going to be late both time lines regardless because of the death of his wife. Plus, “though we don’t see it, he fought back against the guys but they overpowered him” the first time. His winning the second time means he’s actually back a few seconds later in the film itself.

4. How does murder work in the future? Why can’t the mobsters kill there and what happens when Joe’s wife is killed?

The film mentions briefly mentions that, in the future, tracking technology stops murders from happening. But we explicitly see Joe’s wife murdered in the future. Johnson said this was one of several things he worked out in his head but didn’t put in the movie because it felt superfluous to the story. He instead explained it to us.

“Everybody in the movie has this nano technology tracking in their body and whenever there’s a death, a location tag is sent to the authorities from this tracking material. So they can’t kill people in the future. But if they send them back, that is not triggered.” He continues, “The material is powered off the body’s heat and it has a two year life after the person dies.” As for the wife, that was a big mistake made by the mobsters and the reason we see the shot of the village burning is that’s their half-assed attempt to cover it up.

5. Knowing a looper killed his mother, is the Rainmaker closing all these loops for revenge?

“Or is he doing it because he’s come to power and he’s wiping everything out? It’s a good question.” says Johnson, suggesting there’s really no answer.

6. Why is it essential for a looper to close his own loop?

This is another one of those questions Johnson had answered in his head but didn’t put in the movie. In fact, he even conceived a scene with Abe addressing it but never shot it.

“People in the future, all they know about time travel is to be afraid of it. So they’re trying to keep it as tight as possible. So the initial reason they set it up this way was to keep the causality loop as tight as possible,” Johnson said. Because, for example, if someone else kills your older self and you have to exist with your own murderer for 30 years, what’s stopping you for murdering them or doing something to screw everything else up? ”Every bit of evidence is gone from that loop when you kill yourself,” he said.

7. Was Joe in love with Sarah and was this something explored more in different versions of the script?

Johnson said he explicitly didn’t want Joe and Sarah to fall in love because Joe’s decision at the end has to be because he sees himself in Cid, not out of love for Sarah. Instead, their love scene is just “two lonely people in an intense situation together.” Johnson did admit, though, “There are hints that if Joe had lived, something might have happened, but in the context of the story? No.”

8. Does Joe’s suicide at the end work? Does it end the circle of violence?

Yes, if you want to think of it that way. Johnson describes Looper‘s story as a very narrow, focused, one-minded view of time travel, but really there are multiple time lines that one could follow if they so choose. As an example, he used the idea of Seth’s limbs being chopped off. “On one level you can say, each time that happens, you’re dropping down to another time line,” Johnson said. “But the character’s experience is just that it’s this way one moment, suddenly that happens and it’s this way.” Meaning, for the sake of the movie Joe’s suicide worked but he’s just one person. You can’t change everything.

9. Old Joe lectures Young Joe for his selfish ways, but isn’t Old Joe equally as selfish in his actions?

Absolutely. When we first meet Old Joe he thinks he’s moved past the life he lead as a kid, but in the diner when Young Joe gives him the option of looking at the watch to save the wife and he doesn’t take it, he’s repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Johnson said Old Joe’s object “is not to save her, it’s to hold onto her just like Joe’s trying to hold onto his silver at the beginning” Then, when he starts killing kids, ultimately it’s Young Joe who sees that his older self can’t learn and is forced to break the loop.

10. Was it Johnson’s decision to sell the movie as an action movie and totally remove Cid and the family angle from the marketing?

“That was Sony, man,” Johnson explained. “We were really lucky that we didn’t have to fight for any of that because none of the kid stuff is very marketable.” He even said Bruce Willis called the fact that the trailers were going to ignore the family aspect of the film, which was great because “people are actually going to be surprised by a big element of the movie.” A sci-fi film about the important of parenting, who would have thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempo de também me juntar à festa.

Vocês estão a esquecer algo ainda mais básico.

O Joe começa por matar a sua versão velha e vive uma série de anos até no futuro ser detido e mandado para o passado, onde sabendo o que a versão nova dele fará, consegue sobreviver.

Ou seja, se começa por matar o old joe, automaticamente o old joe não vive para criar o rainmaker.

Acabou o filme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, a questão aqui não é ter sido inventado o time travel ou não. Porque na altura em que o filme decorre, nunca foi inventado e não. A questão aqui é o motivo que leva o old Joe a voltar ao passado.. e esse motivo foi criado por ele. Só que no decorrer normal da história, não faz sentido o old Joe voltar ao passado pela primeira vez porque simplesmente não existe rainmaker. O círculo faz sentido depois dele existir. Não faz sentido é ter início.

Tempo de também me juntar à festa.

Vocês estão a esquecer algo ainda mais básico.

O Joe começa por matar a sua versão velha e vive uma série de anos até no futuro ser detido e mandado para o passado, onde sabendo o que a versão nova dele fará, consegue sobreviver.

Ou seja, se começa por matar o old joe, automaticamente o old joe não vive para criar o rainmaker.

Acabou o filme.

Mas onde é que o Joe mata o old Joe? Não há nenhuma parte onde o Joe mata o old Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mas onde é que o Joe mata o old Joe? Não há nenhuma parte onde o Joe mata o old Joe.

Não sei onde, perguntei que me explicassem, não isso, mas a ordem em que essas cenas aconteceram... Deves ter ido à casinha nessa altura...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dast, lê mas é o spoiler grande e tens a tua resposta. A acção do filme decorre no ciclo final.

E Queijo, estás mais a leste que eles.



Camurso, ele, inclusivé, não leu o spoiler grande que acabei de ler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mas onde é que o Joe mata o old Joe? Não há nenhuma parte onde o Joe mata o old Joe.

Não sei onde, perguntei que me explicassem, não isso, mas a ordem em que essas cenas aconteceram... Deves ter ido à casinha nessa altura...

Mas que cenas é que queres que te expliquem? Não há hole nenhum nessa parte.

Dast, lê mas é o spoiler grande e tens a tua resposta. A acção do filme decorre no ciclo final.

E Queijo, estás mais a leste que eles.

Camurso, ele, inclusivé, não leu o spoiler grande que acabei de ler.

Dude, eu li o spoiler grande e isso faz todo o sentido. Mas só tens que perceber uma coisa básica.. se não fosse o old Joe a matar a mãe do miúdo, o rainmaker não existia. Se o rainmaker não existia, o old Joe não matava a mãe do miúdo. Ou seja, nem primeiro nem segundo nem terceiro nem último ciclo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mas onde é que o Joe mata o old Joe? Não há nenhuma parte onde o Joe mata o old Joe.

Não sei onde, perguntei que me explicassem, não isso, mas a ordem em que essas cenas aconteceram... Deves ter ido à casinha nessa altura...

Mas que cenas é que queres que te expliquem? Não há hole nenhum nessa parte.

Dast, lê mas é o spoiler grande e tens a tua resposta. A acção do filme decorre no ciclo final.

E Queijo, estás mais a leste que eles.

Camurso, ele, inclusivé, não leu o spoiler grande que acabei de ler.

Dude, eu li o spoiler grande e isso faz todo o sentido. Mas só tens que perceber uma coisa básica.. se não fosse o old Joe a matar a mãe do miúdo, o rainmaker não existia. Se o rainmaker não existia, o old Joe não matava a mãe do miúdo. Ou seja, nem primeiro nem segundo nem terceiro nem último ciclo.

A ordem em que aconteceram...

Já não me lembro, mas penso que ele mata o gajo e depois a cena repete-se com ele a não o matar, ou vice-versa...

Time travel: Serious shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dast, a questão é que tu não sabes se foi só isso que deu origem ao Rainmaker!!! Estás é a assumir que a única maneira dele se tornar mau no futuro é se o Old Joe mata a mãe dele. Isso é linear demais. É como aquela velha história duma mãe que cria dois filhos exactamente da mesma maneira e um torna-se uma pessoa exemplar e o outro torna-se um psicopata.

Aliás, tu, e eu e toda a gente assume que a história acabou ali e que não há mais Rainmaker. Mas isso nunca saberemos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dast, a questão é que tu não sabes se foi só isso que deu origem ao Rainmaker!!! Estás é a assumir que a única maneira dele se tornar mau no futuro é se o Old Joe mata a mãe dele. Isso é linear demais. É como aquela velha história duma mãe que cria dois filhos exactamente da mesma maneira e um torna-se uma pessoa exemplar e o outro torna-se um psicopata.

Aliás, tu, e eu e toda a gente assume que a história acabou ali e que não há mais Rainmaker. Mas isso nunca saberemos.

Isso é bem verdade também.

Aliás pegando nisso até pode ser é que com aquelas ações todas e o facto de ele ter nesse ciclo tido uma contribuição diferente que seja mesmo o ciclo onde não vá existir nenhum rainmaker...

Boa jogada Archie ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dast:

Então não mata o old joe?

No momento em que ele vai para o matar a história sofre um salto, mostra a vida do joe desde o dia em que fechou o ciclo e vai para a china passar o tempo até ao dia de ser detido. Mostra-o a gastar o dinheiro que acumulou e tudo.

Aquilo continua até voltar a mostrar o old joe na posição de ser morto e aí ele vira as costas para travar o tiro com as barras de ouro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claro! E porque é que o Cid não pode na mesma tornar-se Rainmaker e querer matar todos os Loopers porque o Young Joe teve que morrer para o salvar? E porque é que o Cid original, o primeiro de todos, antes de alguma vez ter sido inventado o time travel, não pode tornar-se mau só porque sim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foi pena porque até foi um filme agradável de seguir mas deixa poucas saudades

Tal como disse, se páras para pensar um pouco no filme...já foste pois encontras diversas falhas.

@já não sei quem:

sim, o Old Joe morre a primeira vez para permitir ao espetador ver o young Joe envelhecer em 30 anos, aquele flashforward que termina com ele em Shanghai, e tornar-se no old joe (Bruce Willis).

Bruce Willis é o young Joe do início que fechou o loop da primeira vez mas quando chegou "a vez dele" não permitiu que acontecesse. E um break destes tem os seus custos na coerência da história.

Edited by Kinas_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Estava a editar isso mesmo. wink4.gif

Time Out Of Mind − The Often Shaky Logic of the 10 Best Time-Travel Movies (Including Looper)

looper2.jpg?w=625

If time travel is ever to be invented, wouldn’t we already have had evidence of it? The question is enough to give grammarians seizures, let alone filmmakers. As Jeff Daniels’s world-weary time-traveling crime lord says in Rian Johnson's Looper, “this time travel shit fries your brain like an egg.” And the film, out this Friday, is far from the most brain-frying cinematic treatment of time travel.

To help make sense of a genre riddled with paradoxes, I contacted Tim Maudlin, philosophy professor at NYU, who has written extensively on time travel, and quickly rattled off my preconceptions on the matter.* According to Maudlin, there are two types of time-travel narratives in fiction. The most common, which he calls “inconsistent time-travel stories,” are about a traveler who goes back in time and changes the course of events, à la Marty McFly. To Maudlin, movies of this type—Looper included—“literally make no sense.” If the character goes back in time, then there would never have been a past without him.

In “consistent” time-travel stories, however, the time traveler was always a part of the events he affected (e.g. Twelve Monkeys, or Robert Heinlein’s classic mindfuck of a short story, —All You Zombies—, in which the main character is both his own mother and father). These are Moebius strip narratives. There is no first time around or second time around. There is just one past that contains the traveler. Stories of this type, Maudlin says, “are more like clever crossword puzzles, where all the various threads fit together in a satisfactory way. They appeal to the logician rather than the sentimentalist.”

With that distinction in mind, we can determine just how logical Looper and the other nine best time-travel movies are. (Another paradox: the more logical the treatment of time travel, the more it makes your brain hurt.)

Looper (2012)

Plot: Joe, a young gun-for-hire, must kill his future self or be killed, but Bruce Willis, naturally, has another outcome in mind.

Consistent? No. We see a whole timeline in which Young Joe kills Old Joe, then lives out the rest of his life before coming up with a plan to stop Young Joe from killing the now Old Joe. If he succeeds, he would never have been able to live the life he lived theretofore. And the ending raises an even bigger paradox.

Back to the Future (1985)

Plot: Marty McFly, a kid with a mad-scientist friend and a loser dad, travels from 1985 to 1955 in a souped-up DeLorean, fools around with his hot teenage mom, inspires his dad to grow a pair and knock Biff the bully out, then returns to 1985.

Consistent? No. If Marty goes back in time, then there would never have been a version of the past without him. The other thing is, for Marty to still be born after his disruption of his parents’ courtship, his mom and pop need to time the moment of fertilization to the microsecond. But that’s more a question of probability (and staying power) than logic.

Back to the Future II (1989)

Plot: Marty travels to the future, buys a sports almanac, which falls in the hands of elder Biff, who travels to 1955, and gives it to his younger self, thus helping Biff become a sports-gambling gazillionaire, and transforming Hill Valley into a seedy dystopia. Marty goes back to 1955 to destroy the almanac, without interfering with his previous time-traveling exploits from the first movie.

Consistent? No. In the words of Doc Brown, writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale weren’t “thinking fourth dimensionally.” Narratively, it’s fantastic. Logically, it’s all over the place, where multiple timelines coexist and alternate.

Back to the Future III (1990)

Plot: After reading that Doc, who traveled to 1885, died in a duel against Biff’s gunslinging ancestor, Marty finds the DeLorean Doc had hidden away and goes back to save him.

Consistent: Of course not. As with the first two, the multiple timelines are irreconcilable paradoxes. Plus, as several obsessive geek sites have pointed out, when Marty finds the DeLorean and goes back to 1885 with it, there should by all logic be two DeLoreans in 1885.

The Terminator (1984)

terminator-1.jpeg?w=300&h=300

Plot: In a last-ditch effort to win the future war against mankind, Skynet’s intelligent machines send the Terminator back to 1984 to kill Sarah Connor and prevent her from giving birth to John Connor, who would grow up to lead the successful human-led Resistance. But the Resistance sends Kyle Reese back to protect Sarah. Overstepping his duties, he impregnates her, and she gives birth to… John Connor!

Consistent? Yes. It’s circular, chicken-or-egg logic, but it holds together.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Plot: Through unexplained magic, a disenchanted screenwriter on holiday in Paris makes nightly trips to the 1920s, where he hangs out with Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, Stein, et al.

Consistent: Yes—38 years after Sleeper, Woody Allen proves once again that he’s an unlikely master of time travel logic. Since the screenwriter is merely a wide-eyed observer of the Lost Generation’s moveable feast, his interference with history is minimal. One nice touch: he reads about a beautiful flapper’s love for him in her time-yellowed diaries, which he finds at a rare-book stand by the Seine. Thus, his own past includes him.

Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989)

Plot: In a distant future that worships the music and wisdom of Bill and Ted, a man is sent back to 1989 in a phone-booth time machine to make sure that Bill and Ted pass their history class. (Otherwise, Bill’s dad will send him to a military academy, putting an end to Bill and Ted’s musical dreams). The pair then use the time machine to gather great historical figures from Socrates to Abe Lincoln for a most excellent high school history presentation.

Consistent? Actually… Yes. Future people worship Bill and Ted because they passed their history class and perfected their music, which they could only do because future people intervened. Trippy, but no multiple timelines required. “As I recall,” says Maudlin, “Bill and Ted is consistent, or at least plays with the problems of consistency.”

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Plot: Sent from a post-apocalyptic future to prevent the outbreak of a devastating virus, James Cole finds himself plagued by troubling dreams of a chase and a shooting at an airport. When he finally tracks down the man intent on releasing the virus, Cole is shot at an airport. A young James Cole sees this happen without realizing he’s witnessing his own death.

Consistent? Yes. The story, like La Jetée, the 1962 short film it’s based on, is an endless loop. There is only ever one timeline.

Primer (2004)

Plot: Two scientists accidentally create a time machine in their garage, then use it to go back in time and make a killing on the stock market, in a plan not too different from Biff’s in Back to the Future II. Problem is, they do it over and over again, leaving behind countless doubles of themselves and leaving audiences with throbbing migraines.

Consistent? I really have no idea. And this insane chart doesn’t help.

Planet of the Apes (1968)

planet-of-the-apes1.jpeg?w=275&h=184

Plot: Three astronauts travel 2006 light years into space (during which time their bodies only age 18 months), and land on a planet ruled by intelligent apes, only to realize that that planet is Earth.

Consistent? Yes. I can’t vouch for the science, but there’s no pesky overlapping timelines here, since the crew was traveling into the future. Same with H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine.

* For instance, my belief that time travel will never be invented because if it will be, we would already have seen evidence of it. Maudlin's refutation: “There is one obvious possibility,” he says “One could imagine a sort of time travel that not only needs a 'sending' machine in the future … but also a 'receiving' machine in the past — just as one needs both a transmitter and a receiver to send a radio message. If so, then there can't be any time travel until technology has advanced enough to build the first receiver.” Well, yeah, it’s obvious if you put it like that. Sheesh.

Edited by Kinas_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epá, pronto. Chegámos à conclusão que aquilo pode-se pegar por todos os lados e mais algum. O que interessa é que gostei do filme 14.gif

PS: Camurso, tens razão. Não fez faísca quando falaste disso.

Edited by dastinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.