Turn it around and it’s the same, as disliking a flawed movie and calling a movie broken because it has flaws is different. Hell, that applies to one of Rian’s later films.
@@AA-ed6ek I love the ignorant people think it's impossible to make a good movie after making a kindof weak one. The las jedi was a hell of a lot better than this rehashed trashcan called the rise of skywalker
Phreaker1997 It's an assumption. If they manage to not screw it up then great, but I don't set myself up for disappointment. I'll check out primer, though.
Have you checked it out yet? What did you think of it? It's a great movie in my opinion, although it's best to check out what's actually happening outside of the movie. I think the wikipedia page has a flow chart.
i was saying that Primer didn´t screwed up because it was the most realistic depiction of time travel ergo the movie doesnt have any plot holes but i never said it was a great movie, for me the movie is ok
7:42 - 8:45 The narration is so inadvertently in sync with the background music that this bit sounds like a rap song with a likeness to Eminem's 'Slim Shady'
There's an episode of Invader ZIM where Zim sends rubber piggies into the past that cause his enemy Dib to suffer horrible accidents as a small child. Meanwhile, Dib in the present keeps having horrific injuries suddenly appear on him, but as soon as they do, the memory of having gotten those injuries as a child also pop into his brain. To think that a kid's cartoon could be mindful of this and come up with a better solution to the problem than a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie. That speaks volumes about the state of Hollywood movies today.
Invader Zim was one of the darkest shows ever featured on Nick. The creators were constantly fighting censors and the scenario above is one of many disturbing ones. It's a great show and holds up pretty well today.
But that's the exact logic applied to the first part of this movie (when the guy gets his feet cut off, he no longer has his feet in the future and remembers that that happened to him)
but its the shows continuity, not the characters. The show plays out like the movie but if Dib lost a leg, he'd always have been in a wheel chair, and not know anything different. The joke is we know why but the character doesn't know why it doesn't seem correct.
Even worse, Bruce Willis killed his older self in his past so the mom was never killed by him so there should have never been any crime boss to begin with.
Samuel Zuccati Joseph Gordon Lovett spent time with the kid and the mom. Bruce Willis doesn’t have the complete memories of what Joseph is doing, because time travel causes your memories to be all hazy.
Final note - at the end when both future and past self are dead, there would no longer be a reason for that lady to be standing there in the field. None of this would have happened to her because the future self would never have come back to trigger the events of the movie - so she'd just be at home with her kid.
WalterLiddy Question about Seth, the guy who gets all his limbs cut off, cause it confuses me. Was it the first time the younger Seth found out his target was his older self? or does his younger self always find out it's his older self? This whole thing is confusing, if they kill the younger Seth, he wouldn't have been around to be sent to the past to be killed by his past self, if they cut his limbs off his older self wouldn't have been able to do the thing that caused his own execution. The only way to not cause any problems for the timelines or cause any paradoxes is to just capture the older self, kill him and leave the past self alone.
"Why don't you just send them back to the 1960s? No one's gonna believe them that they're sent back in time. There would be no reason to kill them at all, they could just grow old." That's what the weeping angels do, which is one of many reasons that Doctor Who's BLINK is the all-time best time travel media in my opinion
Also the whole "Why don't they just teleport" spiel...they do it that way so they can PAY the people in the past, with loads of gold and silver and shit that are sent back with the people. That bit is actually explained.
Voodoo But why would they NEED to pay the loopers in the past? The reason they hire the loopers in the first place is to have them perform executions, but if they can just kill their targets by teleporting them into the vacuum of space, then they have no need for loopers at all.
Voodoo But you assume they have to have some if they can transport them to different locations. I mean, the main ccharacterkills people near a field and that other looper killed his guys near a field so why not just attach a weight to their leg and teleport them into the ocean
Pi Napple Guy more like logic and quick thinking sincere there are no hints in either the video or the movie about the actual physics of time travel... but whatever anyway
The basic problem is that there are two major time travel ideas this film uses, the many worlds interpretation, wherein every chooice anyone makes splits the universe into different versions and the number of versions created is determined by the number of options. In this case, you can't change anything, except your destination, so if you kill your younger self, you'll just be going to a world where you don't exist, but you as 'you' will still be there. In the other one, however, which I just call the 'time is a river idea' you can change anything you want, but it'll subsequently suffer the paradoxical problem that since there's nothing to change, you wouldn't have gone back, as you point it out. The movie's biggest problem is, that it keeps switching inbetween the two without any logic behind it. You have old Joe, who came from a version of the universe, where he lived to be an old man and you have Joe from this version, who hasn't done that yet. That alone works with the many worlds
interpretation, but as soon as you bring in the idea that old Joe killing the Rainmaker somehow makes his wife come back or Joe shooting himself will make old Joe disappear conforms to the other idea. And these two ideas of time are not compatible with one another because they essentially present the opposite thing, in one, you can't change anything, in the other, you can change everything, but you'll just lead to a time paradox anyway. This is why the movie is inconsistent and paradoxical. They used two ideas at once without considering that they can't work together like this.
the TV show SLIDERS springs to mind, and telepathy.... a modification of H.G Wells's novella. Traveling sideways in your "past".... but not precisely where you want to go or be.
Honestly I liked how the Legacy of Kain did it, the person who has gone into the past is unaffected and things changed around them, allowing for stuff to happen differently even to your past but that version of you isn't effect. However it's dangerous to change things to much as it can essentially break time, the description they give being again the river. If you drop in a pebble the river will easily flow around it and correct for the change, but anything to major is like damming the river and forcing it to take a completely new course, and so being incredibly dangerous to do.
The thing is, as soon as I accepted that it was a time travel movie, I accepted that there would be plot holes, and that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie at all
@@MapleLeafAce his complaints aren't "time travel doesn't work that way", it's "the movie established that time travel doesn't work that way". It has nothing to do with knowing anything about real time travel, it's the movie not following its own logic. And I wouldn't consider it a "nitpick" when it completely breaks the story. Like, if they had followed logic at all the entire story couldn't happen, it's not an issue that doesn't affect the story. It's a decent film still but the plot is not just full of nitpicks, it's completely broken
@@MapleLeafAce It's not though, is it. Please, be specific if you actually have a point to make. Tell me HOW it's bullshit or you're just doing the digital equivalent of a mouth fart Are you saying that he did make complaints about how "real" time travel works? Because that isn't true. Are you telling me the plot makes sense as written? If so you are claiming hat a man with no limbs managed to run away from people Or you could grow up and realise that pointing out flaws in a film isn't a personal insult you need to defend. Especially when you don't actually have a defence
@MapleLeafAce When a movie changes the rules of time travel repeatedly in order to accommodate the plot, it’s not nitpicking the rules, it’s pointing out that the movie doesn’t HAVE any rules. There’s no coherent way of interpreting Looper, it just flat-out doesn’t make sense.
I agree with most of the things in this video, but I did want to comment on one thing I don't agree with. He said he didn't understand why money in the future has been demoted to these giant bricks. The reason they have the big bricks of gold is because they're sending that money back with the person who needs to be killed by strapping it onto his body, to pay the past version for finishing the job.. If they sent future money back to the past, the guy wouldn't be able to use it, because the past people wouldn't accept future money.. but by sending gold ingots back, past person can trade the gold in for current money at any precious metal trade.
+The Carlz0r Problem with that though is that by sending Gold or silver back in time your devaluing it's worth. And considering how frequent this happens the value of those metals would have dropped quiet significantly.
+shadowmaydawn Dude, even if a few million dollars worth of gold is sent back that wont cause nearly enough of a dent to deflate its value. And by your logic sending back any currency would do the exact same thing.
Mister Bones Its based off a Book or short story or inspired cant remember by Philip K Dick I think. Most cyber punk aspects that we see today pretty much came from him as well as Wiliam Gibson. Also LSD can be taken through the eyes.
+Nøxturn Any time travel movie can be ruined by applying logic to it since time travel is impossible - so if you can't handle that then you probably shouldn't watch any movie about time travel ever again.
+Gorse Aurn That operates on the assumption that there are other timelines, which hasn't been proven, but it's definitely a good way around 'changing things' in fiction.
***** So what if we could travel back in time, would we lose all the memories and will our body revert back to the state and postion of the time we traveled to or would there just be a future us and a the one in that particular time period? Sorry if what I said is confusing
There is one HUGE mistake you missed to mention. In Bruce Willis timeline, he SUCCESFULLY kills his older self, moves to Shangai, gets married and grows old. Now, since he SUCCESFULLY killed his older self, Sara NEVER DIED, thus Cid NEVER became the Rainmaker, meaning the Rainmaker's Mafia closing loops and killing Bruce Willis' wife makes no sense at all. Most.Flawed.Movie.Ever. I rest my case.
A smart way they could have avoided this mistake while imparting some sense to their story as a whole, was to show young Bruce Willis failing to kill his older self and not giving chase, instead fleeing to Shanghai. This way the Rainmaker does exist in Bruce Willis timeline killing his wife and guaranting that he travels to Joseph Gordon's past.
Rocketboy1313 Yup, thought about that option, but that only means that Jason Gordon Levitt killed himself for nothing because Cid becomes the Rainmaker regardless of whether his mom lives or dies. That would be a dark and hilarious plot twist, which is too much of a good plot to even consider that that was what the writers were aiming for when you contrast, well, the rest of the movie xD
Nick | Hazvrd It is very possible to have a story about time travel make sense if you establish the existence of multiple timelines. For example, Chrono Trigger/Cross (they are videogames I know but one of the best examples I can think of), established a cause/consequence effect on the main timeline, with the deleted triggers and possibilities stemming off into paralel timelines. All they had to do for this movie to make 90% more sense is say "multiple timelines".
Another dumb thing about time travel is that it's just that - time travel; not space travel as well. So, you go back in time one week, you're gonna miss Earth by about 18 million km.
I get your point but it's as arbitrary saying people would miss earth as it is arguing that they would not. There is no absolute position in space, earth can be considered moving around the sun but it might as well be considered stationary while the sun is moving around it. Staying on earth in the first place would actually make most sense since your relative position would stay the same.
LivingChords Yes my initial estimate was taken arbitrarily based on Earth's rotation around the Sun. However why are you implying that just because someone could go through time they would also be able to do the same with space. Your universal coordinates technically would remain the same, whereas everything else should change according to the passage of time. Technically you are stationary in a moving car, but if you remove yourself even for a bit from the system while it's in motion, you'd be left behind. I guess it greatly depends on what _scifi_ method of time travel we're talking about. I think in theory you should be able to keep track of your coordinates only as long as you're using space itself as a means of traveling through time, ie. accelerating to the speed of light. But if it's something that doesn't involve space, I fail to see how you could still keep your past/future coordinates as you'd be going through time.
Mihai-Ciprian Ghilinta Well let's take your example with the moving car because I have to disagree with you on that one. (Clarification: When I talk about "removing" and "reappearing" yourself, I assume that your relative position stays the same.) It's true that if you removed yourself from the system and reappeared you would have been left behind the car. That said, this is only true if your frame of reference happens to be a system in which the earth is considered stationary. If our frame of reference is a system in which the car is stationary, as you suggested, i.e. a system in which the car is always the origin of it's respective coordinate system, you would not be left behind, since your relative position to the car would otherwise change. My point being that it would make most sense to assume that the time machine would set the frame of reference. So if you were inside it before and it sent you back you would still be inside it and if you were 10 meters away from it you would probably spawn 10 meter away from it. This is basically what we did in first semester physics lecture. I could talk about this all day.
Ok, I had never thought of the earth's rotation around the sun as factor. That blew my mind. Not saying it's necessarily a flaw of time travel movies (finding the right spot on earth could be programmed in the machine or something), but I like that idea a lot.
I'm gonna take a shot at explaining the mess with the past suddenly changes the future scenario. Like the cut off young guys arm, old guys arm suddenly turns into a stub thing . This is just my take on it so who knows how true it is or if it even makes sense. So here we go. When they travel back in time and change things so drastically that it would change the future it creates an alternate time line where the effects of this change occur. However eventually the two time lines converge and the original time line adapts to the changes made in the alternate time line. This would kinda explain the delay between past changes and present day. Because in old man's time line, his arm never got cut off so he grew old with it until the time lines converges and update to the changes made in the past. Therefore guys walking until he suddenly looses his arm as the alternate time line catches up with him and adapts to his arm getting cut off in the past. So basically changing the past creates a paradox that the time lines try to correct. Therefore the original and the alternate time line converge since there should only be one (time is linear, at least in this theory) so old man would probably have memories of growing old with his arm(ah the memories) then also without once the correction occurs.
+Awesomeman204 or the 1800s to like some uncolonized era (by euro influences. ) send them to an island of headhunters. or hell the Antarctic or the fucking middle of the ocean
The movie explicitly states they can only send them to a certain space and time. Like the mediocre telekinesis and hoverbikes that don't quite work right.
@darthkek1953 primer essentially uses many worlds interpretation of time travel with some weird quirks (that make it look like it's time-loop rules in the beggining (and even in the middle which always bugged me since the whole idea of paradoxes hurting time-travelers and not time itself only makes sense in time-loop story and that's why I couldn't figure it out on my own and only learned it from the director himself - but since this is just one of the rules that it has the right to set for itself, it's not actually an issue, just a very confusing red herring)) and it is extremely easy to write an infallible time travel movie when you use many worlds interpretation. nothing ever matters in "the grand scheme of things", because there is no grand scheme of things, there are just a bunch of worlds essentially between which you travel, no different than how you would travel through space
THANK YOU! The inconsistency had been bugging me since I saw the movie. One more thing, in the timeline of the future, He actually closes the loop. So how does the kid originally grow up to be the rainmaker?
That question bothers me SO much, it makes absolutely no sense. Might be one of the biggest plot holes, and this movie has an obscene number of plot holes
This is one of those times where I'm left wondering if I watched the same movie as everyone else in the world. Bruce Willis drives the truck from the base full of all the information on all the loopers ever right up to Sara so she and her kid can use the info to become "The Rainmaker" and close all the loops... or from their perspective stop all this crazy time traveling shit from happening anymore. Everyone seems to think Joe explained all this stuff sufficiently for them to be on the same page about everything, but I don't see it. There's a lot of yelling and a lot of miscommunication, I'm not sure how she's supposed to know that him killing himself means _not_ to get all these other dangerous murderers of the streets of time. But then, also if that's what they were going for, it's way too smart. No other part of the movie has any thought put into it, so I almost have to be misinterpreting this, or it's just a massive fluke?
I did too, it just had fun with the idea, instead of going through so many hoops to explain itself like primer. Now if there was bad time travel movie it was primer.
Seriously. Loving a movie means you like it despite its flaws! I love the Harry Potter series, and all my friends and I ever do is complain about it! But we still love it!
"The two times are the same time", okay well, it could be a second "timeline". So each loop is a new time. But then cutting off fingers wouldn't do anything
Also, how the hell does the Rainmaker version of Cid exist in the timeline where Old Joe doesn’t kill Cid’s mom? Old Joe killing Cid’s mom is what turns him into Rainmaker, so how is there a Rainmaker in the timeline where Old Joe doesn’t escape? It makes NO SENSE
Also, Rick and Morty isn't a bitterly serious hollywood blockbuster, so they can get away with literally anything as long as it's funny. I mean that show is full of stupid unscientific garbage but half the time, that is the joke. So yeah. A movie that tries to be serious should try to be accurate.
The whole "I can remember what you do after you do it" thing doesn't make sense, sure, but at least it's consistent and sets up a rule that resolves all would-be paradoxes. Works for me, as long as it is self consistent.
I think Looper is a great example of how a movie does not need to make sense on a literal level to still really work. The time travel rules don't add up but there isn't a single moment where I'm confused about motivation or consequences of any actions. Story-telling rules don't play by reality rules, nor by internal logic rules.
2 other problems toward the end. 1. If Bruce Willis killing Crime Boss (CB)'s mom is what triggers him becoming crime boss, that's impossible. The Bruce Willis 1, that would've killed CB's mom in Bruce Willis 2's timeline was killed by Bruce Willis 2, he couldn't possibly have killed CB's mom, meaning no crime boss and no reason to kill Bruce Willis 2. Thus Bruce Willis 2 never lost his wife, went back in time, and interacted with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. If the reason the kid became a CB was because his mom died as a result of a vengeful Bruce Willis, then the timeline of Bruce Willis that involved killing the 'future' Bruce Willis removes the possibility of CB appearing. EDIT: It's impossible to put this eloquently on the first try, so here's another try: In the timeline where Joseph Gordon-Levitt DID kill Bruce Willis, then who killed CB's mom and made CB a thing? If nobody, then how did that Joseph Gordon-Levitt grow up to be Bruce Willis in a timeline where CB existed? If he killed the only character (Bruce Willis) with the idea to actually go after and ironically create CB, then from that point on, CB would stop being a possibility and there would be no recourse for looping 30 years from then. And 2, if Joseph Gordon-Levitt became aware of the reason why CB became CB, wouldn't Bruce Willis have IMMEDIATELY come to the same conclusion by remembering what Joseph realized? He'd just think, "Oh wait, my past self is right, if I do this I'm fucked, so I just won't. Thanks, past me, for coming to the conclusion my present self can only come to as a result of some fucked up time loop."
+Nepycros Exactly what I was thinking! We literally just watched Timeline 1 Young Joe kill Timeline 1 Old Joe. Timeline 1 Young Joe becomes Timeline 2 Old Joe Timeline 2 Old Joe (Who is Timeline 1 Young Joe) manages to stop Timeline 2 Young Joe from killing him like he killed Timeline 1 Old Joe. Then at the End we find out that all the events of all this stuff only exists because Timeline 2 Old Joe killed mob boss's Mom. But the only reason Timeline 2 Old Joe even gets the chance to kill the Mob bosses mom is because he wasn't killed by Timeline 2 Young Joe. But Timeline 1 Old Joe was killed by Timeline 1 Young Joe, which means Timeline 1 Old Joe never had a chance to kill Mob Bosses mom. This can't work in the established time travel rules of this universe. The only way it does work is if the time travel isn't just a time travel into the past but instead is going back in time into a completely alternate dimension that breaks at the point of travel. In other words, there are two completely different universes (infinite different universes, but we're dealing with the main story here)... One in which the original origins of the crime boss is unknown (hence why Timeline 1 Young Joe kills Timeline 1 Old Joe) and another in which a psychic Joseph Gordon-Levitt sees and stops the unknown future of the changed origins of the crime boss.... that only even happens as a result of the time travel that happened in the original universe (timeline 1)..... If that makes any sense. It works kinda like how The Planet of the Apes movie timeline does. Where the original Caesar was made intelligent through being tested on by scientists and went on to fight a war against the humans, who were suffering a heavy population decline due to a virus that effected the entire planet who then got basically annihilated by a nuclear war that destroyed almost every human civilization in the world which allowed Caesar to come into power and create the "Planet of the Apes" that through time enslaved the humans and basically reverted them back into cavemen which eventually led to the original movie series where in the third movie we find out that three apes from the original "Planet of the Apes" and it's sequel had escaped from the destruction of the "Planet of the Apes" following the nuclear explosion in the second movie, that literally blew up the planet and somehow sent the parents back in time to 1973 into an alternate timeline where they admit to eventually taking over the world and running experiments on humans which leads to their deaths but before they die they have a baby that they name Milo that goes into hiding with a Zookeeper that renames him Caesar and when the virus that kills the humans in the original timeline instead kills all the cats and dogs in the world, it causes the humans in the movie to keep apes as pets instead (which led to the selective breeding and an overgrowth in ape population) but since Caesar (Milo) was actually the son of two of the smart apes from the original "Planet of the Apes" (from the fuuuuture) he was smart enough to hate the idea of slavery and hated the abuse that he and his fellow apes had suffered and decided to start a revolution that in turn started a war that in turn created the "Planet of the Apes" where over time the humans and apes learned to live together in peace and eventually co-exist with one another. Yeah. Kinda like that. One story that follows one timeline that take place in two timelines in different dimensions, that still actually makes sense as a cohesive story. Try reading it a couple more times... If it doesn't make sense read it again and then maybe it'll make more sense to you. If not, then I've done fucked up and have no idea what I'm talking about. Oops. But if you got it... kinda like that..... This is really pointless because I wrote all of that just to say how it COULD work if it didn't break the rules already established in the movie (that they kinda already broke anyway...?) but I spent over an hour writing and thinking about that... so I'm gonna post it anyway so it doesn't feel like I just wasted a piece of my life. Peace.
Helldog6 I've come up with a solution to both of my problems. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was dead wrong about how Crime Boss came to be. He came to a conclusion and killed himself for no reason. Bruce Willis, who would've felt Joseph come to this epiphany, brushed it off because he was capable of thinking logically, and that's why he didn't stop. Crime Boss shows up for a completely different reason from his mommy dying.
Haha I was just typing a question to try and prove that the scaring would work but as soon as I finished typing the massive SA, I realized how the time line is flawed and I went back to see what you were saying at 7:20 where you say "if you notice this and understand that it's flawed and don't let it bother you that's perfectly fine by me but enjoying a flawed movie and calling a movie flawless are two completely different things." I totally agree with you, your understanding of timelines made me understand timelines better! Thank you, you are a legend!
Here's my thing: So at the end of the movie, JGL realizes that killing Emily Blunt is what causes that kid to go evil and shit, and that the only way to stop it is to killing himself, thus stopping Bruce Willis. But if Bruce Willis remembers everything that Joseph Gordon Levitt does after he does it, then wouldn't he remember having that realization? And then not kill Emily Blunt? Making JGL's whole sacrifice totally pointless? Am I wrong? I mean, I guess you could say that JGL just didn't think of that, and that it's more of a character flaw than a plothole, but still, that's a pretty stupid ending, the main character sacrificing himself for no reason other than the fact that he's an idiot who doesn't understand the basics of how the timetravel situation he's in works. Fuckin dumb.
why kill himself at all? is the first thing come in mind to me when i first watched this part of the movie. why dont simple shoot his own hand at this point?
He should have shot off his trigger finger, using this movie's logic, Bruce Willis's finger would disappear which would give him enough time to realise what Levit realises.
+MiamiViceClips Bruce Willis doesn't need a trigger finger to kill a kid. And by this movie's logic Future Willis can only remember new things from the past AFTER Past JGL actually does it, not just think it. It might just be a line thrown in there to justify this one plot point but making a movie about travelling backwards in time means that no matter what, there will be logical flaws abound, so what evs.
Hagar TheHonorable but he would also remember his realisation after Levitt realises not to kill the kid, shooting the finger off would just give him more time.
+MiamiViceClips I'm not saying its entirely logical but thats not how the movie sets that up considering the conversation Willis and Levitt have in the diner. Time travel isn't real nor possible so whatever rules this movie chooses to make up should be the only ones taken into account.
I always assumed it made sense if you apply the concept that time isn’t linear but forever reoccurring, which is how some physicists rationalize the possibility of time travel. For instance it would mean that travel back in time would instead transport you back to a period of time which is currently occurring and changes to it would only affect that specific loop.
It sort of gives credence to the whole paradox thing, but also, it really doesn’t. You can’t just isolate one specific loop, because anything that you affect in a loop will inevitably _be affected._ You can’t go back to the past and change something unless that change was always in the timeline to begin with.
Montag Footage Well, you can't see my face, but I surely can see your grammar. My point is this: you remain wrong. *Also, I'm sure the gay community doesn't appreciate you using them as an insult.
There are actually scientific journal articles written about the time travel of Looper. And interestingly enough, many of the critiques featured in this video are largely grouped into a theory that Hawking wrote about called "Chronology Protection" wherein any method of time travel would result in the person traveling back to be unable to physically interact with events in a way that prevents them from happening. So unless radical action is taken (e.g. someone being killed), then the future that allows for time travel is still going to happen. So you can cut off all of someone's limbs, but if they still are alive, then the future is still going to happen (somehow). It's definitely inelegant, but it's not totally bunk. And even if it is, I'm just glad to see a non-sequel, non-shit sci-fi movie receive attention.
+davidwave4 For a number of reasons, I take issue with that. Even if it meant you couldn't alter anything in the past, couldn't you simply resend yourself an infinite number of times? The mere fact that you exist in the past where you hadn't in the previous iteration of the time line means you have altered it. It breaks the law of conservation of matter, energy, and information. You, and all the atoms in you spontaneously appear in the past universe without any known energy exchange, meaning the universe now has a few trillion more atoms than it did before time travel was invented. Then you reach the future where your other self is sent on the time travel journey that put you there, thus placing a third person into the time line. This has to happen otherwise the time line has been altered by your presence in the past. Now there are 3 of you, and another bunch of atoms is thrust into the universe without any sort of energy exchange. Then the cycle repeats again: 4 of you, then 5, then 6, then 7, then 8, then 9, etc, etc. Soon, there are so many of you that the entirety of humanity consists of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of you along with the 7 billion other people that were already there. OR, if there is an energy exchange, that means that the total amount of energy in the universe decreases by a bit each time in exchange for the new matter that is introduced when you are sent back in time. Very soon, or immediately since no time has passed in the present where you send yourself back in time, the total amount of energy present in the universe is converted into matter and the universe dies. OR, suppose a third time that the net amount of matter and energy remain the same and the matter and energy composing you in the present stays there, and instead a bunch of atoms hanging out in an interstellar dust cloud are transported to Earth to create you in the past. Repeat endlessly until all matter and energy in the universe resides on Earth and is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% time traveling yous. Earth becomes singularity and collapses in on itself, thus destroying the universe again.
What you're describing is much more Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and much less looper. We see the chronology constantly being altered, invalidating it falling under that theory. Any tiny alteration would break that chronology.
@@CruelestChris Yeah, I thought so too. In a closed loop (like the one portrayed in Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban) any changes to the past, even the minute ones, have been accounted for in the present. So in Hawking's argument they wouldn't have been able to cut off someone's limbs in the past unless he was already missing them in the present.
I love how Adam fixes the whole issue of closing a loop by basically saying the mob needs to kill people exactly how Weeping Angels in Doctor Who kill people
I think because they don't properly explain the time machine you could easily find an excuse for this i.e. amount of time in the past correlates to energy put into the machine, even in the future they don't have the resources to power it.
@@kylekondit9709 you may have found it simple and linear because you don't see the obvious flaws in it. I thought half the choices these characters make are so retarded while not understanding the other half because of how contrived the time travel logic is. Making a universe where multiple timelines can influence eachother is any competent writer's nightmare. It's literally not possible to comprehend the possibilities that would bring for us. that's why there hasn't been a movie or a book that did that right yet. But you might just be Rian Johnson's target audience, not thinking about it, just enjoying the flow, you'll clap at anything
i never saw this movie and now I never will. i had 2 strokes, an aneurism and a seizure listening to the description of all the parts that don't add up or make sense. good god. time travel really does work best when you don't think about it at all. 21 jigawatts, flux capacitors and a big pile of doody.
Precisely. If the finer details of the story are just constant plotholes and plot convenience pieces because the retarded people who make movies today can't think of logical, coherent ways of moving the plot forward, it just ruins the movie for me. I watched Looper in the theater and was really pissed at how stupid the story was.
It's not explaining time travel in real life, it's explaining it in fiction. In fiction it exists and unless you want bad fiction, like this movie, you have to lay down the rules of the game from the start and stick to them.
If they explained it badly, whiny fuckers like you would still be around saying shit like "wahh worst cop-out explanation evar!!!1". It's about the story, not the logistics. If you can't enjoy such a great film like Looper just because of one problem like that, I would say stop watching movies and watch some fucking documentaries.
Is it just me or does Joseph Gordon-Levitt look weirdly different in this movie? Compare the way he looks in 50/50 to the way he looks in Looper; it's so different. I guess it's just makeup or something, but that leads me to this point: Joseph Gordon-Levitt totally should have played Max Payne instead of Mark Wahlberg.
Since time travel doesn't exist (yet anyway), why can't we accept a movie's iteration of how it plays out in application? There could be technological limitations at play that are the reason time travel functions as it does in a movie.
The review is NOT nitpicky. In fact he only scratched the surface of this movies flaws. The creators of this movie weren't even trying. And btw: The time traveling is not just a setup like in Terminator. It is ALL about time traveling.
Rian Johnson makes a movie that makes doesn’t obey the laws of its own universe and has character motivations that make no sense. Well, I sure am shocked.
Kyle Willis Guys. Any movie with time travel breaks it's own rules. The fact that we shouldn't be able to explore an ENTIRE genre of science fiction is just asinine.
What bugs me most about this movie is the premise itself - if time travel was outlawed, then why is Abe there to set up the whole looper system in the first place? Even for an organized mafia crime ring, the risks involved are simply too great. I mean, who's gonna close Abe's loop? And besides, they're the mafia, there's no need to go to such convoluted lengths just to get away with murder. They're the goddamned mafia. And for that matter, why do they need to recruit people in the past to do their dirty work? Abe has his own hitmen, lots of 'em. Imagine you're a young man and some dude contacts you and says "hey, time travel exists and you're gonna come work for me murdering your future selves for money." WHAT SANE PERSON WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT?! What about the bodies? Shooting people in broad daylight is pretty damn conspicuous, guys. Sooner or later someone will stumble upon it. Not like you can kill a witness, right? People would notice their disappearance and investigate. Shit, we all leave a digital trace everywhere we go _right now_, that's probably multiplied tenfold in 2044. Someone's gonna discover you! Just...ugh, this movie...
Yup, there you are again, Amy. And only a day earlier than I watched this video. I agree with everything you said. While this movie is enjoyable if you turn your brain off, a film buff like me has a hard time overlooking its countless flaws.
Nah. If time traveling was possible, and we somehow managed to achieve it, then we would have plenty of 'time' to study it. But since we haven't achieved it yet, we can only speculate. Given the speculations can be endless, the topic becomes extremely difficult with infinite possibilities.
Yeah. That's right. Now the question is: is it legal to time-travel in the future? Does people make it alive when they time-travel, or do their composition destroys entirely when it gets here?... Your first post might be right. Time travel is way too out of reach as of now to since, like i said before, we can only speculate things.
ross byatt Yeah, unless he came to this time made random unorganized atoms. His composition would have traveled, but there would be little-to-no evidence of his achievement. But, of course, this idea too is just hypothetical.
Fun fact: shane carruth (director of Primer) gave Rian Johnson some pointers on time travel logic for the script, but Johnson said that the ideas Carruth gave were too expensive to film
I agree that the scene where the guy keeps losing his limbs makes absolutely no sense and is inconsistent with other parts of the movie, but I will say that I thought it was a pretty creepy scene when I first saw it. I like the way he only loses his fingers and limbs when the camera cuts to a different angle. This makes it feel like it happens very quickly and without warning, but doesn't give you the comfort of actually watching the process to understand exactly how the limbs disappear or what it looks like. It's like, you could just be walking down the street, and then poof! Your nose is gone! Two seconds later, you have one fewer finger! Etc.
There are ways to have characters change the past without paradoxes: they could set it up so it *seems* like the past is unchanged, or you could established that time travelers are exempt from changes in time but can change the world around them.
Ugh yes, I used to love cinemasins because he pointed out shit like this, but that channel has become a giant shitshow. At least you point out actual flaws instead of making shitty jokes.
+kris stasko I think you missed the point of their comment, kris. What Tim was saying is that it's fine if you have the jokes and the legitimate points, but if you go watch current Cinemasins, it is ALL jokes. The nitpicking was fine because there were actual review points that made you think about film objectively. The nitpicking felt justified. They no longer point out legitimate flaws alongside the joke sins; It's all about sinning random shit and making people upset, with fans going "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS?!!?!?!? WHY IS THAT A SIN UNSUBBED DC IS THE BEST!!!!!!"
I find it really interesting though how they put makeup or something on Joseph Gordon Levitt to make him look more like Bruce Willis, as well as how it looks like Joseph kind of studied Bruce's speech and mannerisms to try and emulate him. I mean I've never seen this movie and it doesn't seem like my kind of thing, but I think that part of it is interesting.
Watching this movie is like when a teacher gives you a math problem that can't be solved, like there is an error in how it was written so there is no solution.
Even classic STAR TREK meeting up with DATA's head from STTNG or the future tense of the MIRROR/MIRROR universe in DISCOVERY.... has its moments. Now that we are almost a half century from the cancellation of the classic STAR TREK animated series that existed in the early 1970s.... and PICARD is STTNG's sequel.... STAR TREK is its own CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER multiverse. I think of LOWER DECKS, too. Singing KLINGONS! LOOPER is like KLINGON OPERA! It sounds grand, has a sweep of time, and you need cliff notes to follow the plot. :)
The guy who gets all his limbs cut off, if he does something that causes his own execution 30 years later then why not just kill his younger self. Are they implying that killing his past self would result in a paradox. If you cut off all of his limbs in the past he wouldn't have been able to do the thing that causes his own execution in the future, so there's another paradox.
Philip Ingrouille The time travel itself is a paradox. Something happening to the younger self is not a paradox, but the movie does incredibly illogical things with the idea of something happening.
one2gaming Come to think of it, the only reason the younger self gets all his limbs cut off is because his future self wasn't killed. So if his older self wasn't able to do the thing that causes his death, his younger self never would have got his limbs cut off. So there are two god damn paradoxes working against this part of the movie. Holy shit :)
Philip Ingrouille Still an awesome movie, even with the dumbest plot devices imaginable for the films context. Rian Johnson did a lot of cool stuff with this silly script.
Rian Johnson has no business writing or directing time travel movies. I loved the concept of Looper but I seriously hated how the time travel made absolutely no sense. The sound track was amazing! Excellent video YMS! :)
On the question of forensics with time travel: you're leaving out the legal system aspect of it. It would be a lot harder to connect a person to a murder where a guy disappeared and then 30 year old remains were found. IRL hitmen were often the chief suspect in many of their hits, but the prosecution was often unable to find enough evidence, witnesses, etc to successfully have them convicted. So instead of thinking of it in terms of them trying to get away with a crime scott-free, think of it in terms of making it easier to beat the charges in court even if the police are still pretty sure they're the ones who did it. From that perspective, the Looper method makes a lot more sense.
i know it's old, but this video is still new to me. and fucking THAAAANK YOOOOOU for explaining How to do time travel correctly. A scenario only becomes unbelievable when it's time travel laws don't make sense, now matter how Interesting a story concept may be I just cannot become invested in it if I can't see any possible way that it could have happened. It turns a story into a fairy tale. The only way to make it work with time travel imo, is having a loop where the Past that the characters grow up with has ALREADY been changed by the time traveling shenanigans they do later, they just may not have realized it at the time. Multi-verse and splitting timeline stories can work too, i suppose, but they always become a headache and still pose more questions than they can answer, and to me it always made more sense that the past as THE past. Even if you change it later on, those changes were already there because they happened in The Past.
i'm doing "likes" on comments and i'm living in a more distant version of the future. i'm looking at this video again! :) its concise and to the point. the movie does not confine itself to simply one universe, it almost implies that several universes and/or multiverses are connected up and each has a future/past where events can be modified. a multiplicity of cloverleafs from HADES and/or classic STRING THEORY.
Hollywood "THE PLAYER" lingo.... ED WITTEN's brainfreezes meets up with DOCTOR WHO's WEEPING ANGELS :) :) :) ----- I wish somebody would do LOOPER 2 just so 90% to 95% of the time paradoxes of LOOPER ONE could be semi-resolved! Then we could have LOOPER 3 happen, so as to resolve most of the new spacetime paradoxes and the remaining few of the old ones from "ONE" that are still in existence! Give BRUCE WILLIS one final role, as a virtual actor.... where he briefly returns for either LOOPER 2 or 3 ....and then have any further sequels explain the MONTAGE let alone what happens to the cast of characters.... over time! IMOHO this was Bruce Willis's last great action flic.... he was in his best form for it, even if the surreal violence was a tad excessive and over the top. Echoes of the old TV show MOONLIGHTING.... yes!!!!
Ok, so there's one thing about time travel that's always bugged me. Every movie ever says "Don't change the past, or it'll change the future!" No it won't. If I go back into the past and say, bury a box of treasure, when I go back to the present, the box will have always been there. Basically, you can't change the future or present because any actions you will take in the past will have already happened, and will have ALWAYS happened.
Godofmoar Ok. What exactly is a timeline huh? Like scientifically. Because if you had your standard run of the mill time machine, then how would it be able to traverse between different timelines. And even if your actions in the past _DO_ create a new timeline, and you enter _THAT_ one, what's stopping you from fucking off back to your own original timeline?
Ghost Samurai Look, your theory in the OP is considered a "closed timeline." What I'm talking about is alternate timelines, where when you change something, you create a new reality where that thing was changed. The first timeline is still there, but you're in a different timeline (a split in time, if you will).
Your idea of time travel is actually super cool. Imagine the main character of your story has a marking of like a number on their arm and don't know what that is until they find a secret compartment that opens because they used the number, and in the end they meet their past self and realize that in a past loop the he changed the past for the better and wrote that on their pasts self's arm so they'd be set on the path to do that time travel stuff again, even though the future is fine, because without doing the time travel the new future could never happen. Then the main character would have to make sure he actually completes the mission this time because if this second loop is interrupted somehow it will create a paradox that kills everyone.
18:03 "where did that woman go?" Considering the actress and one of her recent roles, she probably stepped on a nail in the middle of a farm for no reason other than dramatic purposes.
I was completely in love with this movie when I first saw it, and I'm still fond of it, but I'm afraid I can't disagree with your criticisms of the movie's internal logic, as much as I would like to. I still think the Sci-Fi ideas, flawed as they are, are a nice bed on which Rian Johnson can work his magic.
It all makes sense once you realize that Bruce Willis was a ghost the entire time.
Tim Lewis Lol.
And then you realize Joseph Gordon Levitt was actually Robin the whole time
+Xeo I guess you got Rekt-coned.
Wrong movie bud
Tim Lewis 2/10, not enough of bruce willis's ghost
"But enjoying a flawed movie and calling a movie flawless are two completely different things."
Fair enough.
Turn it around and it’s the same, as disliking a flawed movie and calling a movie broken because it has flaws is different. Hell, that applies to one of Rian’s later films.
@@Anon24052 All I know that he did was this, Last Jedi and Knives Out.
@@nikolasperez7745 Is Knives out good? I want to see that
@@jl2351 Very good
@@AA-ed6ek I love the ignorant people think it's impossible to make a good movie after making a kindof weak one. The las jedi was a hell of a lot better than this rehashed trashcan called the rise of skywalker
When it comes to time travel movies, I just accept that they're most likely going to screw it up.
fedos primer didn't screwed up
Phreaker1997 It's an assumption. If they manage to not screw it up then great, but I don't set myself up for disappointment.
I'll check out primer, though.
Have you checked it out yet? What did you think of it? It's a great movie in my opinion, although it's best to check out what's actually happening outside of the movie. I think the wikipedia page has a flow chart.
i was saying that Primer didn´t screwed up because it was the most realistic depiction of time travel ergo the movie doesnt have any plot holes but i never said it was a great movie, for me the movie is ok
fedos La Jétee doesn't screw up.
7:42 - 8:45 The narration is so inadvertently in sync with the background music that this bit sounds like a rap song with a likeness to Eminem's 'Slim Shady'
Genius
IM SCREAMING
+Cosmic Centurion Venom Void Apex Disco Plasma Panda Zephyr Elysium Twerk Team Aetheraptor Oh my god
+Cosmic Centurion Venom Void Apex Disco Plasma Panda Zephyr Elysium Twerk Team Aetheraptor This is fucking amazing
+Cosmic Centurion Venom Void Apex Disco Plasma Panda Zephyr Elysium Twerk Team Aetheraptor
That's... just... how did you even notice?
There's an episode of Invader ZIM where Zim sends rubber piggies into the past that cause his enemy Dib to suffer horrible accidents as a small child. Meanwhile, Dib in the present keeps having horrific injuries suddenly appear on him, but as soon as they do, the memory of having gotten those injuries as a child also pop into his brain. To think that a kid's cartoon could be mindful of this and come up with a better solution to the problem than a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie. That speaks volumes about the state of Hollywood movies today.
+theproplady But it's dead now. So fuck you nickalodeon
+JellyTroupple invader zim came on nickelodeon
Invader Zim was one of the darkest shows ever featured on Nick. The creators were constantly fighting censors and the scenario above is one of many disturbing ones. It's a great show and holds up pretty well today.
But that's the exact logic applied to the first part of this movie (when the guy gets his feet cut off, he no longer has his feet in the future and remembers that that happened to him)
but its the shows continuity, not the characters. The show plays out like the movie but if Dib lost a leg, he'd always have been in a wheel chair, and not know anything different.
The joke is we know why but the character doesn't know why it doesn't seem correct.
If Joseph Gordon-Lowett realized that killing the mom would turn the child into the boss crime, wouldnt Bruce Willys also realize that?
This is one of the many ways in which this clusterfuck of a plot contradicts itself
Even worse, Bruce Willis killed his older self in his past so the mom was never killed by him so there should have never been any crime boss to begin with.
*tym travil*
Samuel Zuccati Joseph Gordon Lovett spent time with the kid and the mom. Bruce Willis doesn’t have the complete memories of what Joseph is doing, because time travel causes your memories to be all hazy.
@@thesalanian it seems really odd and contrived that Bruce Willys would just forget about it
Take a shot every time YMS says "Joseph Gordon-Lovett"
It's called alcohol posioning XD
I didn't drink once, because he actually says "Joseph Gordon-Levitt"
Keith Ward *shrug* never heard of him till this video as I never saw Looper so I was going off what I heard.
Keith Ward hahaha.. Someone's Sober lol
BINARYGOD Nope, never heard of. I don't watch many movies I just watch TH-cam film reviewers talk about movies then use their opinion as my own.
Final note - at the end when both future and past self are dead, there would no longer be a reason for that lady to be standing there in the field. None of this would have happened to her because the future self would never have come back to trigger the events of the movie - so she'd just be at home with her kid.
yup, whondered why he didnt mention that
WalterLiddy Question about Seth, the guy who gets all his limbs cut off, cause it confuses me. Was it the first time the younger Seth found out his target was his older self? or does his younger self always find out it's his older self?
This whole thing is confusing, if they kill the younger Seth, he wouldn't have been around to be sent to the past to be killed by his past self, if they cut his limbs off his older self wouldn't have been able to do the thing that caused his own execution.
The only way to not cause any problems for the timelines or cause any paradoxes is to just capture the older self, kill him and leave the past self alone.
Can't handle my Swag Cool profile picture...
Christopher Fouras yours is fantastic as well, good sir
WalterLiddy And, Joseph wouldn't shoot himself, since then his old self wouldn't be there to trigger him to do that. So... it's a big-ass paradox.
"Why don't you just send them back to the 1960s? No one's gonna believe them that they're sent back in time. There would be no reason to kill them at all, they could just grow old."
That's what the weeping angels do, which is one of many reasons that Doctor Who's BLINK is the all-time best time travel media in my opinion
BLINK BLINK BLINK.... yes ....in several multiverses?
You clearly didn't listen to Bruce Willis. "Don't fucking think about it."
Also the whole "Why don't they just teleport" spiel...they do it that way so they can PAY the people in the past, with loads of gold and silver and shit that are sent back with the people. That bit is actually explained.
Voodoo
But why would they NEED to pay the loopers in the past? The reason they hire the loopers in the first place is to have them perform executions, but if they can just kill their targets by teleporting them into the vacuum of space, then they have no need for loopers at all.
Jack Christmas He never answered you...i think you won...
Jack Christmas Maybe they simply can't. Its never stated how far back or how much control they have over the teleportations.
Voodoo But you assume they have to have some if they can transport them to different locations. I mean, the main ccharacterkills people near a field and that other looper killed his guys near a field so why not just attach a weight to their leg and teleport them into the ocean
My.... my brain hurts.
You're not alone man
Same... ugh.
LEARN QUANTUM PHYSICS, NORMIES
Pi Napple Guy more like logic and quick thinking sincere there are no hints in either the video or the movie about the actual physics of time travel... but whatever anyway
DelToro Perdedor k
The basic problem is that there are two major time travel ideas this film uses, the many worlds interpretation, wherein every chooice anyone makes splits the universe into different versions and the number of versions created is determined by the number of options. In this case, you can't change anything, except your destination, so if you kill your younger self, you'll just be going to a world where you don't exist, but you as 'you' will still be there. In the other one, however, which I just call the 'time is a river idea' you can change anything you want, but it'll subsequently suffer the paradoxical problem that since there's nothing to change, you wouldn't have gone back, as you point it out. The movie's biggest problem is, that it keeps switching inbetween the two without any logic behind it. You have old Joe, who came from a version of the universe, where he lived to be an old man and you have Joe from this version, who hasn't done that yet. That alone works with the many worlds
interpretation, but as soon as you bring in the idea that old Joe killing the Rainmaker somehow makes his wife come back or Joe shooting himself will make old Joe disappear conforms to the other idea. And these two ideas of time are not compatible with one another because they essentially present the opposite thing, in one, you can't change anything, in the other, you can change everything, but you'll just lead to a time paradox anyway. This is why the movie is inconsistent and paradoxical. They used two ideas at once without considering that they can't work together like this.
the TV show SLIDERS springs to mind, and telepathy.... a modification of H.G Wells's novella. Traveling sideways in your "past".... but not precisely where you want to go or be.
Honestly I liked how the Legacy of Kain did it, the person who has gone into the past is unaffected and things changed around them, allowing for stuff to happen differently even to your past but that version of you isn't effect. However it's dangerous to change things to much as it can essentially break time, the description they give being again the river. If you drop in a pebble the river will easily flow around it and correct for the change, but anything to major is like damming the river and forcing it to take a completely new course, and so being incredibly dangerous to do.
The thing is, as soon as I accepted that it was a time travel movie, I accepted that there would be plot holes, and that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the movie at all
Exactly. Especially since in real life we still don't know how time travel works, makes no sense to nitpick time travel physics in movies.
@@MapleLeafAce his complaints aren't "time travel doesn't work that way", it's "the movie established that time travel doesn't work that way". It has nothing to do with knowing anything about real time travel, it's the movie not following its own logic.
And I wouldn't consider it a "nitpick" when it completely breaks the story. Like, if they had followed logic at all the entire story couldn't happen, it's not an issue that doesn't affect the story. It's a decent film still but the plot is not just full of nitpicks, it's completely broken
@@alexanderlane6115 bullshit.
@@MapleLeafAce It's not though, is it. Please, be specific if you actually have a point to make. Tell me HOW it's bullshit or you're just doing the digital equivalent of a mouth fart
Are you saying that he did make complaints about how "real" time travel works? Because that isn't true. Are you telling me the plot makes sense as written? If so you are claiming hat a man with no limbs managed to run away from people
Or you could grow up and realise that pointing out flaws in a film isn't a personal insult you need to defend. Especially when you don't actually have a defence
@MapleLeafAce When a movie changes the rules of time travel repeatedly in order to accommodate the plot, it’s not nitpicking the rules, it’s pointing out that the movie doesn’t HAVE any rules. There’s no coherent way of interpreting Looper, it just flat-out doesn’t make sense.
I agree with most of the things in this video, but I did want to comment on one thing I don't agree with. He said he didn't understand why money in the future has been demoted to these giant bricks.
The reason they have the big bricks of gold is because they're sending that money back with the person who needs to be killed by strapping it onto his body, to pay the past version for finishing the job.. If they sent future money back to the past, the guy wouldn't be able to use it, because the past people wouldn't accept future money.. but by sending gold ingots back, past person can trade the gold in for current money at any precious metal trade.
+The Carlz0r Problem with that though is that by sending Gold or silver back in time your devaluing it's worth. And considering how frequent this happens the value of those metals would have dropped quiet significantly.
+shadowmaydawn Dude, even if a few million dollars worth of gold is sent back that wont cause nearly enough of a dent to deflate its value. And by your logic sending back any currency would do the exact same thing.
Gold and silver are timeless valuta. Cash on the other hand...
Hey, I think they got the eye-drugs from Cowboy Bebop.
The director is actually an enormous fan of CB, to the point where his previous film, Brick, had the main character model his walk on Spike.
Tedris4
Ah, there you go then.
Mister Bones Its based off a Book or short story or inspired cant remember by Philip K Dick I think. Most cyber punk aspects that we see today pretty much came from him as well as Wiliam Gibson.
Also LSD can be taken through the eyes.
The eye drug on CB also gives super reflexes and force. But also you go mad and probably your wife is gonna kill you.
You can administer drugs through your eyes, so it came from REAL ACTUAL LIFE
After the movie : ... Wow ....
After this video : ... fuck ....
+Nøxturn Any time travel movie can be ruined by applying logic to it since time travel is impossible - so if you can't handle that then you probably shouldn't watch any movie about time travel ever again.
😂😂😂 likewise
+Gorse Aurn That operates on the assumption that there are other timelines, which hasn't been proven, but it's definitely a good way around 'changing things' in fiction.
+Gorse Aurn u mean creating a black hole or what?
***** So what if we could travel back in time, would we lose all the memories and will our body revert back to the state and postion of the time we traveled to or would there just be a future us and a the one in that particular time period? Sorry if what I said is confusing
There is one HUGE mistake you missed to mention.
In Bruce Willis timeline, he SUCCESFULLY kills his older self, moves to Shangai, gets married and grows old.
Now, since he SUCCESFULLY killed his older self, Sara NEVER DIED, thus Cid NEVER became the Rainmaker, meaning the Rainmaker's Mafia closing loops and killing Bruce Willis' wife makes no sense at all.
Most.Flawed.Movie.Ever. I rest my case.
A smart way they could have avoided this mistake while imparting some sense to their story as a whole, was to show young Bruce Willis failing to kill his older self and not giving chase, instead fleeing to Shanghai. This way the Rainmaker does exist in Bruce Willis timeline killing his wife and guaranting that he travels to Joseph Gordon's past.
Or he became the Rainmaker for other reasons.
Rocketboy1313 Yup, thought about that option, but that only means that Jason Gordon Levitt killed himself for nothing because Cid becomes the Rainmaker regardless of whether his mom lives or dies. That would be a dark and hilarious plot twist, which is too much of a good plot to even consider that that was what the writers were aiming for when you contrast, well, the rest of the movie xD
There's no way to not have flaws in this movie. It's about time travel which is impossible to make sense.
Nick | Hazvrd It is very possible to have a story about time travel make sense if you establish the existence of multiple timelines. For example, Chrono Trigger/Cross (they are videogames I know but one of the best examples I can think of), established a cause/consequence effect on the main timeline, with the deleted triggers and possibilities stemming off into paralel timelines. All they had to do for this movie to make 90% more sense is say "multiple timelines".
the longer i watch this, the less Joseph Gordon-Levitt looks like Joseph Gordon-Levitt
doesn't help that they did makeup on him to make him look slightly more like Bruce Willy
@@BernStoogin It was digitally generated. No makeup is that good.
@@zachryder3150it was make-up. There's footage of him in the chair with the artists working on it.
Another dumb thing about time travel is that it's just that - time travel; not space travel as well. So, you go back in time one week, you're gonna miss Earth by about 18 million km.
I get your point but it's as arbitrary saying people would miss earth as it is arguing that they would not. There is no absolute position in space, earth can be considered moving around the sun but it might as well be considered stationary while the sun is moving around it.
Staying on earth in the first place would actually make most sense since your relative position would stay the same.
LivingChords
Yes my initial estimate was taken arbitrarily based on Earth's rotation around the Sun. However why are you implying that just because someone could go through time they would also be able to do the same with space. Your universal coordinates technically would remain the same, whereas everything else should change according to the passage of time. Technically you are stationary in a moving car, but if you remove yourself even for a bit from the system while it's in motion, you'd be left behind. I guess it greatly depends on what _scifi_ method of time travel we're talking about. I think in theory you should be able to keep track of your coordinates only as long as you're using space itself as a means of traveling through time, ie. accelerating to the speed of light. But if it's something that doesn't involve space, I fail to see how you could still keep your past/future coordinates as you'd be going through time.
Mihai-Ciprian Ghilinta
Well let's take your example with the moving car because I have to disagree with you on that one.
(Clarification: When I talk about "removing" and "reappearing" yourself, I assume that your relative position stays the same.)
It's true that if you removed yourself from the system and reappeared you would have been left behind the car. That said, this is only true if your frame of reference happens to be a system in which the earth is considered stationary.
If our frame of reference is a system in which the car is stationary, as you suggested, i.e. a system in which the car is always the origin of it's respective coordinate system, you would not be left behind, since your relative position to the car would otherwise change.
My point being that it would make most sense to assume that the time machine would set the frame of reference. So if you were inside it before and it sent you back you would still be inside it and if you were 10 meters away from it you would probably spawn 10 meter away from it.
This is basically what we did in first semester physics lecture. I could talk about this all day.
That's a really good point, actually.
Ok, I had never thought of the earth's rotation around the sun as factor. That blew my mind.
Not saying it's necessarily a flaw of time travel movies (finding the right spot on earth could be programmed in the machine or something), but I like that idea a lot.
I'm gonna take a shot at explaining the mess with the past suddenly changes the future scenario. Like the cut off young guys arm, old guys arm suddenly turns into a stub thing . This is just my take on it so who knows how true it is or if it even makes sense. So here we go.
When they travel back in time and change things so drastically that it would change the future it creates an alternate time line where the effects of this change occur. However eventually the two time lines converge and the original time line adapts to the changes made in the alternate time line. This would kinda explain the delay between past changes and present day. Because in old man's time line, his arm never got cut off so he grew old with it until the time lines converges and update to the changes made in the past.
Therefore guys walking until he suddenly looses his arm as the alternate time line catches up with him and adapts to his arm getting cut off in the past.
So basically changing the past creates a paradox that the time lines try to correct. Therefore the original and the alternate time line converge since there should only be one (time is linear, at least in this theory) so old man would probably have memories of growing old with his arm(ah the memories) then also without once the correction occurs.
Wow, Adam's voice has changed a lot in 7 years.
Watch the precious video, for the first couple of minutes it LITERALLY sounds like a completely different person
Indeed
Why does Joseph Gordon Levitt never look like Joseph Gorden Levitt?
Its like they tried to make him look like Bruce but made him look nothing like either of them
Because Rian Johnson has absolutely no idea what he is doing.
So why cant they just time travel them to the dawn of time its not like DNA is gonna last that long
Well, I'd assume that would cost far too much energy. But still, if they would just warp them into space or literally inside the ground...
Stryfe564 or warp them to a time not SUPER far but far enough that a murder would not seem super suspicious like medieval or some other time period
+Awesomeman204 or the 1800s to like some uncolonized era (by euro influences. ) send them to an island of headhunters. or hell the Antarctic or the fucking middle of the ocean
Jose the Bioform exactly
The movie explicitly states they can only send them to a certain space and time. Like the mediocre telekinesis and hoverbikes that don't quite work right.
God, I can't imagine the hell Adam would go through to make a perfectly infallible time travel movie
You mean PRIMER?
@darthkek1953 primer essentially uses many worlds interpretation of time travel with some weird quirks (that make it look like it's time-loop rules in the beggining (and even in the middle which always bugged me since the whole idea of paradoxes hurting time-travelers and not time itself only makes sense in time-loop story and that's why I couldn't figure it out on my own and only learned it from the director himself - but since this is just one of the rules that it has the right to set for itself, it's not actually an issue, just a very confusing red herring))
and it is extremely easy to write an infallible time travel movie when you use many worlds interpretation. nothing ever matters in "the grand scheme of things", because there is no grand scheme of things, there are just a bunch of worlds essentially between which you travel, no different than how you would travel through space
I was able to perfectly enjoy this movie for years until I watched your video. I still enjoy it, but i never looked this deeply into it.
This had me literally screaming. Looper is without a doubt my very favorite movie and you ripped it to shreds and I LOVED IT. This review is flawless.
I sure hope your taste in movies has improved 6 years later
@@noone3216I mean, it’s not a bad movie
THANK YOU! The inconsistency had been bugging me since I saw the movie.
One more thing, in the timeline of the future, He actually closes the loop. So how does the kid originally grow up to be the rainmaker?
That question bothers me SO much, it makes absolutely no sense. Might be one of the biggest plot holes, and this movie has an obscene number of plot holes
This is one of those times where I'm left wondering if I watched the same movie as everyone else in the world. Bruce Willis drives the truck from the base full of all the information on all the loopers ever right up to Sara so she and her kid can use the info to become "The Rainmaker" and close all the loops... or from their perspective stop all this crazy time traveling shit from happening anymore. Everyone seems to think Joe explained all this stuff sufficiently for them to be on the same page about everything, but I don't see it. There's a lot of yelling and a lot of miscommunication, I'm not sure how she's supposed to know that him killing himself means _not_ to get all these other dangerous murderers of the streets of time.
But then, also if that's what they were going for, it's way too smart. No other part of the movie has any thought put into it, so I almost have to be misinterpreting this, or it's just a massive fluke?
i enjoyed this flawed movie
it's ok... many movies may be enjoyable but flawed
I dont think there is a movie that isnt flawed 0.o
Troy Lim clearly youve never seen the room
+matt pace the room is a masterpiece of modern cinema.
I did too, it just had fun with the idea, instead of going through so many hoops to explain itself like primer. Now if there was bad time travel movie it was primer.
I'm glad I've discovered this channel. It's got pretty great reviews, nice humor, and good quality overall
None of which is true for these movies.
@@JustSomeKittenwithaGun lol very true!
"Back to the Future" has more logical time travel than "Looper". Let that sink in.
Seriously. Loving a movie means you like it despite its flaws! I love the Harry Potter series, and all my friends and I ever do is complain about it! But we still love it!
"The two times are the same time", okay well, it could be a second "timeline". So each loop is a new time. But then cutting off fingers wouldn't do anything
That’s what I’ve been to telling everyone here the uses the it’s an alternate timeline card. 😤
I guess everyone already forgot that the movie ended with the younger one killing him self to make the older version disappear too.
Also, how the hell does the Rainmaker version of Cid exist in the timeline where Old Joe doesn’t kill Cid’s mom? Old Joe killing Cid’s mom is what turns him into Rainmaker, so how is there a Rainmaker in the timeline where Old Joe doesn’t escape? It makes NO SENSE
be like the creators of Rick and Morty, never make anything with time travel
Also, Rick and Morty isn't a bitterly serious hollywood blockbuster, so they can get away with literally anything as long as it's funny. I mean that show is full of stupid unscientific garbage but half the time, that is the joke. So yeah. A movie that tries to be serious should try to be accurate.
Lucas Alves they never time traveled in Rick and Morty
Yeah cause they're based on the time travel movie
And it's, you know, GOOD.
@@LaineMann not really, season 3 was utter garbage
The whole "I can remember what you do after you do it" thing doesn't make sense, sure, but at least it's consistent and sets up a rule that resolves all would-be paradoxes. Works for me, as long as it is self consistent.
I think Looper is a great example of how a movie does not need to make sense
on a literal level to still really work.
The time travel rules don't add up but there isn't a single moment where I'm confused about motivation or consequences of any actions.
Story-telling rules don't play by reality rules, nor by internal logic rules.
2 other problems toward the end.
1. If Bruce Willis killing Crime Boss (CB)'s mom is what triggers him becoming crime boss, that's impossible. The Bruce Willis 1, that would've killed CB's mom in Bruce Willis 2's timeline was killed by Bruce Willis 2, he couldn't possibly have killed CB's mom, meaning no crime boss and no reason to kill Bruce Willis 2. Thus Bruce Willis 2 never lost his wife, went back in time, and interacted with Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
If the reason the kid became a CB was because his mom died as a result of a vengeful Bruce Willis, then the timeline of Bruce Willis that involved killing the 'future' Bruce Willis removes the possibility of CB appearing.
EDIT: It's impossible to put this eloquently on the first try, so here's another try: In the timeline where Joseph Gordon-Levitt DID kill Bruce Willis, then who killed CB's mom and made CB a thing? If nobody, then how did that Joseph Gordon-Levitt grow up to be Bruce Willis in a timeline where CB existed? If he killed the only character (Bruce Willis) with the idea to actually go after and ironically create CB, then from that point on, CB would stop being a possibility and there would be no recourse for looping 30 years from then.
And 2, if Joseph Gordon-Levitt became aware of the reason why CB became CB, wouldn't Bruce Willis have IMMEDIATELY come to the same conclusion by remembering what Joseph realized? He'd just think, "Oh wait, my past self is right, if I do this I'm fucked, so I just won't. Thanks, past me, for coming to the conclusion my present self can only come to as a result of some fucked up time loop."
+Nepycros Exactly what I was thinking!
We literally just watched Timeline 1 Young Joe kill Timeline 1 Old Joe.
Timeline 1 Young Joe becomes Timeline 2 Old Joe
Timeline 2 Old Joe (Who is Timeline 1 Young Joe) manages to stop Timeline 2 Young Joe from killing him like he killed Timeline 1 Old Joe.
Then at the End we find out that all the events of all this stuff only exists because Timeline 2 Old Joe killed mob boss's Mom.
But the only reason Timeline 2 Old Joe even gets the chance to kill the Mob bosses mom is because he wasn't killed by Timeline 2 Young Joe. But Timeline 1 Old Joe was killed by Timeline 1 Young Joe, which means Timeline 1 Old Joe never had a chance to kill Mob Bosses mom.
This can't work in the established time travel rules of this universe. The only way it does work is if the time travel isn't just a time travel into the past but instead is going back in time into a completely alternate dimension that breaks at the point of travel. In other words, there are two completely different universes (infinite different universes, but we're dealing with the main story here)... One in which the original origins of the crime boss is unknown (hence why Timeline 1 Young Joe kills Timeline 1 Old Joe) and another in which a psychic Joseph Gordon-Levitt sees and stops the unknown future of the changed origins of the crime boss.... that only even happens as a result of the time travel that happened in the original universe (timeline 1)..... If that makes any sense.
It works kinda like how The Planet of the Apes movie timeline does. Where the original Caesar was made intelligent through being tested on by scientists and went on to fight a war against the humans, who were suffering a heavy population decline due to a virus that effected the entire planet who then got basically annihilated by a nuclear war that destroyed almost every human civilization in the world which allowed Caesar to come into power and create the "Planet of the Apes" that through time enslaved the humans and basically reverted them back into cavemen which eventually led to the original movie series where in the third movie we find out that three apes from the original "Planet of the Apes" and it's sequel had escaped from the destruction of the "Planet of the Apes" following the nuclear explosion in the second movie, that literally blew up the planet and somehow sent the parents back in time to 1973 into an alternate timeline where they admit to eventually taking over the world and running experiments on humans which leads to their deaths but before they die they have a baby that they name Milo that goes into hiding with a Zookeeper that renames him Caesar and when the virus that kills the humans in the original timeline instead kills all the cats and dogs in the world, it causes the humans in the movie to keep apes as pets instead (which led to the selective breeding and an overgrowth in ape population) but since Caesar (Milo) was actually the son of two of the smart apes from the original "Planet of the Apes" (from the fuuuuture) he was smart enough to hate the idea of slavery and hated the abuse that he and his fellow apes had suffered and decided to start a revolution that in turn started a war that in turn created the "Planet of the Apes" where over time the humans and apes learned to live together in peace and eventually co-exist with one another. Yeah. Kinda like that. One story that follows one timeline that take place in two timelines in different dimensions, that still actually makes sense as a cohesive story.
Try reading it a couple more times...
If it doesn't make sense read it again and then maybe it'll make more sense to you.
If not, then I've done fucked up and have no idea what I'm talking about.
Oops. But if you got it... kinda like that.....
This is really pointless because I wrote all of that just to say how it COULD work if it didn't break the rules already established in the movie (that they kinda already broke anyway...?) but I spent over an hour writing and thinking about that... so I'm gonna post it anyway so it doesn't feel like I just wasted a piece of my life. Peace.
Helldog6 I've come up with a solution to both of my problems.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt was dead wrong about how Crime Boss came to be. He came to a conclusion and killed himself for no reason. Bruce Willis, who would've felt Joseph come to this epiphany, brushed it off because he was capable of thinking logically, and that's why he didn't stop. Crime Boss shows up for a completely different reason from his mommy dying.
This was my first huge issue with the movie. It makes no sense
+Helldog6 Problem with that theory is that anything that happened to young Joe would have no affect on old Joe they come from two separate universes.
shadowmaydawn This is true. Fuck. Then the movie could never make sense.
Haha I was just typing a question to try and prove that the scaring would work but as soon as I finished typing the massive SA, I realized how the time line is flawed and I went back to see what you were saying at 7:20 where you say "if you notice this and understand that it's flawed and don't let it bother you that's perfectly fine by me but enjoying a flawed movie and calling a movie flawless are two completely different things."
I totally agree with you, your understanding of timelines made me understand timelines better! Thank you, you are a legend!
I'm actually crying. This is the first video from this youtuber that I'm viewing.
Just plain hilarious.
Here's my thing: So at the end of the movie, JGL realizes that killing Emily Blunt is what causes that kid to go evil and shit, and that the only way to stop it is to killing himself, thus stopping Bruce Willis. But if Bruce Willis remembers everything that Joseph Gordon Levitt does after he does it, then wouldn't he remember having that realization? And then not kill Emily Blunt? Making JGL's whole sacrifice totally pointless? Am I wrong? I mean, I guess you could say that JGL just didn't think of that, and that it's more of a character flaw than a plothole, but still, that's a pretty stupid ending, the main character sacrificing himself for no reason other than the fact that he's an idiot who doesn't understand the basics of how the timetravel situation he's in works. Fuckin dumb.
why kill himself at all? is the first thing come in mind to me when i first watched this part of the movie. why dont simple shoot his own hand at this point?
He should have shot off his trigger finger, using this movie's logic, Bruce Willis's finger would disappear which would give him enough time to realise what Levit realises.
+MiamiViceClips Bruce Willis doesn't need a trigger finger to kill a kid. And by this movie's logic Future Willis can only remember new things from the past AFTER Past JGL actually does it, not just think it. It might just be a line thrown in there to justify this one plot point but making a movie about travelling backwards in time means that no matter what, there will be logical flaws abound, so what evs.
Hagar TheHonorable but he would also remember his realisation after Levitt realises not to kill the kid, shooting the finger off would just give him more time.
+MiamiViceClips I'm not saying its entirely logical but thats not how the movie sets that up considering the conversation Willis and Levitt have in the diner.
Time travel isn't real nor possible so whatever rules this movie chooses to make up should be the only ones taken into account.
Every old YMS ive watched countless times and I constantly revisit them
so the mob boss in this movie is basically diavolo
well one more thing doesn't make sense in this movie KINGU KURIMSUM
That's bullshit, but i believe it.
20:45 (Spongebob narrator) "7 years later.. "
Knives Out Quickie "I still haven't seen Brick."
Yoo Knives Out is a great movie
(screenshot of his near infinite watchlist on IMDB)
"Story of my fucking life." *horse tear*
Ali Kandır no
Brick is pretty cool
Literal Brick Joke
11:58
Not to mention the earth moves by itself so you'd end up in outer space.
Earth is stationary, confirmed
holy shit yeah lmaooo
@@Chronz That's actually true.
...relative to earth, that is.
@@lily_littleangel ur crazy. everything else moves tho
thinking about time travel is so exhausting
Lol, that's why you, and movie studios should leave it up to smart people... Then we wouldn't have stupid movies like this
Makes me wish I could go back in time and not start thinking about it at all. Oh wait.. fuuuuuuuuuckkk 😫😭
@@YenPeregrine you sound like one of those people who brings up your IQ for no reason
All this time travel bullshit is giving me a headache
I get it
I always assumed it made sense if you apply the concept that time isn’t linear but forever reoccurring, which is how some physicists rationalize the possibility of time travel. For instance it would mean that travel back in time would instead transport you back to a period of time which is currently occurring and changes to it would only affect that specific loop.
That would make perfect sense if the ending didn’t happen
@@Mindcreat0r Or anything else involving the present version impacting the future version.
It sort of gives credence to the whole paradox thing, but also, it really doesn’t. You can’t just isolate one specific loop, because anything that you affect in a loop will inevitably _be affected._ You can’t go back to the past and change something unless that change was always in the timeline to begin with.
Slim shady music in background makes your almost every review sound like an amazing freestyle rap dude :D
everyone here is time travel experts.
Check your grammar.
pussy fart
***** Lol. I just did it for the lols. And yeah, Montag Footage you are still wrong.
Montag Footage Well, you can't see my face, but I surely can see your grammar. My point is this: you remain wrong.
*Also, I'm sure the gay community doesn't appreciate you using them as an insult.
what's wrong with my grammar?
If only every film handled time travel as well as Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
There are actually scientific journal articles written about the time travel of Looper. And interestingly enough, many of the critiques featured in this video are largely grouped into a theory that Hawking wrote about called "Chronology Protection" wherein any method of time travel would result in the person traveling back to be unable to physically interact with events in a way that prevents them from happening. So unless radical action is taken (e.g. someone being killed), then the future that allows for time travel is still going to happen. So you can cut off all of someone's limbs, but if they still are alive, then the future is still going to happen (somehow). It's definitely inelegant, but it's not totally bunk. And even if it is, I'm just glad to see a non-sequel, non-shit sci-fi movie receive attention.
+davidwave4 For a number of reasons, I take issue with that. Even if it meant you couldn't alter anything in the past, couldn't you simply resend yourself an infinite number of times? The mere fact that you exist in the past where you hadn't in the previous iteration of the time line means you have altered it. It breaks the law of conservation of matter, energy, and information. You, and all the atoms in you spontaneously appear in the past universe without any known energy exchange, meaning the universe now has a few trillion more atoms than it did before time travel was invented. Then you reach the future where your other self is sent on the time travel journey that put you there, thus placing a third person into the time line. This has to happen otherwise the time line has been altered by your presence in the past. Now there are 3 of you, and another bunch of atoms is thrust into the universe without any sort of energy exchange. Then the cycle repeats again: 4 of you, then 5, then 6, then 7, then 8, then 9, etc, etc. Soon, there are so many of you that the entirety of humanity consists of 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of you along with the 7 billion other people that were already there. OR, if there is an energy exchange, that means that the total amount of energy in the universe decreases by a bit each time in exchange for the new matter that is introduced when you are sent back in time. Very soon, or immediately since no time has passed in the present where you send yourself back in time, the total amount of energy present in the universe is converted into matter and the universe dies.
OR, suppose a third time that the net amount of matter and energy remain the same and the matter and energy composing you in the present stays there, and instead a bunch of atoms hanging out in an interstellar dust cloud are transported to Earth to create you in the past. Repeat endlessly until all matter and energy in the universe resides on Earth and is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% time traveling yous. Earth becomes singularity and collapses in on itself, thus destroying the universe again.
What you're describing is much more Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and much less looper. We see the chronology constantly being altered, invalidating it falling under that theory. Any tiny alteration would break that chronology.
@@CruelestChris Yeah, I thought so too. In a closed loop (like the one portrayed in Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban) any changes to the past, even the minute ones, have been accounted for in the present. So in Hawking's argument they wouldn't have been able to cut off someone's limbs in the past unless he was already missing them in the present.
I love how Adam fixes the whole issue of closing a loop by basically saying the mob needs to kill people exactly how Weeping Angels in Doctor Who kill people
You are really rough on these time travel movies. I love it! Keep up the good work!
all they need to do is send the bodies to when the earth was first formed so they die in a pit of lava. why go to this extra trouble.
Nice idea
I think because they don't properly explain the time machine you could easily find an excuse for this i.e. amount of time in the past correlates to energy put into the machine, even in the future they don't have the resources to power it.
This movie was so confusing I can’t even follow your review lol ugh my brain.
Its ad that people found I hard to follow when it was so simple and linear
@@kylekondit9709
you may have found it simple and linear because you don't see the obvious flaws in it. I thought half the choices these characters make are so retarded while not understanding the other half because of how contrived the time travel logic is. Making a universe where multiple timelines can influence eachother is any competent writer's nightmare. It's literally not possible to comprehend the possibilities that would bring for us. that's why there hasn't been a movie or a book that did that right yet.
But you might just be Rian Johnson's target audience, not thinking about it, just enjoying the flow, you'll clap at anything
i never saw this movie and now I never will. i had 2 strokes, an aneurism and a seizure listening to the description of all the parts that don't add up or make sense. good god. time travel really does work best when you don't think about it at all. 21 jigawatts, flux capacitors and a big pile of doody.
You're missing out on one of the best movies this decade just because a video, unrelated to the main story of the move, confuses you.
Precisely. If the finer details of the story are just constant plotholes and plot convenience pieces because the retarded people who make movies today can't think of logical, coherent ways of moving the plot forward, it just ruins the movie for me. I watched Looper in the theater and was really pissed at how stupid the story was.
Time travel isn't possible, you fucking idiot. Why waste time on explaining an impossible thing?
It's not explaining time travel in real life, it's explaining it in fiction. In fiction it exists and unless you want bad fiction, like this movie, you have to lay down the rules of the game from the start and stick to them.
If they explained it badly, whiny fuckers like you would still be around saying shit like "wahh worst cop-out explanation evar!!!1". It's about the story, not the logistics. If you can't enjoy such a great film like Looper just because of one problem like that, I would say stop watching movies and watch some fucking documentaries.
Is it just me or does Joseph Gordon-Levitt look weirdly different in this movie? Compare the way he looks in 50/50 to the way he looks in Looper; it's so different. I guess it's just makeup or something, but that leads me to this point: Joseph Gordon-Levitt totally should have played Max Payne instead of Mark Wahlberg.
+Ailuri Catbear it is makeup, he also put on a fake nose to look more like bruce willis. and I agree he should play max payne
+Ailuri He's also wearing colored contacts.
it didn't work very well, he doesn't look anything like Bruce Willis
Voxl Valyx even if he played Max Payne it wouldn’t had saved the movie it was still a hot mess.
Abel Villa He's not gritty enough though.
Since time travel doesn't exist (yet anyway), why can't we accept a movie's iteration of how it plays out in application? There could be technological limitations at play that are the reason time travel functions as it does in a movie.
Joseph Gordon Levitts facial expressions as a young Bruce Willis was spot on.
The review is NOT nitpicky.
In fact he only scratched the surface
of this movies flaws.
The creators of this movie weren't even
trying.
And btw:
The time traveling is not just a setup
like in Terminator.
It is ALL about time traveling.
Bruce Willis killing everyone is just Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis
The killing montage had me...dying of laughter
I know right?
*The Blooper*
"Close your bloop"
God I love Enter the Gungeon
When time travel in Homestuck makes more sense than in a Hollywood movie, you done goofed.
Rian Johnson makes a movie that makes doesn’t obey the laws of its own universe and has character motivations that make no sense. Well, I sure am shocked.
It's a good thing he learned from this movie and would never make that mistake again!
Kyle Willis Guys. Any movie with time travel breaks it's own rules. The fact that we shouldn't be able to explore an ENTIRE genre of science fiction is just asinine.
Common man any time travel movie is gonna be messed up (except primer ofcourse)
What bugs me most about this movie is the premise itself - if time travel was outlawed, then why is Abe there to set up the whole looper system in the first place? Even for an organized mafia crime ring, the risks involved are simply too great. I mean, who's gonna close Abe's loop? And besides, they're the mafia, there's no need to go to such convoluted lengths just to get away with murder. They're the goddamned mafia.
And for that matter, why do they need to recruit people in the past to do their dirty work? Abe has his own hitmen, lots of 'em. Imagine you're a young man and some dude contacts you and says "hey, time travel exists and you're gonna come work for me murdering your future selves for money." WHAT SANE PERSON WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT?!
What about the bodies? Shooting people in broad daylight is pretty damn conspicuous, guys. Sooner or later someone will stumble upon it. Not like you can kill a witness, right? People would notice their disappearance and investigate. Shit, we all leave a digital trace everywhere we go _right now_, that's probably multiplied tenfold in 2044. Someone's gonna discover you! Just...ugh, this movie...
Yup, there you are again, Amy. And only a day earlier than I watched this video. I agree with everything you said. While this movie is enjoyable if you turn your brain off, a film buff like me has a hard time overlooking its countless flaws.
Bigger plot hole, how dose his attempted murder of the kid make the kid into a crime boss if the "first" time around he died right away.
I like the super detailed logical explanations you give about things. It's fairly unique to you channel.
You had me dying with laughter when you showed that scene of Bruce Willis killing everyone with that background music. Bravo.
Time travel is literally impossible to make logical sense out of.
Nah. If time traveling was possible, and we somehow managed to achieve it, then we would have plenty of 'time' to study it. But since we haven't achieved it yet, we can only speculate. Given the speculations can be endless, the topic becomes extremely difficult with infinite possibilities.
Jhoz H If time travel exists in the future, then it technically is present in the past or present.
Yeah. That's right. Now the question is: is it legal to time-travel in the future? Does people make it alive when they time-travel, or do their composition destroys entirely when it gets here?... Your first post might be right. Time travel is way too out of reach as of now to since, like i said before, we can only speculate things.
Jhoz H If time travel existed then a person from the future would probaly tell some one in the past how to make a time machine.
ross byatt Yeah, unless he came to this time made random unorganized atoms. His composition would have traveled, but there would be little-to-no evidence of his achievement. But, of course, this idea too is just hypothetical.
Fun fact: shane carruth (director of Primer) gave Rian Johnson some pointers on time travel logic for the script, but Johnson said that the ideas Carruth gave were too expensive to film
He needs to step aside and let somebody else do LOOPER 2 ....especially if SHANE CARRUTH is part of the Hollywood "loop" ....? :)
Please tell me you've gotten around to watching Brick by now. It is, far and away, a superior film to Looper.
What is it with Emily Blunt and time travel movies?
50% they are good.
I agree that the scene where the guy keeps losing his limbs makes absolutely no sense and is inconsistent with other parts of the movie, but I will say that I thought it was a pretty creepy scene when I first saw it. I like the way he only loses his fingers and limbs when the camera cuts to a different angle. This makes it feel like it happens very quickly and without warning, but doesn't give you the comfort of actually watching the process to understand exactly how the limbs disappear or what it looks like. It's like, you could just be walking down the street, and then poof! Your nose is gone! Two seconds later, you have one fewer finger! Etc.
GUESS WHOSE MAKING THE NEXT STAR WARS???
Who
Dr Who
**sigh** yeah I know, but at least JJ will be a producer so he will definitely have some creative control over episode 8.
+Sam Shiiv M. Night Shaymalan? Oh my, I'm excited already!
I'm conflicted about this director he also directed some episodes of breaking bad and breaking bad was really good.
When a movie retcons itself
There are ways to have characters change the past without paradoxes: they could set it up so it *seems* like the past is unchanged, or you could established that time travelers are exempt from changes in time but can change the world around them.
That ear lobe bit was funny as hell lol
Ugh yes, I used to love cinemasins because he pointed out shit like this, but that channel has become a giant shitshow. At least you point out actual flaws instead of making shitty jokes.
it's like that was the point of cinemasins, to be nitpicky and make jokes
+kris stasko I think you missed the point of their comment, kris. What Tim was saying is that it's fine if you have the jokes and the legitimate points, but if you go watch current Cinemasins, it is ALL jokes. The nitpicking was fine because there were actual review points that made you think about film objectively. The nitpicking felt justified.
They no longer point out legitimate flaws alongside the joke sins; It's all about sinning random shit and making people upset, with fans going "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS?!!?!?!? WHY IS THAT A SIN UNSUBBED DC IS THE BEST!!!!!!"
+Tim Van Aelst hahahahahaahaha i 100% agree
+Tim Van Aelst unless it's a movie the comments like,
then he's a nitpicky basterted
+Oshikaru-Sensei (FRANK CASTANZA FILMS) So it's become another mainstream youtube channel
I find it really interesting though how they put makeup or something on Joseph Gordon Levitt to make him look more like Bruce Willis, as well as how it looks like Joseph kind of studied Bruce's speech and mannerisms to try and emulate him. I mean I've never seen this movie and it doesn't seem like my kind of thing, but I think that part of it is interesting.
What? Strictly Come Dancing reference in a movie review from somebody from North America? That's pretty much as obscure as you can get, bloody hell.
8:00 teen titans go is the only time I've seen this concept done right
Watching this movie is like when a teacher gives you a math problem that can't be solved, like there is an error in how it was written so there is no solution.
This is what happens when you introduce time travel to anything. It's cool at first but everything becomes a mess lol eg. Terminator, Lost
Even classic STAR TREK meeting up with DATA's head from STTNG or the future tense of the MIRROR/MIRROR universe in DISCOVERY.... has its moments. Now that we are almost a half century from the cancellation of the classic STAR TREK animated series that existed in the early 1970s.... and PICARD is STTNG's sequel.... STAR TREK is its own CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER multiverse. I think of LOWER DECKS, too. Singing KLINGONS! LOOPER is like KLINGON OPERA! It sounds grand, has a sweep of time, and you need cliff notes to follow the plot. :)
The guy who gets all his limbs cut off, if he does something that causes his own execution 30 years later then why not just kill his younger self. Are they implying that killing his past self would result in a paradox. If you cut off all of his limbs in the past he wouldn't have been able to do the thing that causes his own execution in the future, so there's another paradox.
Philip Ingrouille The time travel itself is a paradox. Something happening to the younger self is not a paradox, but the movie does incredibly illogical things with the idea of something happening.
one2gaming Come to think of it, the only reason the younger self gets all his limbs cut off is because his future self wasn't killed. So if his older self wasn't able to do the thing that causes his death, his younger self never would have got his limbs cut off. So there are two god damn paradoxes working against this part of the movie. Holy shit :)
Philip Ingrouille Still an awesome movie, even with the dumbest plot devices imaginable for the films context.
Rian Johnson did a lot of cool stuff with this silly script.
Rian Johnson has no business writing or directing time travel movies. I loved the concept of Looper but I seriously hated how the time travel made absolutely no sense. The sound track was amazing!
Excellent video YMS! :)
On the question of forensics with time travel: you're leaving out the legal system aspect of it. It would be a lot harder to connect a person to a murder where a guy disappeared and then 30 year old remains were found. IRL hitmen were often the chief suspect in many of their hits, but the prosecution was often unable to find enough evidence, witnesses, etc to successfully have them convicted. So instead of thinking of it in terms of them trying to get away with a crime scott-free, think of it in terms of making it easier to beat the charges in court even if the police are still pretty sure they're the ones who did it. From that perspective, the Looper method makes a lot more sense.
i know it's old, but this video is still new to me. and fucking THAAAANK YOOOOOU for explaining How to do time travel correctly. A scenario only becomes unbelievable when it's time travel laws don't make sense, now matter how Interesting a story concept may be I just cannot become invested in it if I can't see any possible way that it could have happened. It turns a story into a fairy tale. The only way to make it work with time travel imo, is having a loop where the Past that the characters grow up with has ALREADY been changed by the time traveling shenanigans they do later, they just may not have realized it at the time. Multi-verse and splitting timeline stories can work too, i suppose, but they always become a headache and still pose more questions than they can answer, and to me it always made more sense that the past as THE past. Even if you change it later on, those changes were already there because they happened in The Past.
TENET! They did that exact thing, and it's brilliant
i'm doing "likes" on comments and i'm living in a more distant version of the future. i'm looking at this video again! :) its concise and to the point. the movie does not confine itself to simply one universe, it almost implies that several universes and/or multiverses are connected up and each has a future/past where events can be modified. a multiplicity of cloverleafs from HADES and/or classic STRING THEORY.
Hollywood "THE PLAYER" lingo.... ED WITTEN's brainfreezes meets up with DOCTOR WHO's WEEPING ANGELS :) :) :) ----- I wish somebody would do LOOPER 2 just so 90% to 95% of the time paradoxes of LOOPER ONE could be semi-resolved! Then we could have LOOPER 3 happen, so as to resolve most of the new spacetime paradoxes and the remaining few of the old ones from "ONE" that are still in existence! Give BRUCE WILLIS one final role, as a virtual actor.... where he briefly returns for either LOOPER 2 or 3 ....and then have any further sequels explain the MONTAGE let alone what happens to the cast of characters.... over time! IMOHO this was Bruce Willis's last great action flic.... he was in his best form for it, even if the surreal violence was a tad excessive and over the top. Echoes of the old TV show MOONLIGHTING.... yes!!!!
I like how _Primer_ was used as an example of a good time travel film, and its writer/director/lead was a consulting producer for this mess.
TRUTH ....yes.
Ok, so there's one thing about time travel that's always bugged me. Every movie ever says "Don't change the past, or it'll change the future!"
No it won't.
If I go back into the past and say, bury a box of treasure, when I go back to the present, the box will have always been there. Basically, you can't change the future or present because any actions you will take in the past will have already happened, and will have ALWAYS happened.
+Jonas Haecker Finally,someone with the same viewpoint.
Or it'll just create a new timeline, a la Back to the Future Part 2
Godofmoar Ok. What exactly is a timeline huh?
Like scientifically.
Because if you had your standard run of the mill time machine, then how would it be able to traverse between different timelines. And even if your actions in the past _DO_ create a new timeline, and you enter _THAT_ one, what's stopping you from fucking off back to your own original timeline?
+Ghost Samurai Technically a time machine could also just be considered a potential reality machine.
Ghost Samurai Look, your theory in the OP is considered a "closed timeline." What I'm talking about is alternate timelines, where when you change something, you create a new reality where that thing was changed. The first timeline is still there, but you're in a different timeline (a split in time, if you will).
Rian was just try to subvert our expectations
Your idea of time travel is actually super cool. Imagine the main character of your story has a marking of like a number on their arm and don't know what that is until they find a secret compartment that opens because they used the number, and in the end they meet their past self and realize that in a past loop the he changed the past for the better and wrote that on their pasts self's arm so they'd be set on the path to do that time travel stuff again, even though the future is fine, because without doing the time travel the new future could never happen. Then the main character would have to make sure he actually completes the mission this time because if this second loop is interrupted somehow it will create a paradox that kills everyone.
Weren't eye-drugs a thing in Cowboy Bepop?
Yeah, I remember that. It was called "bloody eye", but it was some sort of spray instead of eye drops.
Rian Johnson’s a massive weeb, that’s why.
7:30 THANK YOU. Seeing that movie for the first time as a kid, that immediately bothered me too.
Who would have thought this movie would be a direct metaphor for the future of Bruce Willis's acting career...
18:03 "where did that woman go?" Considering the actress and one of her recent roles, she probably stepped on a nail in the middle of a farm for no reason other than dramatic purposes.
11:51 yeah, just Weeping Angel's that shit! It actually makes sense.
I thought it was cool how much Joseph Gordon-Levitt acted like Bruce Willis with the facial expressions and even his voice.
12:29 lol they have different eye colors
I'm pretty sure that's just the lighting, or maybe the eye contacts that Joseph Gordon Levitt was wearing were slightly off color.
@@canaanmcbee Yeah or his eyes just changed colors over time, which tends to happen. Just figured I would point it out for further inspection.
@@radicalslam2911 True true.
I love how in all the future movies people are just dropping liquid lsd in they’re eyes like it’s the 70’s
the popping noise edit at 12:01 is so great
I was completely in love with this movie when I first saw it, and I'm still fond of it, but I'm afraid I can't disagree with your criticisms of the movie's internal logic, as much as I would like to. I still think the Sci-Fi ideas, flawed as they are, are a nice bed on which Rian Johnson can work his magic.