Looper (dir. Rian Johnson; Gordon-Levitt, Willis)
- Thread starter Expendable.
- Start date
- Status
Oh go fuck yourself. What a ridiculous connection to make.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Seriously? That part was spelt out pretty obviously. Young Joe took the bullet. Joe has been looping for a long time. I don't think there was only an Old Joe and Young Joe loop, but many others before that. It's a continuos cycle. I think its obvious that was the Rainmaker's intention all along, to prevent the events that turned him into a monster from ever happening.
Although, I see exactly where your coming from. That is an interesting point you raise. If we follow my theory that the Rainmaker is trying to prevent his mother from perishing all along, then its an unchangeable event. That loop never closes, baby Rainmaker loses his mom because he doesn't have a sign of who or what murders his mother, and the same events occur over and over because he has the power to lock that time cycle through looping.
This was obviously not the writers intention lol. It adds to the movie nevertheless in my opinion.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Once again, if you're going to insult me like that, at least show me why my connection is ridiculous.
I'm not saying this film CAUSED Newton, obviously, but that the movie does indeed contain themes regarding how we handle the deterrence of crime. And that how people react to those themes reflect their real-life opinions as well.
shadowsdarknes
Member
No, your remark doesn't deserve thoughtful discussion. Next time you try to raise a point, make sure your statement is in good taste.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
While using the Connecticut shootings as a touchstone might be what's getting you a bunch of blowback, the theme you're trying to illuminate is pretty much straight up stated by Levitt in his last words. It's pretty easy to extrapolate what he's saying about Sid to troubled kids in general, especially considering how Sid is portrayed in the movie.
edit: Oh lord.
Harry Potter
Banned
How the fuck is there a Newton discussion in the Looper thread...
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Yeah, I admit I was riled up. Was watching this with my dad, and he would not shut up about how he would kill the kid instantly. It really bugged me because I've suffered through similar mental issues when I was little, having problems controlling my actions and being a bit violent, and the fact my dad was basically saying kids with bad behavior deserve to be shot really pissed me off.
Dysfunctional home-life and unchecked mental issues which lead to horrific crimes. I'm not BLAMING the film, I'm saying that the film offers up an interesting look at how we deal with troubled kids, and that is extremely important in the wake of Newton. And I feel that viewing Bruce Willis as justified is a trap the director set...it's clearly meant to upset those like my father who have grown up seeing Bruce Willis in the role of morally-just hero. Even when Bruce takes down the Loopers in the film, it's played up as a massacre without any redeeming qualities. He's covered in blood.
Because Sid is more or less equivalent to kids like Adam Lanza.
Dysfunctional home-life and unchecked mental issues which lead to horrific crimes. I'm not BLAMING the film, I'm saying that the film offers up an interesting look at how we deal with troubled kids, and that is extremely important in the wake of Newton. And I feel that viewing Bruce Willis as justified is a trap the director set...it's clearly meant to upset those like my father who have grown up seeing Bruce Willis in the role of morally-just hero. Even when Bruce takes down the Loopers in the film, it's played up as a massacre without any redeeming qualities. He's covered in blood.
shadowsdarknes
Member
So you would agree that Old Joe's plot against the future Rainmaker for revenge is indeed selfish even though his justification for murdering children is to prevent the same suffering and oppression from reoccurring?
Edit: The only way I see the loop closing is by murdering the Rainmaker before he becomes the Rainmaker because
Damn..
Anyway it's obvious that the Bruce Willis character is meant to show him still acting as a man-child (despite the remarks in the diner, before in the movie) and going for the more egoistical and simple solution to his problems.
At the same time your connection makes no sense, since we're talking about a movie (and people can get more or less invested in the characters, rooting for the bad guy, even) and we're talking about a kid that is not only troubled, but has the power to destroy a lot of shit with his mind, so i don't really know how you've come to that bullshit conclusion, before.
adamsappel
Member
They didn't reveal the woman/child sub-plot because it was a twist in the story. I was really surprised when Bruce Willis actually ended up killing the kids, I thought that was a brave choice he made as a movie star to portray that role. I'm sure he could have insisted it be changed. You don't seem to care about all the other fictional people killed in the film, though. The kid is nicknamed the Rainmaker, because he makes people freakin' explode. He's not just any li'l kid.
Sounds like you are transferring some personal issues onto the rest of us. Though, to be fair, I would kill Hitler in his crib (although I wouldn't kill 3 kids on the chance he was one of them). Then again, Baby Possible-Hitler never caused the death of my wife, either.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
That's not really a "popcorn gif" reaction. :/
Many kids have behavioral issues when they are young. I luckily grew out of it, but I easily could have retained those issues had I grown up in a bad environment. The fact that I had caring parents prevented that, and I was disgusted with my dad since I felt he should understand what Sid's mother was going through.
Yes, I definitely think he was being selfish.
And like I said, the movie NEVER shows the Rainmaker AT ALL. We only hear about his crimes from two men. And the people he kills, bar the wife who the movie seems to imply was an accident, are all assassins themselves. The main reason Bruce Willis wanted to kill kid-Rainmaker was because he wanted to see his wife again. I don't think he was out to save the world.
All the other people who we see killed are literally assassins who kill other people for a living. And I even pointed out how the scene where Bruce Willis kills all the Loopers is played up as violent and savage. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this remark though...I DON'T think there's a big issue in America regarding the killing of trained assassins. There is a problem when it comes to how we handle troubled youth, which is why I'm commenting on it.
Simple.
An unstable kid with "psychic powers" is meant to be a metaphor for unstable kids with access to real-life weapons such as guns. J.G.L. even mentions the whole "he gave me a gun" phrase multiple times, and there's clearly a theme about the danger of gun violence in society throughout the film. Guns are everywhere, and people basically throw them around without consequences. If Sid didn't have psychic powers, it wouldn't matter...he'd still have access to the guns his mother kept in the house. And that's what happens in real life.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
The question Johnson seems to be posing is "What if you didn't HAVE to kill Hitler. What if you could just alter his future so he doesn't suck so bad at art and ends up just becoming another douchebag, high on paint fumes, getting drunk too much and selling a few paintings."
Willis never considers this option. Levitt only sees the loop just before Willis is about to start it again. At that point he decides to try the alternative.
Harry Potter
Banned
Emily Blunt was looking good. She's really good at ditching the accent.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Unless you can disprove anything said about the Rainmaker with actual evidence from dialogue, imagery, symbolism, etc. then your point is irrelevant. Also, Old Joe wouldn't get to see his wife again because she is a child in the year he returns to. I won't argue that revenge is Old Joe's primary motive for killing the Rainmaker as a child, but why does his motive matter if it rids the future from terrorism and evil?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
According to his dialog, the extent of his terrorism/evil is that he's closing all the loops in the criminal organizations he's assumed control of.
It's not too dissimilar from, say, Daredevil taking control of Kingpin's operations. Doesn't make Daredevil a supervillain.
edit: Wait.. there was a line about him monitoring/rounding up vagrants. Although it was never stated what he was DOING with them. I might be remembering that wrong, though.
shadowsdarknes
Member
True. I might need to watch it again. My belief was that he becomes essentially a tyrant by the movie's end.
chicko1983
Member
Saw the film, enjoyed it a lot.
The kid was scary and the story was great, IMO.
Has there been any word on a sequel?
I would like to see the future world and time travel films are generally pretty easy to tie in a sequel somewhere.
The kid was scary and the story was great, IMO.
Has there been any word on a sequel?
I would like to see the future world and time travel films are generally pretty easy to tie in a sequel somewhere.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
The Rainmaker is a fictional character though, the movie ESTABLISHES the extent of his villainy through dialogue alone. I'm not sure why I'm being asked for proof when I believe the he-said-she-said nature of the Rainmaker is a purposeful element to establish his moral ambiguity.
What we do see, however, is a world that's rampant with crime, poverty, guns, and sex. And that's before the Rainmaker comes to power. There's nothing to "corrupt", everything in 2044 already is pretty shitty. I don't believe the Rainmaker made the world worse, he simply cleaned up the criminal underworld and took control of it...I believe, though, that he probably went beyond that and went mad with power given his temper as a child, of course. But I don't think he was necessarily a pure-evil individual who had to be stopped at all cost.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
I really don't think I am, everything I've stated is clearly there...the movie goes out of its way to establish 2044 is a mess, all the characters have moral ambiguity to them, there's a theme regarding the cycle of violence, etc.
In fact the movie is pretty head-on in its themes, bar the confusing time-travel stuff (which the movie points out), I don't understand why people aren't even responding with well-founded criticism of my reading.
adamsappel
Member
Why is the Rainmaker called that?
you are.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
While it's possible, I caught a lot of the same stuff in the subtext (hell, the text) on my viewing as well , and I didn't have the same personal history this guy is offering up to the void here on the internet.
adamsappel said:
presumably because he explodes his victims? That's my best guess - it wasn't explicitly stated.
It's not your reading of the film's message i have an issue with, but your conclusions on (part of) its audience.
Realize that not everyone may have came to your same conclusion and, therefore, not everyone may see a direct connection between what's been proposed in the movie and its (supposed) deeper sociological meaning.
What is proposed in the movie, at face value, is one kid with devastating mental powers and a bad temper that is known to cause all sorts of crazy shit in the future, and a desperate old dude with nothing to lose, trying to fix things (the wrong way).
With this elements in mind is not completely absurd (even since we're talking about a movie, not a real situation) to end up siding with Bruce Willis without, at the same time, wanting to go around gunning down all kids with mental problems irl.
I think it's disingenuous to link the two elements with a bridge that is merely your interpretation of the movie, basically.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
However, I think it's equally as apparent that Johnson, via his direction - doesn't really want you to fully get behind Willis' course of action, either. The film wants to reside inside a gray area where you have to toss around the idea of whether killing the kid IS the best choice, or whether Levitt gambled correctly in that the actions out there on the farm, plus his mother not catching a bullet herself, might change the outcome to the better.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
The movie's pretty on the nose in places, to be honest.
For example, in the beginning, JGL saves his own ass (and money) in exchange for Seth.
In the climax, he literally steps over a piece of gold and begins to shoot literally at himself to protect his new found friends.
Personally i don't think the film stays that gray in the end.
As i said previously, Willis rebukes Levitt for acting like a selfish child, not realizing that his actions are in a similar way driven by mindless and impulsive egoistical childishness, he wants to
kill the rainmaker
Levitt breaking the loop, with a selfless act and killing himself
I think the film took a position pretty clearly, siding with the fact that the kid indeed has a chance at not being a piece of shit growing up, given a proper ambient to grow in.
And really you could say that about anything.
I think it's funny when people says to go back in time to kill baby Hitler, when really it wouldn't take that much to alter history, the wrong side of the nurturing process can fuck up a person pretty bad and viceversa.
Isn't the ending hinting at young Joe sacrificing himself to prevent Cid from turning into the Rainmaker?
Event A - Rainmaker's handlers killing old Joe's wife.
Event B - Old Joe going back to kill Rainmaker to prevent the death of his wife.
Event C - Sara is either killed by old Joe or saved by young Joe.
Event C will never happen without event A happening first. In event A Cid is already the Rainmaker, so why would event C change anything?
Event A - Rainmaker's handlers killing old Joe's wife.
Event B - Old Joe going back to kill Rainmaker to prevent the death of his wife.
Event C - Sara is either killed by old Joe or saved by young Joe.
Event C will never happen without event A happening first. In event A Cid is already the Rainmaker, so why would event C change anything?
jediyoshi
Member
I guess this means I have to go watch it now
Yes, don't fall in the Beaulieu trap
While I think the way Birdie brought up Newtown was not exactly graceful, I hate to see a dogpile and I don't think making that connection is all that wrong. Cid IS representative of how being overly reactionary to children with mental health issues has long-term consequences.
But I do not think we are at all supposed to think that Willis' Joe is selfless or that his quest is noble. And I don't think many people in here thought that at all, despite what Birdie's saying. The reaction was pretty solidly "that guys is a childish monster". Bruce doesn't act because he wants to make the world a better place. He acts because he's a whiny reactionary selfish baby.
So the connection is a stretch, and I think Looper's violence isn't as problematic as you think. And placing a bunch of blame on the audience for rooting for Bruce when I'm not even certain that happened much in the first place isn't constructive
I would ask someone to "suffer" through that because film crit hulk is one of the better film writers on the internet at the moment
But I do not think we are at all supposed to think that Willis' Joe is selfless or that his quest is noble. And I don't think many people in here thought that at all, despite what Birdie's saying. The reaction was pretty solidly "that guys is a childish monster". Bruce doesn't act because he wants to make the world a better place. He acts because he's a whiny reactionary selfish baby.
So the connection is a stretch, and I think Looper's violence isn't as problematic as you think. And placing a bunch of blame on the audience for rooting for Bruce when I'm not even certain that happened much in the first place isn't constructive
Saying "your defense is as solid blah blah" without actually providing a reason why is a non-argument
I would ask someone to "suffer" through that because film crit hulk is one of the better film writers on the internet at the moment
Because events occur in repeating loops. At the end young joe severs the repetition and the past is changed so the future shifts. We don't see what that new future is but now that Joe's gone there shouldn't be any looping people that would re-alter the past and prevent Cid from growing up good. So time just continues forward
Trent Strong
Banned
The kid isn't a "troubled child", he killed his aunt. He's a murderer.
But who closed Seth's loop in the current timeline?
It was unintentional, wasn't it?
He's not a murderer. His aunt's death did not involve malice or forethought.
hm I don't know off the top of my head, been a while since I've seen it.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
It was an accident.
Like I said, Psychic Powers don't exist in real life...it's akin to a child playing with his family's gun and shooting his aunt on accident. Would you call a kid a murderer in that situation?
There was actually a really thought-provoking article posted on here a few weeks ago post-Connecticut involving a mom sharing her experiences with raising a troubled child. It was a really upsetting read, and it was extremely similar to what occurred in the film minus the Psychic Powers, with the mom describing how she and her other kids literally had a safe area to hide in when the one kid got upset.
The order of things is broken. In the initial loop (or the first events) there was a Rainmaker before the events in the field.
Finally saw this last night. Absolutely loved it despite not being what I expected. Very on the nose -
.
A few phenomenal scenes - the
. One very visceral and one very understated.
Loved that the Looper paid off. The time travel is almost a distractor from the actual coming of age story.
Also, Emily Blunt totally disappeared in that role. Phenomenal.
blood on the silver, stepping over gold
A few phenomenal scenes - the
Dano torture sequence, Dillahunt asking for water, creepy kid, Bruce's first kill, Growing up
Loved that the Looper paid off. The time travel is almost a distractor from the actual coming of age story.
Also, Emily Blunt totally disappeared in that role. Phenomenal.
The fuck? I gave the movie a chance, I went into it with no hype or preconceived notions. There are so many plot holes in this movie and the wife thing is one of the biggest offenders. Your defense doesn't make a lick of sense. They already shot and murdered someone and had one dead body, what the fuck difference would it have made to put a bullet in Bruce's head and leave two bodies there when they set the house on fire? Can you answer that question at all? It's fucking dumb. Aside from the whole fact that if they had a god damn time machine that's capable of shooting a person into the past at specific location at a specific time why even bother having Loopers? Send them into the middle of a desert, ocean or arctic circle. There's no way someone would survive that shit.
Yeah, that was a glaring issue as well. As soon as they started talking the entire diner cleared out and once the shooting started you didn't see or hear anyone freaking out. Apparently all the patrons and employees decided to go into the back or the bathroom during that sequence of events.
sorry, this is just demonstrating you don't know what a plot hole is. a plot hole is not "why don't they drop someone in the ocean". a plot hole is when there's a gap in the presented storyline that prevents the plot or characterization from working. that's not what the ocean alternative is.
No, dropping them in the ocean just makes no sense because 1) looping is about certainty and knowing someone is dead for sure, an eternal practice of the mob, sending someone to Antarctica doesn't accomplish that 2) if there wasn't looping there would be no movie. conflict in stories is nearly always easily solvable. that you can find a "more logical" solution doesn't prove that the text in its current state is lackluster. Saying "they could have just not had the movie!" is like watching Shakespeare and saying "if these people just stopped and talked to each other blandly for 3 minutes this would all be over! what a shit writer"
A longer version of that is in the article I already linked.
As for the wife: so one henchman accidentally murders one person. You have one more person to get rid of. Your options are: 1) kill yet another person in the present timeline, where murder is rigidly policed and conviction is assured, thereby fully implicating an entire group of people and linking it all concretely to the mob 2) use a kill confirmation technology you already have and were already going to use so there's less evidence. Why would you NOT decrease the amount of evidence and make the tie to the mob as slight as possible?
And on top of all this is the problem that non-plot holes are so many people's only problem with Looper. I can't imagine coming out of any movie and thinking only about the basic progression of events. like, there are thematic and emotional ideas on screen.
Liquidsnake
Banned
So I watched this on Saturday finally. It was pretty good. JGL is close to being on another level man.
I think that from the previews we expected another shut off your brain summer flick, and everyone was surprised when we got a little more than that.
I loved watching JGL mimic Bruce, with the sour face look.
Why did JGL have extensive make up though? Was it to look more like a younger Willis?
It didn't make sense to me?
Anyone?
I think that from the previews we expected another shut off your brain summer flick, and everyone was surprised when we got a little more than that.
I loved watching JGL mimic Bruce, with the sour face look.
Why did JGL have extensive make up though? Was it to look more like a younger Willis?
It didn't make sense to me?
Anyone?
shadowsdarknes
Member
Did you follow the movie closely at all? Killing someone and getting away with murder is impossible in the fictional future established in Joe's monologue. Its never explained why its impossible, it just is. Therefore, anyones imagination of why its impossible is valid. In fact, if Joe had given an explanation why its impossible would be bad writing because A) he isn't from the future, and B) its inconsistent with the character development of both Joe and Old Joe.
Come up with your own explanation if necessary. However, saying, "why not dispose of bodies in the desert, ocean, or arctic circle," is absolutely invalid. There isn't anything wrong with the narrative, or any glaring plot holes. You may have a problem with the setting and fictional universe of Looper, but that doesn't discredit its story in anyway.
If you need any clarifications on anything Looper, simply ask. I find it though provoking and as a result, have deeply analyzed its themes, and common complaints of its story. My conclusion: its tightly written. In fact, Looper is the most tightly written time travel movie I've ever seen. I would be more than happy to help you understand the story if you want some insight.
Okay, so. I liked Looper quite a bit (I had no problems with the makeup personally, whatever). I thought both leads were great and the TK stuff didn't really detract from the thought experiment. Also thought it had some very memorable scenes and was quite well-edited.
I also had no real problems with most of the things I'm seeing mentioned as "plot holes," like killing the wife or "why didn't he just kill the kid" or other little details of plot minutiae that could have gone one way or another without dramatically affecting the narrative.
However, having just finally seen Primer, and having been unable to stop thinking about causation and paradoxes since, I'm now somewhat disturbed by the actual depiction of time travel as seen at the end of this film. If you are not interested by the philosophy and mechanics of tme travel just move along as you'll hate this post.
First- and I should stress I have no issue with this by itself- the explanation of how time travel works in this movie is so bare as to be basically nonexistant. This isn't a bad thing- as some have noted, it's not even ultimately that the movie is about time travel at all, despite appearing to be. However, based on what we are shown, we can glean a few things about the mechanics of time travel in the Looper universe:
1) Someone can be sent back in time instantly, to a very precise moment and physical location, through the use of a device
2) Time travel is used solely to affect the outcome of the "present" or "future" depending on your perspective- namely, to kill someone and get rid of the body in a completely undetectable way. That is, there seems to be little evidence of time travel being used to say, purposefully go back and plagiarize an invention from the future to become rich in the past- or at least it's outside the scope of the film.
Under normal circumstances, the Loopers have no causal influence on the past whatsoever, as long as they perform their assassinations correctly. They kill and incinerate the body of someone who has not yet been murdered in their present, and thus there is no suspicion nor are any paradoxes created.
3) Sending someone back in time typically has them appear in the past on the same timeline they were sent back from. It does not have the effect of creating a new timeline necessarily. As long is the loop is eventually closed (the older version being sent back in time killed without acting causally on the past), the timeline does not branch except in maybe very minor ways.
4) Since they exist simultaneously in the same timeline, causal influence on the younger version of a character directly impacts the older version. From a observer looking at the entire timeline, chopping off the arm of the younger version does not create a new timeline but alters the existing timeline in a way that produces the same eventual outcome in the older version (suddenly, no arm).
This is more or less "safe" from a causation standpoint in this universe as it is shown that it's actually used as a technique to trick running Loops into showing up somewhere and getting killed.
5) Exerting this influence and altering the timeline can affect undesired or unrelated events through the butterfly effect but the timeline remains relatively stable. This is depicted from Bruce Willis' perspective as feeling like his memories are becoming corrupted or fading. The major events in his life still occurred/willl occur, but their probability of occurring is being tampered with.
6) Major causal influence exerted in the past can result in the creation of/branching to a new timeline with completely new events and outcomes.
In my mind, Looper is very clearly trying to demonstrate to the audience that there is a "prime" timeline. It's the first one we see; the one where, when Bruce Willis is sent back, JGL hesitates, and he goes on the run, setting the stage for the film's climax at the farm with the future Rainmaker. We believe this to be the prime timeline because the story is presented as JGL, and the audience, experiencing this for the first time- while the plot involves time travel, the narrative of the film is at least presented as quite linear.
But a key note: this Old Joe came from an alternate timeline- the one where he closed his loop successfully as a young man and got married. He is now intruding on the prime timeline and attempting to exert causal influence on the past by killing the children that could eventually result in his wife's death. He isn't thinking this through, of course; succeeding in his mission is likely to have so much causal impact as to create a new timeline, and on this new one it's possible he'd never have even met his wife, could have died in a random car accident ten years later, along with numerous paradoxes generated, etc., endless permutations of course- but as a function of the plot of the movie, that's fine- he's just not thinking clearly because he's distraught.
Here's where we really do run into trouble.
If you haven't seen Primer, I'm spoiling a ton of stuff you won't want to know here so don't highlight.
One of the goals of the way time time travel is depicted in Primer is to demonstrated that the concept of a prime timeline is a little bit absurd. Instead, any time time travel is used it creates a new timeline by definition, and some timelines are "primer" than others- because from the frame of reference of the person time traveling, the most recent (or earliest, depending on your frame of reference... yes, we're already deep into wtf territory) timeline upon which you can exert causal influence is the only one that matters to you. Essentially, your only hope in having control over the future is to take causative action in the "primest" timeline you're aware of (though, as featured heavily in that film of course, this opens infinite doors with regard to deception if more than one person can use the technology).
There's no such thing as a "closed loop" in the Primer-style of time-travel; instead, there are many loops that "terminate" by leading perpetually into a new timeline. Essentially, the "original" or "older" version of someone- the Old Joe equivalent, the person who wants to go back in time- ceases to exist on the original timeline by definition, and is a new entity, with causal influence, existing on a new timeline which includes the "younger" version of himself as well.
It's confusing, but if you imagine yourself doing it and following the process through, it's easy to understand how different this is from what is shown in Looper. The idea that you could tattoo something to the younger version and have it show up on the older version of one of the characters in Primer is ridiculous, because the older version would never have undergone the tattooing in the first place. They can coexist simultaneously and even interact, and while paradoxes and the butterfly effect are still huge issues, their potential for collapsing the future is highly limited. The "older" version could even theoretically kill the "younger" version, not get in the box, and just continue on living out his days, masquerading as the original on that timeline (which would of course be changed, but still intact).
There's no such thing as a "closed loop" in the Primer-style of time-travel; instead, there are many loops that "terminate" by leading perpetually into a new timeline. Essentially, the "original" or "older" version of someone- the Old Joe equivalent, the person who wants to go back in time- ceases to exist on the original timeline by definition, and is a new entity, with causal influence, existing on a new timeline which includes the "younger" version of himself as well.
It's confusing, but if you imagine yourself doing it and following the process through, it's easy to understand how different this is from what is shown in Looper. The idea that you could tattoo something to the younger version and have it show up on the older version of one of the characters in Primer is ridiculous, because the older version would never have undergone the tattooing in the first place. They can coexist simultaneously and even interact, and while paradoxes and the butterfly effect are still huge issues, their potential for collapsing the future is highly limited. The "older" version could even theoretically kill the "younger" version, not get in the box, and just continue on living out his days, masquerading as the original on that timeline (which would of course be changed, but still intact).
Looper eschews all of these issues by, without spelling it out at all, demonstrating that you can just send someone from any timeline through time and space back to a specific point in the prime timeline. When you cut the "prime" Young Joe, all potential Old Joes from all potential timelines get the same cut. This is important to the plot because it ensures that Young Joe, not just the Old Joe with future knowledge, can influence the events of potential futures that he doesn't even necessarily know about.
I mention all of this and the differences between the mechanics of time travel in the two films because, while Primer's depiction is far more confusing, it seems to be easier to stick to the rules it lays out for how going into the past might actually operate. Even if some of the rules themselves seem silly, I didn't feel like Looper broke any of its own rules- until the climax.
JGL killed himself to undo the closed loop that resulted in the Rainmaker perpetually growing up angry and jaded and eventually resulting in the death of his wife. That's fine- the in-universe rules make it clear that the prime version of Young Joe killing himself would erase all potential versions of Old Joe including the one terrorizing Emily Blunt and the kid. Thus, they'd reasonably be safe and the kid wouldn't grow up to be the Rainmaker- a brand new, drastically altered timeline.
The ultimate problem is that the rules of time travel Looper sticks to would indicate that, at the moment of his death, the entire world should have been altered to reflect the shift to the new timeline. JGL's causal action was so great that an infinite number of potential timelines (including the one this Old Joe came from) were immediately destroyed. If any of you have seen the three-part South Park episode "Go God Go," when Cartman can't wait for the Wii and freezes himself and wakes up into the future: the effect when something was changed in the past and the future environment was instantly radically altered- that's what should have happened for the prime timeline in Looper. Think of it as the "amputation effect" at its logical extreme. Emily Blunt and the kid should have, in this new prime timeline according to the rules presented, have had vague, fading memories of both young and old Joe, but eventually not really be able to remember who they were, and the circumstances of many recent past events should have been "undone" (more accurately, they'd never have occurred on this new prime timeline).
It appears that this isn't what happens at all. The mess in the field and overturned truck and so on are still there after both Joes disappear. One assumes that the two children Old Joe killed are still dead, and that Emily Blunt and the kid will remember Young Joe's noble sacrifice. This just doesn't make any sense within the rules of the universe. Not only will the Old Joe that did all this damage now never travel back in time to do so, neither he nor any potential Old Joe will ever even exist in this new timeline. They way it's presented in-movie results in immeasurable new paradoxes, and this I do consider to be a plot hole. The concept of "breaking the loop" is sound; the manner in which this apparently occurs with regard to Joe doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
I still liked the movie quite a bit and more than anything else I guess this should be taken as even more "you shouldn't pay attention to the time travel!!!" advice. In any event it was interesting to think about and caused me to ultimately have more respect for Primer in tackling time travel from a pratical standpoint. They're completely different movies and I actually liked both more when considering them in light of one another.
No it doesn't. We see all the loops being closed due to the Rainmaker. We see firsthand the Rainmaker's men take old Joe and kill his wife, burning down his home to cover their tracks. If you pay really close attention you'll notice a toy on the floor of Cid's room that looks exactly like the Rainmaker's men that come for old Joe, with the same outfit and hat, likely where he got the idea for their uniforms. If you pay attention to old Joe flashbacks (flashforwards?) you'll see a news report on TV showing a completely decimated city with a bunch of Chinese lettering and "RAINMAKER" scrolling by along the bottom.
- Status