• craftyindividual@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      27 days ago

      To clarify, do you mean it wouldn’t make sense that his body part would dissapear as they were severed in an alternative past. Or do you mean it doesn’t belong on the plot/add to the story?

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        Not Op, but…

        Spoiler for the torture scene in Looper

        At the start of that scene, they’re inflicting harm that would still allow the dude to do everything he’s done so far, just scarred. And the scars are appearing on his future self. It makes a kind of weird sense, if we stretch our imagination.

        But they cross well past anything reasonable into injuries that would have just made anyone’s past self decide to retire and hide out in the woods in Florida.

        It made no sense at all by the end, that his future self was somehow still working for them.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 days ago

      The whole Looper premise doesn’t make sense.

      Criminals in the future send people back in time to get whacked. If you get an abnormally large payout, that means you whacked your future self and are now retired.

      Why have someone kill themselves with a large payoff? Why retire them? If they’re retired in the future, why have them killed?

      You have present day hitmen, A, B, and C. Future victims, a, b, and c.

      A -> a, B -> b, C -> c results in stupid large payouts and retired killers.

      A -> b, B -> c, C -> a has normal payoffs and no retirements.

      Still doesn’t explain why you wanted a, b, and c dead in the first place.

      Looper is a great LOOKING movie, those shotguns were on point! Just don’t go thinking about it for more than 5 minutes.

      • pastermil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        27 days ago

        Their concept of time travel is definitely unorthodox compared to other time travel movies. One of the main characters literally said not to think too much about it.

        Everything else was pretty much explained by the protag.

        He did mentioned that his line of work doesn’t attract forward thinking people. This is quite realistic, I mean, have you seen how a lot of people (and companies) sacrificed long term benefits for short ter ones? It’s also posible that they think they can beat that system.

        Their future selves are killed to tie up loose ends. The change in power dynamic with Rainmaker’s takeover definitely plays a role. This is actually a common trope in crime dramas (and probably also in real world).

        It definitely is not a perfect movie, but it’s a damn good one to me. I definitely think Joseph-Gorden Lewitt and Emily Blunt lack chemistry, and the sex scene was forced, but I guess it’s somewhat realistic someone living in a farm out of nowhere all by themselves can get so horny…

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        I didn’t like that movie, but do people really analyse movies like this as their watching them? I don’t usually unless I’m really bored, or afterwards if I really liked it.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        The part that pisses me off. “We can’t kill people in the future because the forensics are too good.” Then armed men come for him in the future. They can’t kill him or they’ll get caught, why are the guns a threat?