LOOPER -- new, original scifi from Rian Johnson

Ever since Inception I've always felt like Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the next big action star. Big fan of him. Glad he's doing a film like this.

Also seems to be an original script in Hollywood, wow... looks very cool.
 
Also of note, while this is Rian Johnson's film through and through, Shane Carruth was involved in the production. It is his first filmmaking work since his 2004 debut film, "Primer".
 
how is this original, time travel, older self. not only is it used to death, it's been used in tv, comics, movies, maybe even music videos. just replace looper with cop or scientist or ghost or father or brother or husban.

and it resembles the 'in time' future, oh they are mobs, they have to wear the classic mob clothing and the future is soooo retro. and put plot devices and plot holes in the trailer. and voice over narration cuz it would be a difficult sci-fi plot to follow without narration. and they can't explain what is happening. and they don't have a second act.

and add illogical character behavior until we reach the 3rd act after that useless action sequence when they finally join forces and discover that there is no villain. and now they have to deal with the older character.


not only is the story not original, the cast is from other movies its " "inspired by" ".
 
Last edited:
You should really relax. You know practically nothing about the film, and you've jumped to a ton of ridiculous conclusions. It's an original story, whether you like it or not, and it doesn't look like "In Time" or resemble any aspect of that film in any way. The cast isn't from any similar film that I'm aware of, and there are no "plot holes" in the teaser, either.
 
other than the stuff that you did not see in the clip.


how about we bet on the story, and see if my ridiculous conclusions don't pan out (this bet will involve an ridiculous immature prank that you have to perform and post the clip on YouTube for everyone to see for at least one week or your username on this forum be changed to something ridiculous)
 
Whoa, sounds like you hate this film from the get go. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I just really don't agree with it.

What is 'original' these days? There's no such thing as an original story if you look for something with themes or ideas that have NEVER been touched before. This is because it's impossible. I forgot who mapped it out, but it's been said there are only about 13 stories out there that can be done? That's because without certain elements or ideas there's no development, there's no story arcs, and there's no way to get from the beginning to the end.

With that said, if we explore the sci-fi genre... yes time travel has been done before, but what hasn't? In my opinion time travel is one of those few sci-fi subjects that rarely gets touched upon. Then on top of that, name one film that is just like this one? Sure some elements here or there resemble other films or stories, but this isn't a blatant rip-off of anything off the top of my head.

The closest thing is maybe... terminator? Machine gets sent back to kill a kid/mother. Yes assassination, yes time travel, but as far as I'm concerned that's where the similarities end. Not to mention that's one film. When you take a look at all the other films hollywood comes out with, most of the films look like carbon copies of at least 20 other films. This one doesn't feel like it.

I've written so many scripts, all 'original' never basing it off of anything. However no matter what I can't help but have it resemble a few films here or there. Similar themes, ideas, etc. This is because when we 'create' something, it comes from influences, it works off of past works. The way stories, songs, ideas, art, etc. develops is by working off of past works and ideas. That's how we get to where we are. Ideas don't just pop out of thin air, they come from other sources.

As for plot holes... how are you supposed to judge a movie's plot holes from a trailer that reveals very little? What support do you have for that aside from the trailer not revealing certain aspects of the story? Why does it need to reveal the second act, all it needs to do is draw people in from the hook, which is 'what would you do if you had to kill your future self?' That's really giving the film absolutely no chance whatsoever. It's taking judging a book by it's cover to an extreme. How about you judge it once it's out and you actually see it?
 
after seeing the thread, went to imdb, there is a video/interview where the "writer/director" describes the film as either 'dark' or 'grim' and 'looks like twelve monkeys'. now that's the writer of the film himself.

now there is the actual footage from the clip and the writer himself describing the film. what more do you need. why are you in denial.


i think it's the first or second interview (there was only about 4 small clips so it's not hard to find).
 
of course i'll make a decision whether or not it's a must see in the theater from the trailer. what else is there.
but after this clip, i'll wait to see the reviews of this movie before deciding if it's a rental or not.
 
At least it doesn't look as godawful as Rear Window...
Click to expand...

i don't think i talked about the cinematography of rear window. your post was not very mature, as well as off base.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amr Rahmy said:
after seeing the thread, went to imdb, there is a video/interview where the "writer/director" describes the film as either 'dark' or 'grim' and 'looks like twelve monkeys'. now that's the writer of the film himself.

now there is the actual footage from the clip and the writer himself describing the film. what more do you need. why are you in denial.


i think it's the first or second interview (there was only about 4 small clips so it's not hard to find).
Click to expand...

What exactly am I in denial of? Why are you so quick to judge films and people?

Looking like 'twelve monkeys' doesn't blatantly give away that it's a carbon copy of 'twelve monkeys.' Maybe there's some influence, but I don't see it in the trailer.
 
Gentlemen:

Please clean up the language, and move completely away from the personal comments.

Please discuss the film, and not each other.

thank you.
 
i think it was 26 themes and you can have original stories(the themes don't include any details). but repackaged goods are not original. and this is not original.

i did not say resemble 'another film', it's all over the place cloning without a clear direction(and that's just the small clip), and it will not have a balanced story structure because of it.

if the writer himself described the movie as looks like another movie, you cannot call it original.

resemble would be something like farscape, star hunter, andromeda, firefly, (which may by inspired by other space sci-fi, but are original). one or two are original, the rest are just clones. (it's farscape by the way).
 
Sorry, if Shane Carruth is involved I've got faith that it's not only balanced, but written from the perspective of someone who's already proven he can write REAL Sci-Fi without having to rely on the gimmicks of visual effects, named actors, large set pieces, hell set design in general.

I'm talking about Shane Carruth.

Nothing's TRULY original at the base, but presentation changes the whole and yes, it can be considered original if the presentation feels/seems/is/comes off as new and not yet explored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top