The Film Thread

[mjmooney]

OK, just watched Shame. Hmmmm.

Superbly filmed, but pretty deeply depressing.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The bit where the one guy from the future is slowly losing all his bodyparts because they're surgically removing parts of him in the present.

Removing all his limbs would vastly change everything that happens in his life thereafter. He'd never find himself in a position to escape if he was just basically a pillow.

Doesn't make any sense.

Hm, I thought it made sense after we saw the JGL becoming Bruce Willis timeline.

The idea is that Loops are infinite, and when they are **** with different timelines branches off.

So Paul Dano would normally sign up as a looper, grow up, get sent back and get killed by himself and repeat.

Except in the timeline we see at the start of the film (before JGL falls onto the car) Dano chickens out and his older self **** off and a new timeline branches off.

In this timeline the two are connected by some rules that are never fully explained, but whatever. So he loses his limbs and his older self disintegrates. This has ramifications further on, as he will forever have no limbs, but the older Dano that came back initially is not limbless because he existed before the events of the film took place.

That's my understanding of it anyway. BTTF time travel is very linear, wherein if you **** with the past it will effect the future you will go back to. But Looper is closer to parallel universes and the like.

[Ghost]

While I'm a fan of the Lord of the Rings books and have read most of the expanded universe stuff (Hobbit, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc) I was also a big fan of Jackson's adaptations. And that's what it was - an adaptation.

He decided to keep certain stuff, cut certain stuff and embellish on certain stuff to deliver what he believed to be a faithful telling of the story that kept with the spirit of the books.

In my mind, he did that extremely well.

Some sequences might have been a bit over the top but for the most part I believe that the movies were a great adaptation of the novels.

[Stevo985]

If you want to watch a mindfuck of a time travel movie then watch Primer .

Seen it. It's incredible.

[Stevo985]

Hm, I thought it made sense after we saw the JGL becoming Bruce Willis timeline.

The idea is that Loops are infinite, and when they are **** with different timelines branches off.

So Paul Dano would normally sign up as a looper, grow up, get sent back and get killed by himself and repeat.

Except in the timeline we see at the start of the film (before JGL falls onto the car) Dano chickens out and his older self **** off and a new timeline branches off.

In this timeline the two are connected by some rules that are never fully explained, but whatever. So he loses his limbs and his older self disintegrates. This has ramifications further on, as he will forever have no limbs, but the older Dano that came back initially is not limbless because he existed before the events of the film took place.

That's my understanding of it anyway. BTTF time travel is very linear, wherein if you **** with the past it will effect the future you will go back to. But Looper is closer to parallel universes and the like.

But if the future guy existed before the events of the film took place, why do his limbs fall off?

To me either you remain unaffected, in which case cutting body parts off would have no effect, or you are affected, and stuff that happens to the present self affects future self.

Otherwise, JGL killing himself wouldn't have killed Bruce Willis.

Oh and the BTTF plot hole centres around the dog

[Stevo985]

FInally seeing Skyfall tonight. Can't wait.

[AVFCforever1991]

People were saying its the Best Bond Ever, I completely disagree..

Its a good Film, but not the best.

[Stevo985]

Not really surprising that it's been hyped as that, and not really surprising that it's not quite living up to it in reality.

But I love Craig's Bond. I still loved QoS even though it wasn't that great.

All I'm hoping for is better than QoS and I'll be happy.

Very excited for it.

[AVFCforever1991]

Not really surprising that it's been hyped as that, and not really surprising that it's not quite living up to it in reality.

But I love Craig's Bond. I still loved QoS even though it wasn't that great.

All I'm hoping for is better than QoS and I'll be happy.

Very excited for it.

Its better than QoS, so you should enjoy it

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

But if the future guy existed before the events of the film took place, why do his limbs fall off?

To me either you remain unaffected, in which case cutting body parts off would have no effect, or you are affected, and stuff that happens to the present self affects future self.

Otherwise, JGL killing himself wouldn't have killed Bruce Willis.

My understanding is that t should work like this

T1 = Seth 1 Born---Becomes Looper---30 years pass and sent back

/

T2= Seth 2 born---Looper-Kills Seth 1---30 years pass---sent back

/

T3=S3 born---Looper, Kills S2---30 years pass, sent back.

This repeats an infinite number of times if all goes well, except (as we see with Old Joe) sometimes a person finds some meaning in life and decides to do something about the state of the world and so on.

So when S1 (the old guy in the film) is sent back, he isn't sent back within his own timeline, he exists in another (T2) in which he shares a bond with his ohter self (S2) that isn't fully explained in the film. Thus what happens to S2 effects S1. Similar to how Young Joe carves something in his arm and it pops up on Old Joes arm in that timeline, yet didn't appear on his arm in his own timeline (when he is the asian gangster with silly hair).

So the characters exist independently of eachother within their own timelines, and only when the two meet in the same timeline do things get weird.

Edit: formatting is off it seems, just imagine a line between two timelines joining 'sent back' and 'kills'.

[Stevo985]

Hmmm, that's interesting.

I'm still not convinced. But sufficiently confused to think you might be right

[Chindie]

While I'm a fan of the Lord of the Rings books and have read most of the expanded universe stuff (Hobbit, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, etc) I was also a big fan of Jackson's adaptations. And that's what it was - an adaptation.

He decided to keep certain stuff, cut certain stuff and embellish on certain stuff to deliver what he believed to be a faithful telling of the story that kept with the spirit of the books.

In my mind, he did that extremely well.

Some sequences might have been a bit over the top but for the most part I believe that the movies were a great adaptation of the novels.

Exactly.

A movie lives and dies on it's own merits, adaptation or not. Does Jackson's take on the LOTR represent a perfect, blow for blow interpretation of the books? No... but it wasn't intended to be. Does it work on it's own merits? Absolutely, even if in places it missteps or has it flaws, and it plays the story of LOTR well for a wide audience to enjoy and take something from.

[kurtsimonw]

Exactly.

A movie lives and dies on it's own merits, adaptation or not.

Agreed. Annoys me when people actually use it 'not being the same as the book' as a criticism.

[CVByrne]

FInally seeing Skyfall tonight. Can't wait.

Don't set your expectations too high. It's an enjoyable movie but nothing spectacular. Most people, myself included prefer Casino. Try skip the 30 mins of ads they have before it though as the movie itself is 2 1/2 hours long.

[AVFCforever1991]

Don't set your expectations too high. It's an enjoyable movie but nothing spectacular. Most people, myself included prefer Casino. Try skip the 30 mins of ads they have before it though as the movie itself is 2 1/2 hours long.

[mjmooney]

Annoys me when people actually use it 'not being the same as the book' as a criticism.

Yup. Novelist Michael Ondaatje totally supported (indeed, suggested) several plot changes in the film of The English Patient.

Whereas No Country For Old Men was arguably the worse for sticking exactly to the plot of McCarthy's book.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - the TV series of Brideshead Revisited was pretty much the book, word for word, and that one did work.

[Stevo985]

Don't set your expectations too high. It's an enjoyable movie but nothing spectacular. Most people, myself included prefer Casino. Try skip the 30 mins of ads they have before it though as the movie itself is 2 1/2 hours long.

Yeah, I've already said I'm not expecting it to be better than Casino Royale (which there is no shame in, as CR was excellent).

An enjoyable film is all I'm after to be honest. Just looking forward to a night at the cinema, as long as I enjoy it I'll be happy.

Whereas No Country For Old Men was arguably the worse for sticking exactly to the plot of McCarthy's book.

I agree with your point, but disagree with this bit.

One of my favourite films.

[mjmooney]

Oh, mine too. And as I'd read the book first, I had no problem with it at all - but a lot of people who hadn't, seemed to find it unsatisfying - the ending in particular. .

[Stevo985]

In fact, on the subject of Skyfall expectations.

I'd say my expectations have been so weathered (mainly by people on this site) since my initial excitement at the film, that I'll probably end up incredibly pleased with Skyfall because I'm no longer expecting it to be amazing.

Oh, mine too. And as I'd read the book first, I had no problem with it at all - but a lot of people who hadn't, seemed to find it unsatisfying - the ending in particular. .

Ah, gotcha.

I hadn't read the book and didn't mind the ending but I see what you mean.

(have read the book since and loved that too)

[CVByrne]

Adapting Lord of the Rings is different to adapting anything else. It's a book that's been read by most of its target audience. It's a very unique adaptation.

Also I do understand the changing of parts of the book, the leaving out of parts were totally necessary. But imo Jackson failed quite badly with the 3rd movie.

He did an excellent job with Fellowship, he turned a long quite boring book into an exciting one. The second movie suffered by the inherent problems adapting 2 books in Two Towers into one story, nobody cared when we switched to Frodo and Sam or Merry and Pippin and I felt the movie suffered from that.

Then with Return of the King he made changes that I can't agree with, removing the important parts of the main battle and adding in his own, for me that was unnecessary and unforgivable, not to mention the total drag that was the last hour. If he was editing the book to make a better movie he made very poor decisions with Return of the King.

Parts he removed that I was so excited to see in the film are

Witch King confronting Gandalf when Minas Tirith is breached, then Rohan comes

Eomer suicide charge at the enemy rallies the troops, he gets cut off though.

The Return of the King, his banner unfoiled alone lifts the hearts of men, he then attacks with Gondor reinforcements.

All 3 removed from the theatrical version add in the Legolas comedy stuff and the fck'n Ghosts 5 second clearing of Minas Tirith and you have Jackson destroying what was supposed to be the greatest moment of the trilogy.

My opinions on the matter anyway.