jack: (Default)
Back To The Future is the benchmark for time travel that makes plot-sense but doesn't make physics-sense. Marty goes back in time, accidentally prevents his parents from meeting, then needs to get them together again. When he does, he returns to the future which is better in several other ways due to the changes he made.

From a logical standpoint, this makes no sense. When he alters the past, he should either disappear instantly (in fact, in the past) or not be affected at all, it makes no sense for him to disappear *slowly*. When he jumps back to the future, how come things are MOSTLY the same, to the extent that his parents never say "how come your memories are all different", but some things are different? Where is the Marty from _that_ timeline? Did he go back in time? What timeline did he end up in?

But none of that matters because you know everything you need to know in order for the plot to work. Time travel is difficult, so they don't have time to experiment, they only know what Doc can work out, which is often has big areas of "this is dangerous, don't do it", without needing to go into details of exactly how it's dangerous. The rules are stated up front, and we're not expected to argue with Doc, we should just assume that's a voice-of-the-author. And the film doesn't betray us, it sticks comfortably to the rules stated, and never pokes into the edge cases and inconsistencies.

Looper )

Looper

Jul. 18th, 2013 01:01 pm
jack: (Default)
As someone described it, it's the second best film where Bruce Willis goes back in time to try to shoot himself, and the second best film where Bruce Willis and his younger self argue which of them is more fulfilled.

Which is pretty good, but not as good as it might have been :)

The bad

My view on time travel (or anything else) in science fiction is that, so long as the relevant rules are clearly established, it doesn't matter if it represents a consistent set of physical laws. Conversely, if the plot depends on playing with those laws, then it _does_ need to be consistent.

So unlike some people, I'm perfectly happy with Back to the Future and Terminator, because they tell you immediately what you need to know, and maybe that wouldn't be enough if they kept travelling in time, but they don't.

But Looper takes a Back-to-the-Future half-and-half approach to time travel. When you change something in the past, it ripples forward and affects the future slowly. If someone loses a limb in the past, then in the future they become -- someone without a limb, but has all the memories of having that limb for 30 years. If someone is killed in the past, they vanish in the future -- but everything they've done in the meantime stays intact.

I think that's the closest you can come to a consistent rule: humans are magic, and changes in time affect humans sometimes less and sometimes more than other things. But even that's hard to get right.

And I could live with that, if they didn't base the plot on it. As it is, it doesn't really make sense.

I'm not sure. If you're less obsessive than me, is it obvious what is going to happen when someone changes the past? Or not?

The good

The concept is good. I love with films that play with time travel, and play with people meeting themselves and how they interact with themselves.

The implementation is pretty good. Young Bruce is cocky and stubborn, old Bruce is cynical and stubborn.

The ugly

There were a lot of more mundane plot holes:

Read more... )