Looper why does joseph

Or has he? Yes, Joe changed the future when he killed himself, and anyone who directly died because of Old Joe's actions is now spared In its own way, Joe's death creates another timeline filled with a different kind of uncertainty. Yes, his wife lives now, but what other dangers await her? Yes, Sara lives now, but does that mean she'll be spared from ever suffering or dying again? Yes, Cid gets to be cared for by his mother, but does that mean he'll always be free from trauma that will push him to do evil?

Joe is, after all, just one man. Looper is a science fiction film , and specifically a time travel film, but there are big ideas at play beyond time machines and alternate timelines and futuristic assassins trying to reconcile their pasts and futures. According to director Rian Johnson, the central concern of the story for him was "the power of a parent's love," and indeed it's Sara's love for Cid and how Joe perceives it which sets off the film's endgame, and the timeline-altering decision that Joe makes to save Cid.

Thematically, Looper is a story about learning what's really worth saving, and we get to see that through the arc of both Joes. Joe begins as a guy who doesn't seem to care about much other than his own eventual freedom, and grows to understand that there are bigger concerns than his own life, including Cid's future, Sara's love for her son, and the greater future with or without the Rainmaker.

Old Joe lived as an assassin and an addict, then came to understand that the love of his wife was more powerful than any of that, so much so that he was willing to fight beyond his own lifespan to save her. Joe's ultimate sacrifice is his realization that his own concerns are minimal compared to those around him, and the implications of what might happen if he doesn't take drastic action are worth the sacrifice. This thematic thread, helped along by Joe's final narration, is the perfect dramatic cap to the film's arc.

Even with the limited scope of the story — there are only four main characters, and two of them are the same guy — Looper is a very complex movie simply because it deals with time travel in such an intense way.

The film really gets its hands dirty with the concept, telling us a story of men from the past who change the future with the pull of a trigger, and even cut off their own timelines for money. That means there are a lot of loose ends to ponder in the film If it's important to you to really justify that beyond 'It makes sense in a story type way,' you'll have to get into multiple time lines existing in neverending loops of logic.

You can shoehorn it into making sense," Johnson explained. Looper was one of a number of films released in the late s and early s that helped change the face of modern science fiction filmmaking not because of its story, but because of its eventual business success. Soon, Johnson joined the Star Wars franchise, and from that collaboration we eventually got The Last Jedi , along with a still-developing all-new trilogy of films set within that saga's overall galaxy.

Filmmakers who found similar success with mid-budget films in the same era have also moved on to bigger things. Villeneuve, for example, went on to make Blade Runner and an adaptation of Dune , while Jones directed Warcraft and Garland directed Annihilation.

Looper was not a game-changer in the sense that it reshaped filmmaking, but it did — like the characters within it — create a ripple effect in the sci-fi filmmaking community that allowed Johnson to move on and make dramatic additions to one of the genre's biggest franchises. Back to the murder. A terrifying future. A dangerous boy. Closing the loop. Happiness lost. A brighter future. An altered syndicate. One man's impact. If you ask any make-up artist in the business about Kazu they will know who he is.

He's a brilliant, brilliant guy. But really, more helpful than anything else was getting to know him and hanging out with him. Joseph and Bruce, sans prosthetics. Image: Getty. Looper also marks the third creative outing between Joseph and director Rian Johnson , after Joseph starred in Rian's thriller Brick and made a cameo in the comedy The Brothers Bloom.

Joseph made the successful leap from child star in the hugely popular sitcom Third Rock from the Sun to bona fide movie star, but he almost didn't pursue a film career.

I wanted to not know what I wanted to do. But I did come back to it and I knew that I wanted to make movies rather than do more TV," he reveals. I knew that I really loved it and I missed it. Though this may seem illogical to normal people, in the Looper universe, Joe shooting off his hand would make perfect sense. The film showed us very clearly that what happens.

This is essentially what happened anyway: when Young Joe shot himself Bruce Willis magically disappeared just like his hairline in real life. Sure maybe this one-armed Bruce Willis could shoot Emily Blunt with his left hand but this would at least give her some time to run away or something. The last piece of utter stupidity in this otherwise great film is the narration by Young Joe. In a film full of nonsense about time travel and telekinetically exploding people, this voiceover seems to be the most stupid.

Looper uses narration as a way of explaining the unexplainable but it reality it is just confusing and actually impossible.

This means that, by killing himself, he stopped the future from happening and preventing the kid from becoming the Rainmaker. If 30 year old Joe is confronted by 50 year old Joe and is affected by his presence in such a way that he kills himself to destroy his future self, how could 50 year old Joe exist if he technically died in his 30s?

In other words, how can older Joe exist if younger Joe killed himself at a younger age, which would prevent the older Joe from existing after the suicide? There would be no Joe to come back and create the rainmaker. That is a commonality in virtually all time travel films. Typically its represented by the idealogy of parallel universes.

Such as Back to the Future. There are virtually no time travel films that you wouldnt be able to play the same card on. Terminator 1 and 2 are huge films, that though great two of my favorite sci fi films actually technically is one big paradox.

There should be no John Connor to send Kyle Reese back into the past to father him if he never existed in the first place. And the only reason why skynet is built is based on the tech acquired by the remains of the Terminator found in Cyberdyne. So how does Skynet or the Terminators exist in the first place.

Then, once theyve destroyed all the data and the hardware to which skynet would be based on, that should render all of the future null and void… a vicious circle of paradoxes going on there… Im going to disregard that Skynet suddenly became software via the third film. How about in the Star Trek reboot. With old Spock existing in the films, as soon as Vulcan is destroyed aside from any other major time altering situations Old Spock should be completely altered if not completely erased.

If the crew hadnt been taking his remains to Vulcan in the third film, they wouldve likely been caught in the wake of the probe in 4… effectively stopping their ability to stop said probe and likely ending all terrestrial life without being able go back in time to get Humpback Whales lol So clearly the new Star Trek is implying alternate timelines and not completely erasing timelines.

That being said, one could pick and pick at almost any sci fi movie… especially ones that involve time travel. Im certain one could retort my musings and attempt to begin a debate.

But why cant we take the films as what they are… entertainment. I realize we want logic to be maintained when dealing with sci fi… thats a difficult task when breaking string theory is involved.

So like a loose thread on a sweater… just observe it…. One should not be surprised to find inconsitencies in time travel films.