Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,564 Year: 3,821/9,624 Month: 692/974 Week: 19/286 Day: 19/58 Hour: 7/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh dear god, I saw Looper last night... (oh, spoliers!)
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1 of 11 (675376)
10-10-2012 5:27 PM


and again, SPOLIERS!!!
"best sci-fi since Moon" "best time-travel flic since 12 Monkeys" 93% fresh on Tomatoes
This was going to be a treat. A great way to spend 2 hours before settling down with Radiohead for the evening at the O2.
OMG was that the biggest load of bollocks I have seen in a very long time. It makes Back to the Future look like it was scripted by Kip Thorne. It has to be the worst screw-up of time-travel concepts I have ever seen in fiction.
But even allowing for the sheer CF of the time-travel, how the hell does it get these reviews??? Old Joe's motivation is ridiculous (I have been calmed from my violent ways by my beautiful wife, so I will now kill in cold blood three 4-yr olds, in the hope that one of them is responsible for her death.) Cid the kid's 4-yr old dialogue is awful. Bruce's matrix-like assault on Abe's place is laugh-out-loud comic, and is not helped by the truly appalling editing in these action scenes.
So...
1) anyone want to defend this POS?
2) anyone want to chat about time-travel in fiction? (hasn't been done in a while)
3) anyone want a thread on time-travel in physics? (again seems to have been a while)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Omnivorous, posted 10-10-2012 9:55 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 3 by Panda, posted 10-11-2012 7:07 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 5 by Son Goku, posted 10-11-2012 8:41 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 10-11-2012 5:09 PM cavediver has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3985
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 2 of 11 (675387)
10-10-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
10-10-2012 5:27 PM


cavediver writes:
(I have been calmed from my violent ways by my beautiful wife, so I will now kill in cold blood three 4-yr olds, in the hope that one of them is responsible for her death.)
Full disclosure: haven't seen the flick.
I dunno. Having been lured from my violent ways by a beautiful wife, I can truthfully report that I would sacrifice an entire clade of rug rats for the smallest improvement in her odds of surviving another day.
Sorry.
As to time travel in fiction...once you've read a niche in time saves Stein, where can you go?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2012 5:27 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Drosophilla, posted 10-11-2012 8:04 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 3 of 11 (675405)
10-11-2012 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
10-10-2012 5:27 PM


I never saw the 'epic' appeal of Inception either.
cavediver writes:
But even allowing for the sheer CF of the time-travel, how the hell does it get these reviews???
Even the positive reviews say things like:
"...not dwell on the fiction in the science."
"The best time travel films play on emotion rather than logic..."
"The reasoning behind all this may not reward prolonged inspection..."
It appears that they do actually realise that the fiction overwhelms the science.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2012 5:27 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2012 8:53 AM Panda has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3665 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 4 of 11 (675410)
10-11-2012 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Omnivorous
10-10-2012 9:55 PM


Ah - an Asimov fan.....
Hi Omnivorous
As to time travel in fiction...once you've read a niche in time saves Stein, where can you go?
cavediver writes:
(I have been calmed from my violent ways by my beautiful wife, so I will now kill in cold blood three 4-yr olds, in the hope that one of them is responsible for her death.)
Full disclosure: haven't seen the flick.
I dunno. Having been lured from my violent ways by a beautiful wife, I can truthfully report that I would sacrifice an entire clade of rug rats for the smallest improvement in her odds of surviving another day.
Sorry.
As to time travel in fiction...once you've read a niche in time saves Stein, where can you go?
I see you read Asimov. Have you read 'The End of Eternity' which is an interesting novel of his around the time travel concept?
Cavediver - would love to lurk in a time travel thread - either fiction or (especially) the physics - always has fascinated me - though I guess like most folk the physics can be bewildering........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Omnivorous, posted 10-10-2012 9:55 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (675414)
10-11-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
10-10-2012 5:27 PM


Autoerotica.
I thought the love scene between Old Joe and Young Joe was handled quite well, not something I thought Bruce Willis would agree to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2012 5:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 11 (675415)
10-11-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Panda
10-11-2012 7:07 AM


I never saw the 'epic' appeal of Inception either.
I really liked it. Ever since the Matrix movies there hasn't been much in the way of cyberpunk filmmaking; Inception was a kind of biological cyberpunk.
But, I mean, it's a heist movie, right? I'm not sure I would describe it as "epic".
Actually, here's a good contrast - Inception followed through on its own premise. Looper played fast and loose with it - if stuff doesn't happen until you go back and make it happen, then how does Old Joe live in a future with the Rainmaker, if he's the reason there is one? And so on.
Oh, well. I thought it was alright, it hit the right notes with me and JGL was appropriately scowly, but there was a lot about it that doesn't hold together on inspection. Cave is right, for as much as it was hyped you'd come out thinking it was bollocks, but I try to ignore the hype about movies I want to see.
That said, moviegoers who like pared-down, laser-precise pacing, characterization, and plot should go see Dredd. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking. But seriously it's the new Die Hard - action movie filmmaking at the pinnacle of technique.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Panda, posted 10-11-2012 7:07 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Panda, posted 10-11-2012 10:06 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 9 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2012 6:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3736 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 7 of 11 (675427)
10-11-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
10-11-2012 8:53 AM


crashfrog writes:
That said, moviegoers who like pared-down, laser-precise pacing, characterization, and plot should go see Dredd. Yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking. But seriously it's the new Die Hard - action movie filmmaking at the pinnacle of technique.
I do intent to watch it - I hope I enjoy it as much as you seem to have.
Despite all the CGI/effects that are now possible; finding a decent action+sci-fi movie seems a difficult task these days.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2012 8:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 11 (675499)
10-11-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
10-10-2012 5:27 PM


) anyone want to chat about time-travel in fiction? (hasn't been done in a while)
I have always thought for fictional time travel to work as a conciet it would have to essentially be an almost one way trip.
That is to say Bill goes back to 2012 from 2045 to visit is younger self. But old Bill has no recollection of the meeting. So if Bill returned to 2045 he would meet young Bill (now all grown up) and there would be two Bills.
So once you travel in time and re enter time there will be two of you.
For fictional symmetry you could say that the energy your body is comprised of is equal to the energy required to send you through time. Then the extra you wouldn't add energy to the universe.
It's that's bollocks in real life but that's the fictional conceit it would use.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2012 5:27 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2012 6:24 PM Larni has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 9 of 11 (675500)
10-11-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
10-11-2012 8:53 AM


That said, moviegoers who like pared-down, laser-precise pacing, characterization, and plot should go see Dredd.
Yes, can't wait to see this. And Cersei is in it! Hopefully will make me forget all about that travesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2012 8:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 11 (675502)
10-11-2012 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Larni
10-11-2012 5:09 PM


That is to say Bill goes back to 2012 from 2045 to visit is younger self. But old Bill has no recollection of the meeting
Well, that's a huge assumpton right there. Time-travel from the perspective of Relativity is entirely self-consistent. He cannot not have recollection of the meeting (assuming no amnesia, memory-wipe, etc) as the meeting occured.
You can have a many-worlds inspired branching effect (popularised by David Deutsch) although this does not sit on any real firm foundation of physics (many-worlds, yes. Time-travel taking you different branches, no.)
So once you travel in time and re enter time there will be two of you.
Well, there always was one of you until your older self appears from the future at which point there is two, up until the point that the younger self enters the time machine and travels back. Of course, there's nothing to stop the older self deciding to return as well, so now there's three, then four, then five selfs (and here-in lies a clue to why time-travel is unstable and unlikely to be practically realisable)
For fictional symmetry you could say that the energy your body is comprised of is equal to the energy required to send you through time
No need. Remember how I have said numerous times that there is no such thing as (global) conservation of energy? Here's a great example of that in practise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 10-11-2012 5:09 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2012 6:43 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4040
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 8.1


Message 11 of 11 (675503)
10-11-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by cavediver
10-11-2012 6:24 PM


Remember how I have said numerous times that there is no such thing as (global) conservation of energy? Here's a great example of that in practise.
Any possibility of explaining that in layman terms?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2012 6:24 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024