Time Travel discussion

Joseph Gorden-Levitt and Bruce Willis in a time travel movie? I'm sold.

*First footage
*Movie poster and still image links
*How does the time machine work in "Looper"?
*IMDb Listing

I was sold too. I am so happy to see Joseph Gorden-Levitt finally finding his niche.

Hope he has a long and prosperous career as Bruce.

I received my subscription Empire magazine in the post today which is the UK's top film mag and it gave Looper maximum 5 stars, quoting it as intelligent scifi with brains, courage and heart. Its the only review I can see anywhere at the moment but this one is by a top critic and is enough to fill me with unhealthy levels of anticipation, a whole month to wait :(

Here are a couple more long trailers to wet the appetite but tbh, I havent watched it, I only saw the initial teaser trailer as I feel trailers today give away too much plot. I'm already invested, I dont need to watch more trailers.

US Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQuhs...

International trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G90QrE...

I got to see a preview screening of Looper last night.

Its thought provoking and certainly intelligent sci fi. For Willis fans, of which I am one, I'm happy to say that he is at his laconic and badass best with a complex emotional drive attached to his character's purpose. Levitt, who plays a younger version of Willis character, is however, doing more of a Robert De Niro impression than a Bruce willis one but thats not a big deal because he does it damn good. Jeff Daniels also makes a mark as a no nonsense gang boss of the Loopers organisation. Not the type of role one sees him do often but he's effective.

Dont expect this to be a big sci fi action film because its not. The visual aesthetics of the future setting is unspectacular, very basic and unimaginative. Its the sub standard ghetto look of a lawless society. It has absolute bare minimum of any signs that the film is set in the future with 2 or 3 shots of a hover bike and one shot of holographic computer monitor). Focus is on story here that drives a moralistic catch 22 type narrative. I think the film is meant to be a thriller too but rather than be thrilled for any of main protagonists, I was simply intrigued which is enough to keep me engaged.

There are only a few action scenes, most of which are basic chases on foot and gun fight set pieces. Some do pack a punch especially when Willis is involved but on the whole they are not anything special. The direction is placid but to the point. Dialogue is ok, there's a tiny sprinkle of dark humour but overall it lacks spice.

The time travel element is certainly imaginative, and well thought out to serve a fluctuating storyline that doesnt trap itself in restrictive rules. I do find it has holes though but perhaps with a bit more thought on it and adding a time travel rule here and there, you might be able to fill those holes.

So does it live up to the hype that its currently getting? No, not really but thats because the hype is too high from the press critics. Its a very good film, it tells a superb story and I reckon it is the best scifi film of the year. I just cant help the feeling that its a missed opportunity, given its excellent storyline, it could have had a much bigger impact with a more punchier and exciting execution. Its just not the all round entertaining experience as I perceived it would be from the general consensus.

So lower the expectations and enjoy the great story, some vintage cool Willis moments and an intriguing finale. If you enjoy everything else about it too, then good for you. One thing is for sure, there is much to discuss on this thread about its story, its ending and breaking down those wonderful time travel elements

8/10

Tej wrote: "I got to see a preview screening of Looper last night.

Its thought provoking and certainly intelligent sci fi. For Willis fans, for which I am one, Im happy to say that he is at his laconic and b..."

Expectations officially lowered.

Mine as well, but I'll still see it.

Just to see how close they got, you both unserstand..

I just saw it and loved everything except the end. While it's true they didn't get too caught up with the time travel rules, I think they establish enough to make breaking those rules a problem that should have either been addressed or left more ambiguous. Instead the movie makers apparently let themselves get away with breaking thier own rules and that bothers me. Everything else though, even Levitt's portrayal as a younger version of Willis's character, the lite sprinkling of future elements and humor and the balance of action and intrigue played perfectly for for my tastes. I'd say 8/10 would be my score as well.

Hey Scott, what did you not like about the ending and what rules do your think they broke? I actually love the ending personally and I dont think it broke any rules that I can think of. Maybe I am missing an obvious paradox somewhere?

I went to see it again on Friday, this time without the initial overhype and anticipations. I enjoyed it second time around and will still rate it an 8/10. I didnt learn more from second viewing but instead I appreciated it more for what the film is. I do get the whole picture, all the fluctuations and iterations of each time loop and how a change affects the next iteration. Its brilliantly woven actually. I also felt a stronger emotional undercurrent of the performances this time and I think I may have been too harsh about the dialogue, its not punchy or sparkling but I realise that it wouldnt be appropriate for the the mood the director is striving for.

(view spoiler)[I forgot to mention the little boy, that's one good little actor there, cute one moment, tugs your heart in another and then frightens the benesus out of me the next with his Damien-like expressions! He's good and pivotal to the whole plot. (hide spoiler)]

After further reflection, I will concede they didn't break thier fluid Back to the Future type rules AND I may have been holding on to my preconception about things like grandfather paradoxes from other stories but I feel like they set me up to expect ramifications from (view spoiler)[killing the younger looper only because Jeff Daniels was not willing to go that far with another looper. The more ambiguous ending I might have preferred would be the fade to white BEFORE the gun goes off, after Joe's realization with no subsequent shots of mother and son reuniting and her finding the silver. We wouldn't know which version of Joe fired first much less what ramifications (or lack off) would follow. I think my imagination would have been satisfied.

I also agree with every thing you said about the wonderful kid's performance. (hide spoiler)]

I'm curious if any one else thought Kid Blue (view spoiler)[(a.k.a., the "f**k up") was Abe's younger self. I thought Jeff Daniels walked around with a little limp and went out of his way to not permanently injure Kid who seemed to look up to Abe like a father figure. (hide spoiler)]

Scott wrote: "I'm curious if any one else thought Kid Blue [spoilers removed]"

(view spoiler)[Oh yes, I though of that too! I think it could be but its certainly a very open possibility either way. Because they never elaborate on why Abe cares for Kid Blue, I feel its a deliberate tease on us for us to speculate that Abe is Kid Blue. I didnt notice Abe had a limp though, that would surely give the theory a lot more weight. (hide spoiler)]

Scott wrote: "I'm curious if any one else thought Kid Blue...[spoilers removed]"

That never occured to me, but I think you may be right. Good call.

I finally saw this movie last night, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. In some respects, I was very disappointed. Case in point, (view spoiler)[they show one time line in which Joe actually killed his older self and closed his loop eventually leading to the second loop in which the older Joe sends himself back and avoids getting killed. I suppose if I allow for a multiple timeline theory, then it is plausible, but I tend to favor the unchangeable loop theory. (hide spoiler)]. And then there were parts that I thought were awesome (view spoiler)[ as in the idea that older Joe tries to kill the Rainmaker and in doing so is responsible for making the Rainmaker who he is. (hide spoiler)] I guess I will concur with the previous comments and give this movie a 8/10 rating.

I just saw it again and feel I've actually gotten over my issues with the end. Like you said Tej, I was able to enjoy it for what it is. I saw it with my Father and Father-in-law and it was interesting seeing them react to the end in a similar way to my first reaction.

I now find myself pondering how this type of history changing works. I called it fluid Back to the Future type because (view spoiler)[changes are felt by the time traveler when they happen. However, while one can go back in time to change the future as they knew it, they would cease to remember it and have new memories of the new timeline as it unfolds. If it were dramatically different, I would think the time traveler might go insane, wouldn't they? The Time traveler feels changes physically and mentally but the actions that they've taken in the past up to that point don't change. For example, Young Seth lost his legs so old Seth's legs disappear but that didn't change the fact that he ran away in the first place. So if old Joe had succeeded in his quest to kill the rainmaker or somehow prevented himself going back in time he wouldn't have undone his actions in the past. I think old time traveler Joe would just disappear at that point instead of when he did in the movie and mother and son would still remember running from him.

The Rainmaker was essentially a supper villain who took over all the crime rings of the future. Now that he doesn't grow up alone and resentful will he become the first kind of superhero people expected when TK abilities appeared? (hide spoiler)]

John wrote: "I suppose if I allow for a multiple timeline theory, then it is plausible, but I tend to favor the unchangeable loop theory." Could you explain that theory?

Scott wrote: "Could you explain that theory?..."

I personally have a hard time with the idea that multiple alternative timelines can exist at the same time. If someone alters history, then the future is forever changed. There is no divergent path that is created. Therefore, if you create a loop by going back and interacting with your past self, then everything that happens has already happened and affects history (including your own). (view spoiler)[In other words, there can be no timeline in which Willis' character married the oriental woman because he never closed his loop which lead him along that path. There cannot be both a timeline in which he closed his loop and alternately didn't close his loop. (hide spoiler)] Does that make sense, or am I crazy? I think the book "Chronoliths" is a good example of this. Take a look at our thread for this book under "Book Club Discussions."

John wrote: "Scott wrote: "Could you explain that theory?..."

I personally have a hard time with the idea that multiple alternative timelines can exist at the same time. If someone alters history, then the fu..."

Oh great I was waiting for you to see this, I missed your first post as I didnt realise you already been.

(view spoiler)[ Here is my take on this loop theory. The film sets out to give us a recursion (not a loop despite the title) where progress is made with every iteration affecting changes into the next iteration. Timeline is a fluctuation...(you know after all these decades, I now understand why Doc calls his device the Flux capacitor!), not a set rigid sequence of events. So we start with a young Joe assassinating old joe (wearing the hood). Young Joe grows older, goes to hong kong marries and hopes to escape the Looper termination which his previous incarnation probably accepted. See change happens already at that point as a direct result from the previous iteration. This Joe doesnt want to end up like his previous submissive Joe. So now we come to the next iteration we see unroll in the film. Newest Joe is startled by the UN-hooded Joe resulting in old Joe's escape. Young Joe then meets rainmaker's mother which never occurred in previous recursions.

Now the story of the Rainmaker is also beautifully recursive. It is clear that this is a boy who can go either way in his destiny and that direction depends on the mother's survival but not just having a mother but a mother who discovers new foresight in what happens to the rainmaker in previous recursions. That was the ultimate destiny of this movie's story. See in a previous recursion, the boy still had his mother's love but not the foresight of what will happen. However, in the latest recursion, she gains insight to the boy thanks to the meeting of young Joe in the latest recursion.

See changes dont happen instantly, they sweep and sometimes at different rates to allow for a good narrative...time is very thoughful, you see ;) Remember the diner scene when Old Joe says to young Joe "I dont have time to explain this time-travel s***, it doesnt make sense"? That was a direct message from the director to us, telling us to make up our own damn rules, around a beautiful story he wants to tell. It might sound a cop out but I find using the rule of "time fluctuations", "rate of sweep" helps to support the narrative ambiguities. And when I'm really struggling "The divine mystery" is applied...but I dont think I needed that last one here :)

(hide spoiler)]

And in my next personal recursive timeline, I will hope to write this post a lot more tightly with less use of the bloody word, recursion ;)

John wrote: "I personally have a hard time with the idea that multiple alternative timelines can exist at the same time. If someone alters history, then the fu..."

I have previously always preferred the multiple timelines existing as a way around the grandfather paradox. I agree, that can't be what's happening in Looper exactly (as I understand it) but (view spoiler)[a sort of alternate time line residue seems left from the time traveler causing change. Old Joe remembers being married to the Asian woman as long as that's still a possible future for young Joe. Like he speculates in the dinner, young Joe could see the picture of Old Joe's wife and vow to avoid her in the future causing that photo and old Joe's memories of her to disappear in that dinner. Would Old joe still have motivation to find the rainmaker? Would he have died before the Asian woman "saved his life" causing old Joe to disappear in that dinner too? I think so. I think it's fun to speculate. Old Joe said (I may be paraphrasing) "it's messy, we could be here all day making diagrams out of straws". I'm glad they didn't, so we can. (hide spoiler)]

Tej and Scott,

You both make good points. But I see one flaw:

(view spoiler)[The only reason the Rainmaker becomes who he is and decides to wipe out all the loopers is that he witnessed his mother's death. They lead you to believe that this was the woman that he thought was his mother (actually his aunt, if I remember right). However, as it turns out Old Joe is the one who kills the boys' actual mother. Yet if Old Joe is eliminated by Young Joe taking his life, then the Rainmaker never exists which eliminates Old Joe's motivation to go back and kill the Rainmaker. As Scott says, it is the classic paradox of killing your grandfather. Any time a book or movie attempts to do this, I hate it. But I still find their attempt to reconcile this paradox very entertaining. (hide spoiler)]

John wrote: "Tej and Scott,

You both make good points. But I see one flaw:

[spoilers removed]"

(view spoiler)[ My thoughts are that is is not the ONLY reason. The boy becomes the Rainmaker regardless of whether he sees the mother die or not. What gives the boy an open path in the last iteration is the fact that the mother has gained insight of previous iterations which gives her the opportunity to steer a different path for her son (It is her child btw but she had given him up, which is why the boy doesnt realise its his mother).

SO Young Joe kills himself, to at least give the rainmaker a new opportunity...he may still become the rainmmaker but at least its a new path is opened (that being the mother's love combined with insight)

The grandfather paradox doesnt apply here because time is not a loop in this universe. They dont attempt to cover it up, they want US to do that dirty work, lol. Young Joe killing himself creates a new iteration of this recursion.

(hide spoiler)]

Scott wrote: "Old Joe said (I may be paraphrasing) "it's messy, we could be here all day making diagrams out of straws"

Your paraphrasing sounds a lot more accurate than mine though!

One thing is for sure about the time travel mechanics in this film, they sure went AWOL with it!

I saw the movie just today. I think it is time to create a grand Taxonomy of Time Travel. Must consider how to do it. But essentially, you got your two big groupings right off:

1. Time travel can change the past (this movie a good example)

2. Time travel cannot change the past -- you go back and you're just a tourist; even popping Hitler with a handgun has no effect.

John wrote: "Yet if Old Joe (view spoiler)[is eliminated by Young Joe taking his life, then the Rainmaker never exists which eliminates Old Joe's motivation to go back and kill the Rainmaker." (hide spoiler)]

I don't think so. I had to let go of my preconceptions about how time travel 'should' work to get my mind around an explanation that I liked. (view spoiler)[Old Joe disappears at that moment but he was still around to cause all the events of the movie just as old Seth still arrived at that warehouse to be shot despite his limbs disappearing. It's that thing I called alternate time line residue. In the case of the Grandfather paradox, with Looper TT rules, you can kill your grandfather THEN disappear but your grandfather remains dead. (hide spoiler)]

Ooh, we progress:

1. Time travel can change the past
A. Changes appear instantly
B. changes don't appear until you get back to the/your present
C. Changes appear but leave a residual effect (you can kill your grandfather, then disappear, but grandpa remains dead)

2. Time Travel cannot change the past.
A. Purely tourism; all you can take is photos
B. Minor souvenirs can be taken back.

Brenda wrote: "Ooh, we progress:

1. Time travel can change the past
A. Changes appear instantly
B. changes don't appear until you get back to the/your present
C. Changes appear but leave a residual effect (y..."

And all of that applies to Looper, lol

Tej wrote: "all of that applies to Looper..."
Not B, but A and C seem only subtly different.

Hmm. Was it possible to go BACK in Looper? It seems to me that if you went back in time, it was a one-way trip. Remember the Jeff Daniels guy was specifically described as having made a one-way trip. Old Joe's plan was to kill the Rainmaker in childhood, but it is not clear that it would ever have had the desired effect of saving the girlfriend, and in any case Old Joe could not go back to see her.

Brenda wrote: "Hmm. Was it possible to go BACK in Looper? It seems to me that if you went back in time, it was a one-way trip. Remember the Jeff Daniels guy was specifically described as having made a one-way ..."

It seems to me that what happened at the end of the movie meant that the earlier events in the movie could never have happened. I enjoyed the movie until the end - which really bugged me.

Brenda, thanks for trying to summarize our ideas into an outline. For number 2, I would argue that a person can go back in time and attempt to change the past. However, in doing so they change nothing because their actions were already part of the timeline but they just didn't realize it. Perhaps the bombing that almost took Hitler's life was actually a time traveler's failed assissination attempt, and they created a story that the bomb was actually planted by Nazi officers because it is more plausible.

Scott wrote: "Tej wrote: "all of that applies to Looper..."
Not B, but A and C seem only subtly different."

Old Joe believes in B though. Old Joe is actually delirious, he never really thought things through like we are.

(view spoiler)[He is mind is full of revenge and desperation to save his wife. He thinks he can get back with his wife but all he can achieve is a different path for her. He can never be back with her (which I guess answers Brenda's question of the possibility of going "back to the future"...unless they have cool sleep! (hide spoiler)]

I think I may need to go back and see "Looper" again so I can focus on the dialouge. Apparently there were some things I might have missed the first time, and as with any movie that involves a little brain power you have to watch it a few times to fully appreciate it.

There is another movie that would go along well with this discussion: "The Butterfly Effect." It is one of my all time favorites (I've watched it at least 30 times), and it's another real head spinner. While the movie follows the premise that you can change the past, I find it more plausible because of what happens to the time traveler as he jumps back to the present. I will avoid saying too much in case others have not seen it, but we could start a new thread for that movie if anyone is interested.

John wrote: "I think I may need to go back and see "Looper" again so I can focus on the dialouge. Apparently there were some things I might have missed the first time, and as with any movie that involves a lit..."

The Butterfly Effect is definitely a great time travel movie, quite dark in its subject matter. Its being a long time since I've seen it but I do have it on DVD which I can pop in the player and watch again if you do create another thread to discuss. I cant recall too much details other than it too has the same fluctuating time flow as Looper. The DVD has an alternative ending, have you seen it? I prefer the ending they settled with but the alternative might have been more obedient to the time travel rules.

I wonder if Looper will have alternative endings on the Blu Ray?

I think we all agree Looper is a mess with its time travel plotting. But where it scores very high is in the story even though it cheats to tell it :)

Hmm. That brings to mind another angle, the real Butterfly Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfl...

Someone wrote a short story about this (I cannot remember the title, but somebody will) in which a time traveler steps on a bug in the past and then, when he gets back to the present, the entire world is different.

So now we have a new category:

1. Time travel can change the past
A. Changes appear instantly (Looper, when the guy's fingers and legs suddenly vanish)
B. changes don't appear until you get back to the/your present
C. Changes appear but retain a residual effect (you can kill your grandfather, then disappear, but grandpa remains dead)

2. Time Travel cannot change the past.
A. Purely tourism; all you can take is photos
B. Minor souvenirs can be taken back.

3. Time travel sometimes changes the past
A. Only big alterations have an impact (shooting Hitler has effect, shooting his janitor, no)
B. Even tiny alterations have an impact (Butterfly effect) and so you must be very careful on your trips to the past, lest you destroy your present. (This is the angle I used in REVISE THE WORLD.)

A totally new Looper angle: the monetary manipulation one.

Think about that silver, which is sent back in time. Obviously the guys in the future have to use precious metals; there's no point in sending back paper money. Consider one bar of that silver.

It starts out as ore, existent since the earth cooled or whatever; somebody mines it and makes it into an ingot in year 30. They pop it into the time machine and it comes out in year 1, where Joe the Looper takes it and adds it to the stash under the floor. At this moment now the silver exists twice: once in its first trip through the years, as ore or whatever, and a second time in Joe's hoard. In other words, you've doubled your money.

Of course you can only perceive this from the outside. But remember all those silver bars. This is happening on an industrial scale. The total quantity of precious metal in the world is increasing at an amazing pace. Surely this has an impact on the money supply and the financial system; it also says that if you're investing in precious-metal stocks you're going to lose your shirt -- increase in supply leads to a drop in price.

Unfortunately this is as far as my economics can carry me. What we need is for Paul Krugman to go and see this movie, and report back.

Barbara, I see a flaw, or another interpretation, that is, & this is always so given the dual nature of paradox, you can forever argue either way.

The ore is in the earth but when mined in the year 30, it's not, it's gone, no longer there, period.

Then it's sent back, as an ingot or whatever, to the year 1, but having been removed, it's no longer in the earth to begin with, even though your time signature has changed & you’re back to where you began.

That changes nothing, as the ore was removed & so won’t be there in the new Timestream, even if from your view you’re starting over.

I see no flaw in this outlook, given that nothing is ever created or destroyed, just changed, that's a basic rule.

I haven’t seen the movie but if you’re talking finance & Wall Street, well that’s a different matter altogether.

They can, and have, make up anything & say it has value.

I’d send a few of them back.

But the silver is in two places at the same time. In theory, in year one, you could go over to Bolivia, or wherever it is you mine silver, and look at that exact silver. And you could then go to Joe's apartment and look at the same silver in his stash. It's not so much of a problem with one bar. But in volume, that duplication would distort commodity markets. Also note that you could do it again and again -- get that bar of silver and send it back to year 1. Then there are three versions of the same metal. Four, five, six? Do this for a while and silver will become as valuable as toilet paper.

Yes, Brenda, but if the silver is taken back, then the original silver is gone. Not twice the amount. It's the same amount.

That's the paradox. Both sides can be argued.

Again, I've not yet seen the film, I'm talking general theory & I see your logic, no problem there.

My slant is logical too, that's the parodox, as I said & my bigger point is that your rules cover this: #1) Time Travel can change the Past.

No. The silver is gone from year 30. But it is in years 1-29 twice, right? Because we moved it back from year 30 to year 1. It is now in a loop, as it were.

Brenda wrote: "A totally new Looper angle: the monetary manipulation one..."

I totally agree with Brenda on this one. The silver is doubled each time it is sent back. I hadn't really thought about what this would do to the value of silver in Year 1. However, I was wondering about the value of the silver in Year 30 compared to Year 1. If precious metals continue to increase in value, silver may be worth $100 in Year 30, but when it is sent back to Year 1 it is worth only $50. Perhaps as Brenda suggests, the value of silver is next to nothing in Year 30 partially because they have devalued precious metals by increasing the supply in Year 1. As a result, the silver has no value in Year 30, but still has some value in Year 1. Okay, now I have a headache. Excuse me while I go get some asprin.

Brenda wrote: "Someone wrote a short story about this (I cannot remember the title, but..."

I think the story you are referring to is "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury.

This same manipulation happens with a different resource in Stephen King's 11/22/63. (view spoiler)[In that book, which we read as a group a few months ago, the owner of a cafe discovers a time portal in his pantry that transports him to the 1950s. He purchases his ground beef in the past and then brings it back to the present and sells his burgers well below his competitors. The funny thing is the portal takes him to the exact same time each time he uses it, so he is purchasing the same batch of ground beef each time and reselling it exponentially in the present. (hide spoiler)]

There's certainly a wide range of interpretations possible for the movie and theories on this thread. I know I've kind of gone 180 in thinking the movie didn't make sense to thinking it has one of the most interesting solutions to the grandfather paradox that completely makes sense, as much as time travel can.

Brenda wrote: "
1. Time travel can change the past
A. Changes appear instantly (Looper, when the guy's fingers and legs suddenly vanish)
B. changes don't appear until you get back to the/your present
C. Changes appear but retain a residual effect (you can kill your grandfather, then disappear, but grandpa remains dead"

What’s the difference, in your mind, between A and C?
I keep thinking of Back to the Future "rules" vs. Looper "rules". Try and forget any character's explanations. Actions speak louder than words and we never see any universe destruction that Doc theorized. The differences seem to involve memory and response time perceived by the time traveler.

I would suggest, under the first category:
1. Time travel can change the past:

A) Time Traveler feels changes instantly, old timeline is overwritten from then on.

A1) BTTF – Marty feels changes physically (disappearing hand) AS the possibility of his non-existence becomes more likely, but his memories are never altered in any way. We don’t get to see what would have happened if he HAD disappeared. Would his actions in keeping his parents from conceiving him have been undone, creating a paradox or would this new timeline retain his (residual-alt-timeline) actions up to his disappearance?

A2) Looper – Time traveler feels the change physically AND mentally as or right after it happens but the current timeline retains his (residual-alt-timeline) actions up to that point. Characters around the time traveler see AND remember the changes to the traveler. (Someone could have witnessed Old Seth become disfigured just as we did.)

B) Time traveler feels changes only back at point of departure, old timeline is replaced with new. Traveler then has new memories and any physical changes from new timeline. Subcategories might include:

B1) The time traveler loses his old memories and only remembers the new altered reality.

B2) New memories coexisting with old memories. I think this is what The Butterfly Effect movie was like, right?

C) Time traveler never feels changes physically or mentally, exists in new alternate reality.
Time traveler might alter time again to create a new time line that is, at best, only CLOSE to the original.

C1) There will be a duplicate of the time traveler if time traveler tries to go back to the future because it won't be the same future reality.

C2) When returning to the future, duplicate disappears and time traveler is the only version but the future is still foreign to the traveler. This is how I think of Timecop

Brenda wrote: "No. The silver is gone from year 30. But it is in years 1-29 twice, right? "

If I follow, I see the overlap of silver, like duplicating your money but there’s a 30yr expiration on one of the duplicates. Worst case, it causes unbalance for 30yrs then the quantity is reset and balance is restored.

Is this an unbreakable loop? What if someone who has the ore-silver (not yet sent back) AND the silver that was sent back, decides not the send the ore-silver this time? I think, in Looper rules, the silver sent through time would disappear. If it's an unbreakable loop, he would HAVE to send the ore-silver back. In either case, he would have still enjoyed the finite time he had double silver.

Scott wrote: "New memories coexisting with old memories. I think this is what The Butterfly Effect movie was like, right?..."

Correct. He instantly gets all of the new memories that result from the change but still remembers the timeline as it originally was. After repeated occurances, this starts to have an adverse effect on his brain.

Wow-you guys have my head spinning, which is exactly why I love time travel stories!

Crikey, lots of posts since my last visit a few hours ago, talk about flow of time!

I think we should use Brenda's finely tuned concise summary of all things time travel. I think together with Scott's modifications (Actually I think Scott's B and C would make additions rather than replacements) we might be able to beat Prof Hawkin to the theory of everything...well ok, everything time travel :)

I am with Brenda on the Silver discussion. Just one thing though, I dont get the bit why there would be 3 of the same silver at the same time in year 1 though? Was there an example of that in Looper? I get there will be two, albeit one bar in processed form and the other yet to be extracted at some point but how does the 3rd one appear in year 1?

We spoke about A Sound of Thunder a few months ago in another thread when Ray Brardbury died. He came up with the butterfly effect in that story but didnt actually turn the phrase itself.

John said: ‘I totally agree with Brenda on this one.’

You guys are totally missing my point here & now I feel that I’m the one in a loop.

I’m not denying your interpretation, or the fact that many movies or books employ it, even very good ones. My point is more basic to the genre itself.

Once you throw away the big rules, like the Laws of Nature, then you’ve crossed over (in my opinion) into Fantasy.

I think the fun of Time Travel is not in changing these basic rules, or ignoring them or throwing them away altogether but using them in a new way, by augmentation, or mimicry or some by other means. Then of course, you’re free to make up how this is to be done & what happen as a consequence.

Just as an example, my books have a real machine not a magic box that just does weird stuff & as such it needs power to run & that power must be harnessed, etc. So, it works in the real world, not some Fantasy one.

In other words, in my opinion, the tales that use these Laws ('for every action there is an equal reaction,' or 'nothing is ever created or destroyed') as a base are the superior ones, a tribute to the genre.

Throwing them away, or ignoring them is a dead end for me, an easy way out & then I'm dissapointed.

I like Brenda’s list & agree that it should be accepted, but Fantasy in a technical sense is not SiFi, or visa versa & I still think this point has been sufficiently covered in Rule # 1.

But, to each his own, I’ve no problem with that.

Howard wrote: "John said: ‘I totally agree with Brenda on this one.’

You guys are totally missing my point here & now I feel that I’m the one in a loop.

I’m not denying your interpretation, or the fact that ma..."

I dont think anyone is missing your point Howard. You talk about different timestream etc but your theory really doesnt fit in Looper's structure and what Brenda was talking about. You havent seen the film Howard! See it, sir, this is one for you to get your teeth into and i wanna hear your angle.

Aha. John has hit on a solution to one of the problems with using specie to pay off time travelers. The problem is that silver or gold is EXPENSIVE; if you were hoping to pay off a looper in 1960 with gold or silver that you had to buy today, it would be a spendy proposition indeed (since the value of the metal has gone up so much in the past 50 years). But, if you have devalued it so much by looping it that the silver is much CHEAPER today than it is now, then it becomes worth while. You are paying your looper with something that is cheap to you, but valuable at his end of history.

Scott, in the movie (so far as I can tell) any given bar of silver was looped only once. I was postulating that there is no reason why you could not loop it again, multiplying your money. Time travel obviously lends itself to monetary chicanery. Somebody wrote a short story in which a time traveler went back to the 14th century and invested some gold with the Polo Brothers in Venice; compounding interest eventually meant that he owned most of the modern world. He cashes it all in and uses the money to invent a time machine to go back to Venice. (Somebody will remember the title of this story, yes?

Brenda wrote: "I was postulating that there is no reason why you could not loop it again, multiplying your money. Time tra..."

I understand and agree. I was just pointing out that in Looper, the effect would be temporary. The duplicate bars would be like refracted light through the prism of time travel, one split into many. That prism gets shattered when the duplicate(s) catch up to its original's departure from the timeline.

Brenda wrote: "I was postulating that there is no reason why you could not loop it again, multiplying your money...."

Here is something that will really blow your mind. What if the silver that was sent back in time is exactly the same silver that was spent by the loopers? So instead of duplicating the silver, it is just in a constant loop. The question then becomes where did the silver originally come from?