Talk:Looper (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


That's just the way I've always seen it. The article doesn't help as the title doesn't have the dash but the contents use science-fiction 12 times. From my knowledge of grammar that seems the most sensible way for it to be but I may be wrong. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the dash before but I thought that it was a less common variation. I'll try to see if there's a reason for using it, maybe in certain situations. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The most common usages I've seen are as "science fiction" (unhypenated), but the shorter form ("sci-fi") hypenated, but Merriam-Webster shows the noun form as unhypenated [1], and the adjective form hyphenated (as it should be, being a compound adjective). GaidinBDJ (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Googling looper "rian johnson" will yield some references to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looper Poster[edit]

Evidently, the poster they have on the article is fake. If you look at one of the Tron: Legacy posters, you can see that they resemble the inner text. Can this be deleted? Lacon432 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Philip K Dick[edit]

I can't find any information elsewhere that supports this film being based on a Philip K Dick story, and I don't think there even is a story by him of the name "The Loop And Loom". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

His bibliography here makes no mention of it and it isn't in the list of short stories at

Googling "The Loop and Loom" as a phrase only comes up with a few hits. (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone managed to find any more information on this? MisterShiney (Come say hi) 21:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


Anyone else besides be feel like this plot makes absolutely no sense? (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, but that's a discussion for the IMDB forums, not the Wikipedia article.Prebys (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Link? (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean on Wikipedia, you don't think the film makes sense and it needs re-writing? Charlr6 (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It may not warrant a re write but there's an error in about every other paragraph. I'll correct the ones I see Skeith (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the last paragraph of the plot summary since it simply didn't happen. There is no mystery about "Who's the Rainmaker" given that (1) Joe doesn't have TK, (2) Old Joe was kidnapped by the Rainmaker's henchmen, (3) the Rainmaker's birthdate most certainly means it's not Joe, and (4) Young Joe says that he was sold to pan-handlers by his junkie mother. I'm not sure why the person who wrote the plot summary was confused by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I too have been trying to fix some of the errors. It might be better just to rewrite it at this point. So many things are out of order chronologically. --Tarage (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

Deleted a comment from the plot summary that stated "even though Old Joe's timeline had the same Rainmaker outcome without his interference." Seemed unnecessary to point out that particular plot hole. It's also debatable that it was even a plot hole - I felt the film suggested what was happening was a predestination paradox. Whether it was or not is up for debate, but I think its enough of a question to remove the "even though Old Joe's timeline had the same Rainmaker..." bit from the plot summary.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's important for clarity so people don't incorrectly believe that this series of events had occurred in Old Joe's timeline to create the Rainmaker. There is a large amount of contention surrounding the cause and effect of this film, and to ignore it, even if just to enjoy the story, you're missing very important details people visit Wikipedia to find lucidity to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, in the long run, we may have to go the route of Inception with this one and source a few minor aspects of the plot or include an interpretation section elsewhere, once there are sources discussing it. If it's viewer interpretation (and the fact that there is debate about the sequence of events means that it is), we can't include it in the plot. It would be WP:OR. We report what was shown onscreen and nothing else, unless a source from the writer or director makes a definitive statement. Then we can clarify in the plot section with an inline citation. If nothing like that is available, then we can (once there are sources discussing it) include the aforementioned interpretation section with the various veiwpoints covered by reliable sources. Millahnna (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.It's not the place of Wikipedia pages to identify plot holes/discrepancies. They are for forums. MisterShiney (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried expanding the plot to explain some of these details, but apparently others disagreed with this and undid my changes. I think people come to Wikipedia and read the plot to figure out what was going on, as this was a confusing film to many people. You don't read the plot to see if you want to watch the movie, and I wasn't offering a commentary or interpretation. Regarding the series of events that originally created the Rainmaker, we just don't know. But with the Old Joe and Young Joe interfering with Cid's life, and Cid & Sarah having the breakthrough moment in his control, it's obvious the future has changed. Also, the gold/silver bars probably won't hurt Sarah's life either. (A little glitch there - when did they change from silver to gold?). Nerfer (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I saw your edit and appreciated the concept but shared Darkwarriorblake's concern that it was a little long. WP:FILMPLOT says we should shoot for about 700 words tops and we were at just over 900 after your's and an anon editor's collective work. Now the guideline also notes that there will sometimes be exceptions for complicated films, and in my experience time travel flicks often turn out to be those exceptions. I think we could probably shoot for between 700-800 and I plan on grabbing the version Darkwarrior reverted and playing with it in my sandbox to see if I can keep some of the core content you'd added but trim up the wordiness a bit. I'll drop a note here when it's ready to go and see what others think. A lot of this film is going to be a bit subject to viewer interpretation (and you were really close to neutral but I spotted a bit or two I could work on) so I think we cut bulk from that longer version that way. Hopefully, I'll have something later on tonight. Millahnna (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Might want to check out this infographic and commentary on the plot. Also, Rian Johnson has recorded an audio commentary for the film, but, as Johnson himself said, "this is NOT to be listened to on a first viewing, or before you've seen the film". Cliff Smith 03:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll poke at those while I'm writing/tweaking. I don't work on plot summaries needing outside sources very often. Do any more experienced editors know if it will be ok to use either of those as refs for any definitive points? I should think the collider link with Johnson's commentary track wouldn't be an issue but I'm not sure how rates on the WP:RS scale. Millahnna (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that since Johnson is the writer and director of the film, pretty much anything he says anywhere about the film's plot could be used as refs for any definitive points. The infographic, however, might be better for a "Film structure" section that could be developed (I'm thinking about Memento (film)), and Johnson's commentary could be used there as well.
As far as is concerned, it has an editorial staff and is partnered with MTV Movies Blog and Movieline, among other sites, so I think it's alright to use. Cliff Smith 03:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the plot is complex and its downright not thought out at all in places. The additions made were:

a ruthless mastermind who has taken over future organized crime and is closing all loops. Joe attempts to protect Seth, but later chooses to betray him to Abe instead of surrendering half of his silver savings. Because the older Seth is affecting the events in 2044, his own past is changing as well. The mafia must therefore bring in the renagade Seth from the future, and does this by capturing Young Seth and carving a message into his arm that his older self sees as a scar. The message instructs Old Seth to present himself at a certain address within 15 minutes. When Old Seth fails to comply with the dictum, the crime organization has its "doctor" cut off body parts from young Seth's body. As Old Seth begins losing fingers, his nose, and them portions of his arms and legs, he crawls to the door of the location that had been carved on his arm by the mafia, and is shot in the head.

This is basically just reciting a scene in its entirety that does not further the plot. In the opening paragraph it is established that failing a contrract is a death sentence for the Looper and that a Looper will be presented with their older selves at some point. So saying that Seth failed to do it and that Joe betrayed him covers the events of this very briefly. Describing what is done to seth is just replicating a scene people thought was cool, but it isn't important to the overall understanding of the plot.

Young Joe knows he needs to kill his future self if he wants to live another 30 years, and is desperate to do this before the mafia kills them both. He sends a message to his future self much like Seth's arm. After meeting in a diner, Old Joe tells Joe that the Rainmaker sent him back to be killed, and that Old Joe's wife was killed during his capture. Old Joe killed his captors and to prevent his wife from being killed in 2074, he

This part is untrue, Joe thinks that will spare his life, it isn't the case and referring to the previous point, we know that failure is a death sentence so him wanting to kill Joe doesn't need further elaboration, its just repeating the point. Then the arm thing, same over elaboration, they meet in a diner, who cares if he text him?

Sara argues that with proper parenting, Cid will not use his powers for evil.

Another unnecessary point, the final paragraph states that Joe realizes Old Joe is going to end up creating the Rainmaker. Ill thought out time travel aside, Old Joe didn't come back originally or he'd remember having to fight himself in the past, so whatever makes the Rainmaker happens anyway. It's arguable that Young Joe's interference because of Old Joe's return makes Cidinto a better person, but that is original research.

Cid will still escape but grow up motherless, and it will lead to Cid becoming the Rainmaker who sends Old Joe back, thus creating a continuous time loop. Joe only has his blunderbuss, which doesn't have the accuracy to kill Old Joe at that distance. So Joe instead kills himself, erasing Old Joe from existence from that point forward, saving Sara and Cid, and leaving Cid's future open to other paths.

Same problem again, overstating and original research. Cid could get adopted for all we know so we can't say he grows up motherless or STILL grows up motherless because we don't know how he originally grew up. "Continuous" in "time loop" is redundant, the whole stuff about explaining his weapon? Pointless and original research because it is saying if he had, had a sniper rifle he'd have killed Old Joe instead. Point is he made a sacrifice for something he believed in.
It's all redundant and excessive detail and my removal of the content was IMO, completely justified. Now that doesn't mean Milahanna cannot edit it, what I am advocating is that the content that was removed was redundant then no matter how it was written, and shouldn't be added back in, in any form. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I actually agree with you on most of this (regarding redundancy) but there were one or two small things that I remember reading and thinking I could sort of hybridize into the current plot, if that makes any sense. Basically there was some stuff I spotted where I thought that a slimmed down version of nerfer's wording my be more helpful than our current phrasing. I mean for me, much like you, the plot wasn't really all that complicated. But you and I have crossed paths on many film articles and we both know that time travel plots and twisty plots can often lead to debate amongst other film watchers. It seems like when we've been able to pin down specifics clearly we've gotten fewer edit conflicts down the line. /I'm about to watch the film again and jot some notes first, though. There's some stuff I'm remembering that I think may be my own subjective take on things. Millahnna (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the time travel part is actually that big a part of the film, its a linear story, the only time travel part is his older self coming back and the brief look at the original timeline we get of him in Hong Kong. Nothing is really presented in the film to offer any explanation for how events originally played out, e.g. there is no reason to believe that Cid did not have a mother in the original timeline and since Old Joe cannot have been in the original timeline and Young Joe never interacted with Cid in the original timeline, it is impossible to know what created the Rainmaker. Kid could just be a douche. Like I said, you can feel free to edit, but I don't think most of that stuff should ho back in, definitely not as it was, and definitely not the huge chunk about Seth's torture. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh I pretty much agree on all points; but the second people can interpret some kind of paradox or alternate interpretation of events (think Shutter Island and Inception) our edit conflicts on film plots goes up exponentially, regardless of how clear it may seem to me. SO I want to poke at it. I may not come up with anything I like better than what's here but this sort of thing is basically my favorite part of working on wiki so I'll give it a go. I'll do everything in my sandbox and link to it here for folks to look at so as not to bump into anyone else's trimming/expansion efforts. Millahnna (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Darkwarriorblake I watched the movie recently and looked up the internet regarding why the rainmaker ever could exist. In the life time line of the old joe(Bruce Willis) from the future he killed his future version that got sent back , so there was no possibilty to create the rain maker.

But I think there is an answer for the question "who created the original rain maker(from the future old joe comes from)that gave the order to close all the loopers,although sid couldn't have lost his mother if old joe is killed in the first place(in bruce willis life) ? In the time-line of young joe (Gordon-Levitt), the death of sarah by the old joe (willis from the future ) would logically create the rain maker. There are two possibilities from my point of view. a.) And to answer the question who, or how the rain maker was created originally (because it couldn't have been the joe from the future, as the first joe that got sent back was killed immediately) I would say it has to do with the 3 children born on the same date. And the storys about "rain maker" that differ (nobody knows how he really looks like) have to do, because, maybe sid never became the rain maker originalla but one of the other two childs that lost their mother by accident of a future looper that got killed latter on (its pretty sure that the escape of a future looper did happen more than twice). b.)Another theory I personally stick to is: Sid thought his mother (in fact that was his aunt) got killed by some guy with a gun. Sarah however tells it was an accident, and she is his real mother. However, in the Future A (where the rain maker cannot lose his mother because of joe, because joe is killed by his younger version) sarah never gave him the feeling being HIS MOTHER! So he still thought he lost his mother. But before Future B comes to life(the future resulting from the end of the movie) he knows because Sarah said to him to calm down and she also adds that she is his mother, when he used telekinesis to defend Sarah from the old joe, that she REALLY IS HIS MOTHER. And as young joe now kills himself, Sid now knows he has a living mother (not like in future A were he lost his aunt but never believed in his real mother).--Itssaturday (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

I've removed the {{Plot}} tag because even though the plot summary is currently about 730 words (about 30 words longer than the normal maximum per WP:FILMPLOT), it is an acceptable length because it is a time travel narrative and may be considered unconventional in structure or more complicated than average. Cliff Smith 01:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

People keep adding fluff details to the plot like and generally ignoring the plot limit rule for the most minor of details such as turning " Meanwhile, Old Joe is captured by Kid Blue." into "Meanwhile, Old Joe has killed one of the children and arrives at Suzie's house to kill her son but walks into a trap and is captured by Kid Blue.". Conveying the same point in three times the amount of text. This continues despite clear edit summaries explaining why their edits, including Tiller54's, were removed. I'm unwatching the article because editors can't be bothered to participate to follow the same guidelines every other film article falls under and are ignoring the clearly laid out edit summaries. Someone else can deal with it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Is it still considered edit warring if several editors undo the trivial details repeatedly? Iv been reluctant to undo them for fear of being caught in an edit war. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the same editor has undone the same edit twice now, so I sent him a friendly edit warring notice on his talk page. This is in addition to the message I sent him earlier this evening. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It's edit warring if repeated reverts are made over the same content by the same users in a short period of time without discussion. I don't think this is edit warring, but there are guidelines that hte user(s) are ignoring. And they've ignored the edit summaries explaining why to restore the same superfluous content without explanation, which is ignorant if nothing else, because they had to check the edit summaries to find out why the content they had added was gone. I'm worn out fighting over article content so I'm leaving it to others to deal with, just wanted to respond to your query. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, one user in particular Tiller54 I notice has reverted the same edit twice, I dropped a line explaining the reason why his edit had been reverted, and then he did it again an hour later so I gave him the friendly edit warring notice. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender of Suzie's child[edit]

Editors seem to disagree. The child's name is Megan. I think that means it's a girl.

Suzie's child was referred to as a "boy" in the film. That is more telling than a name.

Was Susie's child named...? I dont recall that part. MisterShiney (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The second child is not named in the text of the film... Joe's going to give Suzie half his silver to "raise her kid right". Old Joe says that no one is even sure if the Rainmaker is a man or a woman (diner conversation). When Suzie picks her child up from the neighbor, it's clearly a girl (long hair, flower-speckled stretch pants). Watching it in slow motion right now. Three possible Rainmakers, two boys, one girl. Jcr13 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cast members in the plot summary[edit]

So, MisterShiney (talk) added and wikilinked the surnames of select characters in the plot summary (here). I removed them (here) because I feel that they would be redundant, given that this article has a "Cast" section. He undid my removal (here), with the edit summary: Main Cast names in plot are a part of most if not all film pages on wikipedia. The fact is, some articles have them and some do not. There has been discussion about having cast names in a film's plot summary (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 43#Cast in plot), and the MOS:FILM's guideline on cast information was recently under revision. It seems to me like this issue is to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Thoughts on this case, please. Cliff Smith 21:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I only included them because in pretty much all film articles I have read has had them in during the plot for ease of reading and being able to put a character name to a face making, in my opinion ease of reading. But I will happily go with the consensus. MisterShiney (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
See Iron Man (film), Thor (film), Captain America: The First Avenger, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus (film), Batman Begins, The Dark Knight (film), or any of the 22 James Bond film articles (excluding the unreleased Skyfall). Cliff Smith 22:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We could go back and forth like that till doomsday. Won't get us any closer to a consensus. At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong way to do it. I think generally it's down to the individual editors writing the pages. If it's not hurting staying there, then there isn't a need to change it for the main characters. However, listing EVERY minor character thats too far and should not happen as it would take up word counts.MisterShiney (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people like them some people don't, and there are many articles that utilise this approach and many that don't. The MOS permits parenthesised cast names, but doesn't compel it. It's a personal preference thing, and the problem with that is that there is no good reason why one editor's personal preference should win out over somebody else's, so my suggestion is to stick with what you had before the dispute. The existing format should be retained unless it either violates the MOS (which neither format does here) or there is a clear consensus to alter the casting format in use. Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As aside, Gothicfilm and I had a very similar disagreement, and this was one of the proposed solutions: [2]. It elminated the redundancy, but also eliminated the need to scroll down to see who was playing the part. You might be able to do something similar. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Going on your idea of before the dispute Betty, the first edit of the plot (that I could see) here includes the surnames of the actors after their character names. Is everyone happy to keep it as it is then with the surnames of the main characters? I mean to be honest, I am going by my personal views on it that it makes the article easier to read and saves scrolling a mile to find out who's who after I have read the plot if that makes sense? I am happy to go with the consensus. Whatever that may be. MisterShiney (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Before the dispute, there were no cast surnames in the plot. Nobody suggested reverting back to the style of the first, earliest edit of plot content. (Betty, please correct me if I have misunderstood you.) Also, after someone has read the plot, it does not seem like they would have to scroll very far to get to the cast list—the very next section in the article. Cliff Smith 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
If they do go in the plot I don't think they need linking, they are mostly linked above, to the right (the infobox) and directly below. Non eed for 4 links in the immediate opening of the article to the same actors. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a real plothole[edit]

If there's no Rainmaker, there's no criminal syndicate that uses time machines to send people back to get killed, so Joe probably isn't a contract killer and doesn't kill himself, neither does he go back in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Moreovr. If Old Joe disapperas, that means the truck he drived should disappear and no silver bars should be present on teh road to make the happy end. And actually Yong Joe should disappear since he wuld be in some other place by that time not chasing Old Joe

Actually, that isnt a plot hole because the criminal syndicates were using loopers before the Rainmaker came along. But this isnt a forum for general discussion on the film and its plot holes. Please go to various movie forums for that. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 18:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Child shooting warning[edit]

We do not need to warn people about the shooting of children in the lede of article as a "trigger warning" in connection to the event at Sandy Hook. Such connection is not encyclopedic. In reading the plot and the reception, this detail is brought to the attention of the reader. BOVINEBOY2008 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Re the edit war which has been going on about this, the anon has been trying to insert a comment about the child character being "shot in the face." I just looked at the scene at issue in a copy of the film. A brief segment at 1h58m48s and a longer one at 1h44m55s to 1h45m00s in the copy I looked at clearly depict the bullet as having grazed the child's right cheek. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if we do include the plot point about the child being shot in the face, saying he was "shot in the face" doesn't sound right and we don't need to put every place someone gets shot (does that make sense?). It has turned into disruptive editing on the annons part even if he did have a justified reason for putting it in. MisterShiney 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The time-passing message scene[edit]

by carving a message into young Seth arm that his older self sees as a scar - is very attractive, unfortunately there is no need for that, because if young Seth would be killed instead instantly, the old Seth would disappear immediately :) You can argue that the syndicate probably needed form the young and older Seth some services later, but then the young Seth could not by mutilated, nor murdered by the doctor ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a plot hole, in the sense that they shoot the older seth when he appears....... but it also means that the younger seth... (with no nose, legs, missing fingers etc) will still end up dying (and being useless to the syndicate) anyway..... Would have made more sense to just have a scar that said something like 'time for you to disappear' or suchlike..... Cut to a shot of Seth then being killed.... Then back to older Seth vanishing at the fence next to the railway....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Abe did say that they didn't want to just kill Seth because of concern about the potential ripple effects on the timeline. He also acknowledged that even what they were planning (which turned out to be the mutilation) would be risky in that regard. But he said (without elaborating on exactly why) that it was less risky than just killing him altogether. (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thirty years later[edit]

The sequence of events depicted by these sentences ("...Some time later he meets a woman during a bar fight; the two fall in love and marry. Thirty years later Joe is taken...") is not just ambiguous but positively misleading. Old Joe didn't meet his wife "some time" later, he met her 23 years after closing his loop. The next sentence "Thirty years later..." would imply the passage of 53 years, not 30. While my original edit might have been a bit wordy (because I tied in Rainmaker's rise to power), the point stands and I've made a smaller edit for the sake of factual accuracy and clarity.

Iyentra Rasonica (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaw amputation?[edit]

From the plot section: "the bullet grazing his cheek - this infection will later lead to jaw amputation as Cid matures." What? Nothing of the sort is said or even alluded to in the film! Kumagoro-42 15:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumagoro-42 (talkcontribs)

That does seem odd. The same user previously added something about the Rainmaker being "jawless" - I don't remember that from the movie. Maybe I missed it... I've removed it all for now. Even if it's legitimate and someone adds it back, it could stand to be phrased much better. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Too much hype in the article[edit]

I'm new to this Talk, but just saw the movie, and read the article.

I have 2 issues which veteran Talk editors of Looper can address.

1. Is Abe the Rainmaker? Plot summary is not clear (and I only saw the last 20 minutes)

2. The article is PR-hyped. I took out "acclaimed": most liked it some didn't. More importantly, isn't the Critics' section hugely looong, as compared to other film pages I have read. I don't want to cut it by 80% unless there is consensus. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cid falls down the stairs and becomes upset, triggering an enormous telekinetic blast that kills Jesse, revealing that Cid is a powerful telekinetic and the future Rainmaker." - This seems pretty clear to me. I'll defer to other editors on point 2. DonIago (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

should article mention Kid Blue? & was Looper created specifically for Joseph Gordon-Levitt?[edit]

i recently returned the DVD to the library, but didn't one of the bonus features interviews say the film was created with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in mind?

Also, was Kid Blue named after Kid Blue, & if so, is that worth noting in the article? Heck, even if it's a coincidence, maybe it should be mentioned. Not like Kid Blue (disambiguation), but something...


-- (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first point, but as to the second, it shouldn't be mentioned unless a reliable source has mentioned it. DonIago (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)