Before I begin with my five observations about the movie Looper, I’d like to make something crystal clear to all of you. I am not in the business of slagging off films to cause controversy in order to obtain readers, especially perfectly great movies. As much as I don’t think Looper deserves the title of film of the year (The Avengers was superior) it is still a great movie, especially within the lower budget almost B-Movie sci-fi genre it occupies, and I would certainly rate it 4 out of 5 stars. I also understand having spent the last three years of my life learning how to write films that there is no such thing anymore as a truly original idea. Try as you might, film storylines will undoubtedly have many comparisons to many other films, whether unintentional or not.
Side note: Stephanie Meyer the writer of the Twilight series claims she had never watched Buffy before writing the series though the two stories have many similarities ie. the protagonist’s names- Bella Swan and Buffy Summers- BS/BS… many people would call Meyer out for speaking actual BS, but with the vast amount of films, TV series and books in the world, a truly original idea simply doesn’t exist.
Though Looper suffered from being over-hyped, it is still an entirely great movie and did exactly what it intended to do. Though it may not be the best film of the year, it is the best surprise of the year- a film that had only recently been on my radar and wasn’t at all a disappointment. The following list explores the 5 main storylines Looper steals from other pieces of fiction before it. This isn’t a criticism more simply an observation, and in many of these cases I am sure Rian Johnson intentionally took inspiration from the movies on this list…
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
33 Comments
I found tons of similarities with the movie Timecop and many times in a reversed way. Here is how…1) In both films time travel is outlawed. 2) In Looper the crime syndicate basically uses time travel exclusively and uses it to enforce a set of guidelines regarding its use (ie closing the Loop). In Timecop it is the reverse, the police (or a version of them) use time travel almost exclusively and use it to sentence time traveling abusers to death. 3) In Looper one obligatory person goes back in time with the intent of changing the future and interacts with himself to do so – Joe (Bruce Willlis/Joseph Gordon Levitts) and in Timecop, McComb (Ron Silver’s character). 4) In both movies time is changed instantly and appears in the future self. In Timecop, McComb is scarred in a fight and his older self instantly develops a scar on his face. In Looper, Young Joe cuts into his arm and instantly Old Joe experiences it. 5) In both films in order to actually travel through time, the characters enter a machine and appear instantly at their destinations (sans the machine). Both young Joe and Jean-Claude Van Damme’s character, Walker, are protecting a mother and child (in Van Damme’s case the child is unborn) which of course is a plot element in hundreds of movies…but still similar. 6) In Looper young Joe betrays his partner/friend Seth who dies, in Timecop it is reversed as Van Damme’s Walker is the one who is betrayed by his partner Gloria Reuben’s character, Fielding and that partner is killed. 7) Both movies are basically resolved when the time traveler is “killed” by themselves. In Timecop McCombs kills himself (albeit unintentionally) when his younger self is “pushed” into his older self, creating a time paradox that kills him – both disappearing. In Looper it is reversed, Young Joe intentionally kills himself causing a time paradox that makes old Joe disappear.
There are other sorts of visual similarities including a dramatic blowing up of a house – Timecop because of a bomb, and in Looper because of Cid’s telekinetic ability.
At the end of the day and as I think you pointed out, this is not an indictment of Looper, but rather a commentary on the claim that the film is original. Whether subconsciously, by design or accidentally, Looper shares the same DNA with other movies, but is still an otherwise exceptional film. I would not say it is the “best” film this year, but I certainly think the audience gets their money’s worth.
Yes. Really not criticizing the movie at all as you rightly point out. It succeeding in doing exactly what it set out to do and Johnson was obviously inspired by science fiction films of the past and would probably happily admit to this. This is, like you said, more a commentary of the fact that no film can truly be original. I loved the film.
I have seen Timecop I think but so long ago I can’t exactly remember what happened. Either way you make a convincing argument of it’s similarities. Thanks for the suggestion. Appreciated.
Who cares? Damn, write a list about movies that DON’T ‘copy’ or are influenced by other movies. Then you’ll greatly challenge yourself and your readers. Everything has been done, everything inspires everything else. Every movie on this list ‘copied’ from others.
If you read the post, that is kind of the whole point of this article. I am not criticizing the movie for doing this, just thought some people might be interested to think about some of the similarities. If you are not one of those people you didn’t have to read the article.
So I agree with most of the items on this list I am just a little confused with how Inception influenced looper. I see where you are coming with JGL being in both but thats a weak link before knowing Rain Johnson and JGL have worked together before (brick) and are friends, and no real link once you know that. As for the anti-grav stuff they are done in very different ways, at no point did I think back to inception while seeing those scenes, just wondering how the scenes mirror each other from your POV. I understand you are not trying to bash looper, and as I said before most of the article makes sense and I can see where you are coming from but the inception point seems out of place.
Hey thanks for this. Admittedly this is a weaker link and I understand that Inception and Looper are mostly very different, and I get Johnson and JGL had a working relationship a long time ago.
The reasons for it’s inclusions are these: Inception made anti-gravity so popular and is so famous for that particular scene that even X-Men: First Class removed a similar scene from their film because people would immediately make similarities. As Inception is the most popular science fiction film in a long time, and film that includes anti-gravity from then on in a similar way will seem to be ripping off Inception at least to some degree.
That alone wouldn’t have been enough however the inclusion of JGL in another somewhat similar action/science fiction role makes it just enough to include in my opinion. Probably the main reason why this film got the funding, the producers were confident it would find an audience, and the producers were happy to have JGL as a leading character (although he usually plays supporting roles) is probably all thanks to Inception. Inception proved that JGL could be an awesome action star, and in that sense the film could arguably be seen to have ripped off JGL science-fiction role in Inception somewhat to make the movie more sell-able. Looper has been compared to Inception before and the marketing team is probably glad of the (though admittedly not that many) similarities.
I completely understand if this is not reason enough for you though, and I get your point of view, but I think the success of Inception has definitely helped the success of Looper.
Thanks for reading.
Dear Mr. Bowen,
I enjoyed your article but I think you missed one very important movie from your list: Akira. With the exception of being an animated film and having no time travel element, Looper contains many of the elements that are in Akira (dystopian future, futuristic drugs, disenchanted youth, and exploding people with telekinesis to name a few).
Yes, now you mention it Akira does share many similarities. Thanks for pointing this out. I was sure I had missed a few good ones.
probably the dumbest thing ive ever read
Care to explain to me all the reasons why? Not offended if your reasons are actually valid… I am offended if you just wanted to spread negativity for no reason…
If you make a good enough point and can convince me I will be happy to agree with you.
Because you essentially just wrote however many hundreds of words based on unsubstantiated claims about Johnson’s writing ability and basically his creative process. Unsubstantiated claims that have sprung from your own opinions. What is dumb is how you have structured this article, if you were more clear about it being your own opinion, rather than making pretty straight out claims of knowledge, then maybe it wouldn’t have read as irritating as it did.
…to clarify my other comment slightly, yes you make some good comparisons, but how can you possible sit there and say flat out that ‘yes, this is what Johnson was thinking when he wrote this film, he definitely stole these scenes/ideas/images from these various directors/writers’. It’s just bad journalism.
I think the article points out some great homages to other sci-fi classics, but mayeb the title could be changed so as not to insinuate a negative tone? “Totally ripped off” sounds negative. Perhaps something akin to “5 Movies That Totally Influenced Looper” would be more accurate. And I’m sorry to say, I feel your Twilight/Buffy comparison was a bit far-fetched. Two characters that ahve the same initials? Come on. That’s like saying Looper rips off every movie ever made because it has characters and a plot…
There a far more Buffy and Twilight similarities believe me. I just find the fact that the two central characters in two of of the most popular vampire series who are both involved in sort of love triangles have the same initials and Stephanie Meyer says she had never even watched an episode before hand. Even if this is true, she is pretty stupid to have not watched everything vampire based she could get her hands on before writing the books to make sure her idea is unique.
You lost me a little bit in the middle there. I think your overall premise is correct but your details are a little lacking. Still, worth reading. Thanks.
No problem. Granted, the more you go down the list the influence is less and less. And I fully accept that I may be the only one who sees In Time having an influence over Looper.
Thanks for not being an idiot though… I am glad you still found some benefit to this list.
This article is misinformed and unbelievably misinformed. Let’s go through it:
1. The Terminator – Yes, Looper uses The Terminator’s brilliant use of time travel to set up the story. It’s actually a clever idea that hasn’t been used since the original film. I don’t know why this would be a negative.
2. X-Men: Second Coming – Um, sure I guess. Although you probably said it yourself that Johnson probably hasn’t read it. I haven’t read it, but even from your synopsis, they still sound different. So Cable’s job is to time travel to protect a girl who could be the messiah? That’s not really what happens in Looper. Joe doesn’t care about Cid and Sara until the end of the film, and throughout the film has no desire to save anyone but himself.
3. X-Men: The Last Stand – More X-Men?! I don’t really think anyone in the theater was thinking, “THEY JUST RIPPED OFF THE LAST STAND!” (except you I guess). Both characters have telekinesis, so naturally, they’re going to move things with their minds.
4. Inception – You say it yourself that Looper doesn’t really have anything in common with Inception except for JGL! So why include it? There’s nothing similar about them, except that they’re both sci-fi films. Different plots, visual aesthetics, etc.
5. In Time – There’s not a single thing in common between these two movies besides male lead on the run. They don’t look the same (In Time was clearly shot in LA with readily available locations and Looper has full world building and scope). They’re paced differently. They have different tones. Also, Looper started filming not long after In Time and was in development for two years prior. Wouldn’t really call it a ripoff.
I really don’t understand the purpose of this article (especially considering you liked the movie). It comes off overly negative. Why not write an article about the key influences for Looper, not what it “ripped off” (which is open to your interpretation). There are so many more important films (and other influences) that ACTUALLY influence the film. Witness? Casablanca? Akira? Where’s that article?
I guess I saw things in the film that you didn’t… which is understandable. And this article was never intended to be negative. In fact, the editors changed the name from “totally stole from” to “totally ripped off”. If you were to read Second Coming X-Men story they are very very similar stories, but I never claimed that they were ever exactly the same… still they are much more similar than Looper is to Akira.
And you must be crazy if you didn’t notice the similarity between the scene in Last Stand and the almost identical scene in Looper. Maybe you should watch the film again?
Argh, don’t know if my other comment posted, but I think that it needs to be said….
This is just such a poorly written article, you need to take more care when writing opinion pieces like this, otherwise you are just going to piss people off. You made a point at the start to clarify that you don’t slander films for publicity, then what do you slander them for?
These are your opinions, and like anyone you are more than entitled to them, but you can’t just sit there and type out all this crap as if it is fact or common knowledge. Yes, you make some great comparisons as to the themes and narrative structure of Looper as compared to other films of this nature, but how can you just come out and flatly say that ‘yes, this is what Johnson meant to do, and yes he is clearly stealing this idea’. You can’t, for 1 it’s completely unsubstantiated, and 2 it’s just bad bad journalism.
Don’t present your own opinions and ideas as facts when they are not facts. If you want to say that Johnson’s writing process is to take exact scenes and themes from other films and place them within his own then interview him and get a direct quote. Like I said, very crappy journalism.
I think you also need to be more clear. This is a poorly written article although I make some great comparisons. Contradictory much?
First of all, it is pretty obvious this is an opinion piece. I say it’s my opinion about a million times in the article. And I very rarely if even ever say in the article that Johnson definitely copied these films. If you knew anything about the writing process of any film you would know that only a lazy writer wouldn’t research the genre before creating a film like this one.
Clearly (although I never said definitely) Johnson is referencing and borrowing from The Terminator on many many accounts. It is difficult to make a time travel movie now without to some extent referencing the most famous time travel movie. Seeing as you can even see the similarities it would be foolish to think that Johnson himself wasn’t aware of these similarities or in fact inspired by them when creating his film.
And as much as you are also entitled to you opinions, to say this is very crappy is a tad unnecessary, and I simply don;t understand people like you who get joy out of trying to make people you will never meet feel bad about themselves.
I also think, had you read the article properly and not clearly misunderstood what I was saying, you would realize that most of your own points are entirely invalid. Like I said, I never ever said he definitely stole anything from any one else… and besides, creating a movie is ALL about stealing things from various places. Name one so called original movie and I will tell you many many films before it that most likely influenced the writing of the film a great deal.
Not a contradiction at all, you do make great comparisons, but that isn’t where I take issue with the article. Where I take issue is with the tone that you take to make these comparisons.
You do mention a few times with some conviction that Johnson stole ideas, for instance in reference to Terminator “I am almost guaranteed Johnson referenced this film purposely” – how are you guaranteed? Did you ask Rian yourself? No to mention the title of the article itself states that he ripped off ideas.
I do actually know quite a bit about the writing process of a film, and I’m not challenging you on the fact that of course Johnson would have done research into the genre, probably not even research, it’s pretty clear that he is a big fan of this type of film, and yes the comparisons you make are exemplary of this.
I’m not so much challenging you on the ideas that you put forward in this article, just the way in which you went about it. And I’m not writing these responses as a way to try and make you feel bad, or to deliberately troll you or something like that, that’s what YouTube comment sections are for, I’m writing this because your article clearly didn’t hit a note with me; and as a writer you need to be able to take criticism. Get off your filmschool high horse and have a proper discussion with me without getting all childish and defensive. If you don’t want to hear criticism then maybe leave this off next time… “Or even if you think my suggestions are stupid, I’d “love” to hear why also in the comments section below…”
I loved Looper, and it’s obvious that you did as well. Like I said, the comparisons you draw between these films (and comic book) are pretty spot on in terms of the two sharing themes and aesthetic values, but find a way to say that without stating that it was clearly an act of one person ripping off, or stealing from another person, because that right there is what is completely unsubstantiated.
…and as an end note I know you are still going to go ahead and say that you never directly stated that Johnson steals ideas, but the tone of the article highly sugests that, and the tone of the article is where the issue lies.
I feel like many of your criticisms I have already answered or have been already answered within the article. I am almost guaranteed he took from Terminator doesn’t mean I know he took from Terminator and I never say that. The reason I am almost guaranteed is for the reasons I said… the story is very very similar and a few of the shots and scenes are very much a like.
I’m sorry that you didn’t like the tone but I was never trying to accuse the film of doing something wrong… and really if the article has had this much of an impact on you that you’d write essays worth of responses back and you like the comparisons I made, then really- why bother to complain at all? Just cause you dislike the tone doesn’t mean that everyone does.
Am I going to sit here and say that I think this is the best article I have ever written- absolutely not. But really all this was was a talking point to encourage people to think of other films where Looper probably borrowed and or stole from (which all good films do and should). I am not trying to win the Pulitzer Prize.
I think the main issue people are having is that no one likes people who come along and “insult” their favorite recent films. If this article had been written in a years time no one would have a problem with it.
hmmm, not to sure about this article. With the exception of X-Men: Last Stand, i think all of your other points are redundant seeing as film is apparently based on the Phillip K. Dick short story “The Skulls”.
However, I thought the “Inception” comment topped the lot. How could the fact Levitt is in “Looper” be inspired by Inception? Surely then you could say Inception was inspired by “Brick”? Or The Wolverine is inspired by Oklahoma!
Some constructive criticism finally! Thank you for your kind words and suggestions to help me become a better writer. Your writing skills are obviously far superior to mine based on that wonderfully in depth and fascinating response. Please, continue to stay in your room, trolling on peoples comments sections then running away. You have clearly found your calling and people obviously respect your thought provoking and well constructed ideas.
5)Terminator – This is the only one I would agree with. The director cited it as a big influence, especially with how time travel is used to set up a story and then gets out of the way. But ripped off, oh I mean TOTALLY ripped off implies that he intended to get away with something. He admits the influence is there in most interviews about the film.
4)X-Men Comics: “Second Coming” This is where the title of this article becomes frustrating. It’s a comic that I doubt the writer is even aware of. So TOTALLY RIPPED OFF seems like an insane stretch. It seems to be a ploy to fill up content in a controversial article. Oh wait, you say in the beginning of the article that it isn’t so I guess not.
3) X-Men: The Last Stand. If you did some research you would find that what influenced the telekinesis sub-plot, and thus the scene that you mentioned, was actually the graphic novel Domu. That would of been an influence worth mentioning on your list. Oh wait, not an influence. I mean something that was TOTALLY RIPPED OFF.
2) Inception. The laziest and worst film comparison on this list.
a) Rian Johnson started writing this ten years ago. Ironically that’s how long Christopher Nolan took to make Inception but obviously Rian Johnson hadn’t seen it.
b) What anti gravity scenes are in Looper? Joe falls off a ledge. And then there are a few telekinesis scenes. Are you calling those anti gravity as well?
1) In Time – Another lazy entry. Besides the obvious time plot, what I mentioned about Rian Johnson writing this movie ten years ago disproves this.
This list should be something like “4 suspiciously similar films”. Not TOTALLY ripped off.
It seems like most of your issue with this article is because of the title… Initially it was “stole from”- I’m not sure if that makes a difference but the editors changed it to ripped off. Regardless, I never state that Johnson actually “ripped” these films off, just that if he had done his research he would have noticed that many previous films are very similar to this one. You are right that I could have said “suspiciously similar” but that doesn’t cause as much of a reaction. This way people probably wouldn’t have read the article. Like I said time and time again, I have ZERO problem with Johnson “ripping” off these films because I enjoyed the movie. This article was more simply an observation of some other things that it reminded me of. You seem to agree with most of my points also, or at least can see how I think the films are similar for the most part… but again, I never ever ever claim in the actual article that he ripped these films off- but just that a lot of his ideas, whether he knew this or not were recycled (and I have no problem with this).
As for Inception, I would personally count using telekinesis as a form of anti-gravity… but even still, the use of TK in the film looked similar to the use of anti-gravity in parts of Inception.
But again, this article was never intended as a criticism of the film, more an observation.
“I am not in the business of slagging off films to cause controversy in order to obtain readers”
Yet…
“You are right that I could have said “suspiciously similar” but that doesn’t cause as much of a reaction. This way people probably wouldn’t have read the article.”
So it’s okay to phrase the title of the article a certain way to attract readers but not okay to “slag off” a film to attract readers?
I think so. What I mean is I am not going to lie throughout this article and exaggerate the truth in order to cause a reaction like many writers would. However, in order to get people to actual read the article, I am OK with using an element of this. Maybe you think this is hypercritical but I guarantee it is a trick writers use all the time.
“It is a trick writers use all the time”
Right and so is exaggerating throughout the article by your own admission.
So both are tricks that writers use all the time. Yet you are morally above one and not the other.
So we both agree you are being hypercritical?
But if you are admitting to having a controversial title to increase the likelihood of attention from readers, don’t start off the article with “I am not in the business of slagging off films to cause controversy in order to obtain readers”. Because you are in the business of having a controversial title for the same outcome.
You even wanted a more controversial title with using “stole” before it was changed.
Daniel, you are completely right. As I was watching this movie, all I could think of was “Ripped off Terminator with that scene,” and “ripped off Akira with that one,” etc. throughout the whole movie. However, I disagree with you that it is a good movie. It isn’t. Terminator and Akira blow it away and I would have rather watched either of those again for the 20th time then watched something this unoriginal.
I like your comparison to the Terminator movies 1 & 2, and, as a beginning writer of ya fiction novels, I gree that it is very difficult to create a completely new, never before discovered plot, but according to Goodreads website, Looper was written in 2002. Wouldn’t at least Inception and the X-men comparisons used in your blog be impossible?
Well, the Avenger stunk, but at least it didn’t let a plot get in the way of its incessant action.
E.T. a sci fi classic? On what planet.
I don’t really care if a film steals from another if it adds on and is good. Looper failed on both counts.
By the way, I know I am in the minority, but I thought Dark Knight Rises was much better than the Avengers.
http://texshelters.hubpages.com/hub/Tex-Goes-to-the-Movies-The-Bane-of-Batman
PTxS
X-Men Comics: “Second Coming” seems wrong considerng thaton the extras on the dvd JGL and RJ talk about how the original comcept is from shortly after they dd Brick together.