Before I go on, I must say: this entry will spoil the movies Looper and The Terminator. If you haven't watched either of these two movies and don't want to be spoiled, don't read this blog.
Having that said, this entry makes the assumption that you've watched both movies. I won't fully explain the plot for either one -- just enough to make point of my issue with them.
Okay, so... I have an issue with time travel stories. Whenever I watch anything involving time travel, unless parallel timelines are brought up, I tend to assume there is only one linear timeline (as in if the past gets affected, the future gets affected and adjusts itself to those past events). That's when I ask myself: does this story make sense? Does it still make sense when future elements are in the past, interacting with it? When it doesn't, I have a problem.
Here is the issue I have with time traveling stories: When the driving reason for the future to collide with the past originated from some kind of interaction with the future and past. When that happens, I wonder: what drove the future elements to go into the past in the first place? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Now this issue happens with Looper and The Terminator. First, I gotta say that these movies are very good and enjoyable. Just so you know I'm not bashing them because I just don't like them. But this issue... it doesn't make sense.
In Looper, Joe from the future (let's call him Future Joe) goes to the past with the aim to kill a boy (Cid) who would grow up to become the "Rainmaker". The "Rainmaker" is responsible for closing all loops (loopers getting sent to the past to be killed by their past self). Later on, we find out that the driving reason for Cid's hatred of loopers comes from Future Joe being in the past, killing Cid's mother (who was killed trying to protect Cid from Future Joe).
Now, I'm confused. Thoughts and questions fly through my mind: So, Cid won't develop a hatred of loopers if his mother wasn't killed... And his mother wouldn't be killed if Future Joe wasn't back in the past... and Future Joe wouldn't be in the past in the first place if Cid didn't have a hatred of loopers... but Cid wouldn't have a hatred of loopers if his mother wasn't killed... Aggg, my head hurts!
This same issue happens in The Terminator. A cyborg assassin from the future is sent to the past to kill Sarah, the woman who would give birth to John, the savior for humanity in the future. Kyle also gets sent back to the past, but to protect Sarah. Later on, it's revealed that John is the result of a union between Sarah and Kyle. Sarah and Kyle... some guy from the future.
So... how was John conceived in the first place? Kyle went back to the past to protect Sarah, because... why? John would have never existed in the first place. Because in the first place, Kyle would never have had a reason to be in the past.
So, there is my issue. I don't mind it so much when it's in cheesy movies like Bill and Ted. And I can still enjoy time travel stories. But if it does happens, I just go *facepalm*, become confused, and complain about it later.
If this issue could be explained logically and somehow I'm just missing something, please let me know. I want to understand!
Thanks for reading! :)