Wouldn't it have made more sense..

(sorry for the cliffhanger-type topic, I don't usually do that)

Wouldn't it have made more sense for the 'editors' to actually wait until the work is PUBLISHED, and THEN kill the artists? Not exactly after they created their work? What good is a work (for their intents and purposes) that isn't published?

So they just haphazardly left the art on the table, waiting for someone BY CHANCE getting it, and BY CHANCE not taking credit for it, and giving it to the murdered people? What if that someone doesn't even know who the murdered blokes are? What if it ends up as evidence (or something) in some police locker/vault, and never sees the light of day again?

I mean, that would leave SO many risks, anything could happen.

And a single piece of PAPER in a place like a PUB? Oh my .. that's an INSANE risk to take, to just TRUST that


1) the paper would be safe, undisturbed, unharmed, and remain legible in that environment
2) someone would take it to a publisher (who might be different than the publisher the artist originally would have used)
3) the someone in question wouldn't take credit for it, but would faithfully credit all three murder-victims that were sitting on the table
4) the police wouldn't take it, store it, etc. or use it as a clue for the murder mystery
5) that it wouldn't be then delivered to the grieving family of one of the victims (and which one, would be up to .. whom exactly?)

Not to mention killing a whore bar full of people wouldn't TREMENDOUSLY affect the future (the butterfly-effect, chaos theory, whatever the moviemakers want to call it).. would the editors really take such a huge risk? They might erase their own existence, for crying out loud! (timeline-wise-speaking - existence of energy/souls can of course never be erased)

What would the editors have to lose by waiting for the publisher to actually publish the work? And is 'decline in quality' really such a bad thing that it's worth murdering a huge amount of people for? I mean, come on. So what if the quality declines, it doesn't change the fact that there were good works at some point. I think this point is a little weak - why would anyone go through such huge amount of trouble for such a small payoff?

What is the payoff exactly? That Kevin Costner never made movies worse than dance with the wolves? I mean, would the world really be that much a better place (and who would really benefit) if Lucas hadn't made those awful prequel-sequels to the 'Star Wars' trilogy? (I know that it was supposedly originally planned to be a 9-part saga, which was based on some 'treatment' that Lucas somehow came up with, of which only the middle bit was used for the three original movies - I have no idea how it really went, but still)

Huge amount of work, lots of effort, implanting guns into your body, time-traveling, murdering a room full of people... for.. what? What did they really gain out of it? There was no 'decline in quality', but isn't that kind of a flimsy reward? So no one's quality declines, but lots of people have to be MURDERED for that to happen? WTF?

Well, the movie tries to get out of this by saying they are some sort of lunatics (though very patient ones - why wouldn't the 'editor' simply kill the fatso? That would immediately solve the problem), but they seem really organized and intelligent for lunatics, and no 'time police' tries to catch them? Let alone the actual police, for mass-murders?

As this movie states; how hard is it to make a good movie.. (:

I do respect the effort that went into this movie, though, and it is an ok piece, nothing completely wrong with it (besides the stupid woman-worshipping, and other typical misandry - always complementing some hag, always offering them seats, always letting them PUNCH the man (without the man punching back), always trusting them after they REPEATEDLY showed their incompetence.. etc. etc.. ), but it could have been so much more.

It's somewhat ironic, that the characters have good sense about movies, and how brilliant movies could actually be, if the writers had more imagination and intelligence, creativity and courage - but yet this movie sort of follows a typical pattern, where everything is played for jokes, and nothing really happens - they just run a circle, and then the movie ends, and then everything is messed up (but that's also played for jokes)..

They could have hired someone a bit younger to act as the scifi-nerd sex-object - Anna Faris was born in the seventies, for crying out loud. But it would be a better movie, if such injected romance crap didn't exist in it in the first place (it only slowed down the pace of the plot, and artificially lengthened the movie - in its place, some interesting plot could have been happening) ..

Again it seemed to happen - I wanted to make just a small point about one thing, and it expanded into an almost full-fledged review.