MovieChat Forums > TheGutterMonkey
TheGutterMonkey (292)
Posts
Not confronting our problems
I believe I preferred Day One (1989)
Cool ideas, amateurish realization of them
Why is everyone so convinced of his guilt?
Let me get this straight...
Who do you think is morally worse? Heisenberg or Saul?
Preaching about social justice worked in the 60s... not today
I found this to be surprisingly good... except for the last 14 minutes
I'm kinda disappointed at how silly the show has become
So... no mention of the three days of rape, murder, and pillaging then?
View all posts >
Replies
It always came across to me as one of those cult movies that, over time, just got way too popular for its own good. Back when everyone first watched it, I think people (those who weren't horrified by it, which for some reason they were) were really surprised at how good and clever it was. From the title and the little information given in the trailers, at first glance, it just looked like some sort of mindless fighting movie or something. And while Fincher was already established as a good director at the time, his name wasn't quite what it later became, I don't think, so (aside from some film buffs) most weren't having huge expectations on that front either.
Now that it's become so famous and revered, though, people seem to walk into it almost as if it's obligated to blow them away; and, if it doesn't, they get angry at the fact that it's been built up so much. Even when they don't know anything about it, they figure there must be <i>something</i> special to it, and that kind of thinking really sets the stage for disappointment a lot of the time.
Not to mention, the twist in the film has, since then, been done to death to the point where "maybe they're the same people" has, for years, been the go-to "theory" for every weird movie or show anyone watches. So that probably makes the film come off more predictable than it otherwise used to. Also (largely due to Fight Club) many go in already having been familiarized with Chuck Palahniuk and have expectations due to that, as well.
I dunno. I just think once a film or TV series gets popular, it just loses its magic in a whole variety of ways. It's a bit of a double-edged sword.
With the characters' tendency to put on masks and go destroy public property, promoting anarchy at every turn and telling people what they can or can't publicly talk about, you'd assume it would be a hit with the far left as well. For bonus points, it was written by a homosexual.
I hadn't seen The Lost World or Jurassic Park 3 since I was a kid and, honestly, I seemed to remember my feelings about them (and their reputations) more than the specifics of the films themselves. And my feelings, obviously, weren't good. I remembered Jurassic World being a massive letdown and I'd almost forgotten part 3 entirely. The strongest lingering memory I had about both of them was just what a letdown they were and how much neither I nor anyone else seemed to like them.
After recently rewatching them though, I feel like I was really underappreciating them. Like you say, they're far from perfect, but they were nowhere near as bad as I remembered. And I found them to be quite a lot better than any films in this new trilogy (which came off very formulaic, devoid of character development, tropey, and cartoonishly silly and over-the-top much of the time in a generic blockbuster action movie sorta way).
If other people's feelings are similar to mine when it comes to this, I think a lot of their opinions may just be based on how different our expectations were at the time. Jurassic Park set the bar pretty high for a sequel and, at the time, I think many of us were just expecting too much from them (especially knowing they starred the guys from the original movie). So we didn't really watch them in the context of what they were but, rather, in the context of what they <i>weren't</i>. And that negative view of them just became how we remembered them.
I think for this new trilogy most of us weren't expecting Jurassic Park quality. In fact, we were expecting exactly what we got: an action-packed, dinosaur-filled spectacle that would be fun to watch on a big screen. We weren't expecting depth, we weren't expecting great characters, and since the story mostly wasn't about the original characters or plot, the movie was sorta free from having to live up to that and to be seen as its own thing.
I doubt it would matter either way, considering that even after the first bomb was dropped, and they saw the power firsthand, they were still refusing to surrender.
It's the first season. Most of the things you're complaining about haven't even been established to be faults. They're just mysteries about the company, how the chips work, the lore behind Kier, the story behind Mark's wife, how much do the innie characters ACTUALLY remember, etc., that have yet to be answered.
And why would they be answered in the first season? The slow unraveling of those mysteries is what's keeping it fascinating and what has people chomping at the bit to see what happens next. Have you never seen Dark? BSG? LOST? The Leftovers? Westworld? The OA? Mr. Robot? For most of these, you're given mysteries in the first episodes that persist throughout multiple seasons until you're finally given the resolutions (usually gradually, piece by piece, season by season, as more mysteries are introduced along the way). And audiences absolutely love it. Incidentally, that's what annoyed David Lynch so much about Twin Peaks. He was forced by executives to reveal who killed Laura Palmer too early (which was the big question the rest of the show revolved around). Expectedly, audiences began to tune out after that.
Of course they're not going to tell what the corporation does already, or tell us what's up with the anti-Lumon group, or explain the exact process that led Petey to outie Mark, or shell out too many details about Mark's wife, her "death", or what the company is doing with her. LOST doesn't work if you explain what the island is, what the smoke monster is, what the whispers are, etc. in the first season. The first season was just building up those mysteries, not answering them. And, more importantly, establishing these characters and this world (from their inside-the-box perspective), as we watch them slowly realize that things aren't right and gradually decide to start breaking out of the box, rebelling against the people in control. Which is why that's what the season climaxed with.
I don't think any sort of conspiracy is afoot. People just don't want to be mean, don't want to sound mean, and they want to protect others who they see as victims of this type of meanness.
I'm sure most of us have experienced a micro-version of this in our daily lives. I've had girls complain about getting fat to me before, for instance, and if they <i>are</i> fat, it puts me in a very awkward position. Because I know that I really have only a few options: I can either agree, disagree (lie), or try to artfully get out of this conversation (which is my usual go-to). If I agree, even in the most tactful, delicate, and sympathetic way, chances are as high as her cholesterol that her feelings are going to be hurt. And I <i>really</i> don't want to have that effect on someone. The easier, safer option, is to just say complimentary things like "I like a little meat on the bones", or "You're beautiful just the way you are," or some other such thing that, while it may enable her problem, will make her feel better in the short-term and make me look more caring and sympathetic to others.
We're a social species and an abundance of empathy is a big part of that, so we're usually inclined to bend over backward to nurture and protect those we perceive as vulnerable or underdogs (fat people, in this instance) and to do whatever it takes to make them feel better and to make ourselves look better to others.
That empathy, though, is a double-edged sword. Those impulsive feelings can blind us to what's most rational or effective. Not just with this topic, but with tons of topics. We'd rather coddle our young, for instance, because we want to protect them from outside dangers; even though that very coddling, in the long-term, causes them more problems in the future. People just don't instinctively think this stuff out, I don't believe. The most natural impulse is to prioritize short-term emotional comfort over long-term solutions. So that's the accepted norm.
Well, yeah, with the ending they used it just makes him sound kinda arrogant lol. Like, <i>"yeah, man, I'm a boss; I am legend!"</i>
For the book though, and the alternate ending of the film, it turns out that the creatures weren't the bad guys per se. They were intelligent and part of a community, and Neville was essentially the boogieman that was stalking around while they slept, snatching them up, killing them, and experimenting on them (they were attacking him at the end in order to get back a girl he'd kidnapped). Since he was the only human, he was the freakish creature in this world. He was like a monster in their eyes, or the scary figure talked about in old stories. I.e., a creepy old "legend" like Dracula or something, that parents scare their kids with. So the title was really originally meant to have a meaning more akin to: "I'm the monster".
Apparently, they decided to go with the ending they went with because test audiences weren't very keen on seeing Will Smith as a villain. So, they switched it up so that the creatures stayed the bad guys and Smith became a legendary hero for sacrificing his life to give humanity a cure.
From what I understand, for the sequel they're going to go back to calling the alternate, non-theatrical ending canon. Which is sorta weird.
I was just commenting on the offputting way you presented yourself. I don't have much of an opinion about the specific subject matter you're discussing. For all it matters, he could be claiming that 2+2=12 to your counterargument that it's 4. A correct asshole is still an asshole.
No, no. He's correct. Just as a casual observer here, I, as well, was struck by what an unprovoked asshole you were.
No. That stuff is certainly not "known". We know she <i>said</i> that he was regularly hitting walls and that <i>she</i> said that's how he broke his finger. But that's it.
What she <i>says</i>, though, without corroborating witnesses/evidence, means very little. She has obvious reason to lie and it's already been established that she'll do so when it's convenient for her narrative. We see a couple of photos of holes in the walls, of course, but none are obviously from someone punching them (some appear very tiny, in fact, and there's no info about them other than the fact they exist). We see an x-ray of a time he hurt his finger years prior but, again, there's no corroborating evidence of how he hurt that finger. For all we know, she's the one who hurt it (very Depp/Heard reminiscent, btw). No one else is talking about him behaving like this, though. Daniel isn't mentioning it, his shrink isn't mentioning it, no one is mentioning it other than Sandra — the person who has something to gain from people believing this story.
All we know is that <i>she</i> hit <i>him</i>, that <i>she</i> lied, and that <i>she</i> behaved violently toward him as little as a day before the murder. Also, I suppose, we know she'd been drinking a lot during both of these days and she, apparently, is capable of sudden bursts of rage-filled violence.
As far as her not wanting to go down a road where she put Samuel in a bad light (I'm assuming you meant Samuel), this, again, is just something we have to take her word for. Although, I don't know what relevance this is anyway. What are the things she lied about for his sake? Because it all seemed to be for her own benefit, from what I could tell.
View all replies >