|
thespaceinvader posted:His job was to foment a rebellion every so often. Basically. Right, but was that his job right off the bat, or did he kind of fall into it after he decided to chop his own arm and leg off to feed to starving people? Wilford said that the head and tail need to work together, so it's possible that Wilford could find enough of a zealot in someone like Gilliam to go along with all that, but it is a long shot. There's a recurring theme that they all have some pre ordained position, but that could either mean Gilliam was working for Wilford from the very beginning or that it was 'destiny' for Gilliam to fall into a role that served Wilford.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
Person 1 in sitcom says something to Person 2 they don't want to hear. Person 2: What?! Person 3: Repeats what Person 1 said as if the issue was that they didn't hear what was said, rather than reacting to what was said. Me: gently caress off. That has never happened in real life to anyone ever. CityMidnightJunky has a new favorite as of 21:17 on Oct 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Person 1: Says something important over comms, this is completely legible, and comes through clearly despite some static. Person 2: What was that? You're breaking up! Important information not coming through because a myriad of reasons is not the issue. The issue is that whatever important that's being said is crystal clear, and easy for the viewer to catch, but the person receiving the message never understands it. And this is then also usually immediately punctuated by Person 2 getting hosed over whatever they got warned about. This is made even worse by the fact that the viewer often knows what Person 2 is getting warned about, either from a previous scene, (Or even sometimes you'll be following Person 1 just as they're about to send the message.) so having it come through clearly(for the viewer) serves no point at all. It's just so bafflingly dumb. I'd be happy if the thing was just so garbled you couldn't understand it, even knowing what the warning was supposed to be. But it's always just a bit of static, and maybe like 1 or 2 short words cut out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
SubNat posted:Person 1: Says something important over comms, this is completely legible, and comes through clearly despite some static. And it works so well when the viewer can’t understand. No I don’t have good examples I just know it does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Right, but was that his job right off the bat, or did he kind of fall into it after he decided to chop his own arm and leg off to feed to starving people? Wilford said that the head and tail need to work together, so it's possible that Wilford could find enough of a zealot in someone like Gilliam to go along with all that, but it is a long shot. The implication I took was that he was the leader of the last rebellion, which was fomented by his predecessor, and so forth, and the expectation was that... Chris Evans... would immediately cave, return to the rear car missing a limb or two, and choose the leader of the next rebellion, because the whole point was about the cycles of society and how everyone is complicit in them. As in, whoever leads the rebellion is allowed to come to the front of the train once everyone else is dead, talk to whoever is currently driving, told that their job is to go back and foment the next rebellion because if they don't there will be too many poors and the whole train will crash, and they do, ebcause they don't want the train to crash. I didn't see it so much being about predestination as being about the roles society forces us to take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
SubNat posted:Person 1: Says something important over comms, this is completely legible, and comes through clearly despite some static. “Hello, police? This is Marge Simpson. My husband is on a murderous rampage. Over." "Thank God that's over. I was worried there for a second."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The implication I took was that he was the leader of the last rebellion, which was fomented by his predecessor, and so forth, and the expectation was that... Chris Evans... would immediately cave, return to the rear car missing a limb or two, and choose the leader of the next rebellion, because the whole point was about the cycles of society and how everyone is complicit in them. No Gilliam was around at the start. He was missing limbs because he fed them to people when they were first trapped on the train and starving. This Rebellion itself was also unique in that Wilford was trying to find a successor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
In Charlie’s angels, Dylan starts a romance with their client which violates pretty much every professional code of conduct that there is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 04:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:The implication I took was that he was the leader of the last rebellion, which was fomented by his predecessor, and so forth, and the expectation was that... Chris Evans... would immediately cave, return to the rear car missing a limb or two, and choose the leader of the next rebellion, because the whole point was about the cycles of society and how everyone is complicit in them. nah the last rebel leader was killed in the previous rebellion where all the bullets went "extinct". Curtis' de facto leadership is a recent development based pretty much entirely on his military prowess. Gilliam is the "spiritual" advisor, a permanent fixture of the tail end. Totalitarian dictators much prefer negotiating with figureheads than with the mob. Wilford, additionally, is a technocrat, a figure who sees society as a system that has certain release valves that are required to be opened or closed at certain times to prevent pressure from building and maintain balance in the system. Ya know, as opposed to viewing society as a collection of individuals imbued with humanity and meaning and purpose. In this respect, Wilford saw value in working with a representative of the tail end to more easily implement his Malthusian measures. So yeah, Gilliam likely made a Faustian bargain, under the assumption that in coordinating and building a rapport with Wilford, he could curb some of his more brutal pacification methods. History is filled with pacifist revolutionaries who became Gilliams, not because they were morally weak, but because they were so politically powerless that they saw no other way to ease the suffering of their people. Gilliam probably never expected Curtis to make it past the water car. Once he saw there was real potential in the success of total revolution, he gave Curtis exactly the advice he needed to hear, and no more. That's my interpretation though, you can read into Gilliam's true motivations however you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
I know Snowpiercer isn't supposed to make sense, but what did the poor people in the rear cars actually do? The engine required no fuel and maintenance was all performed up front. They didn't grow the food except for their bug bars. Wilford needed small children to reach those hard to reach engine components, but I'd think they could fulfill that without a powder keg class struggle every 10 years. Did they exist just to have a caste system and keep the middle class supporting the upper class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 21:53
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:Did they exist just to have a caste system and keep the middle class supporting the upper class? Most of everything in Snowpiercer is a (at times rather heavy handed) metaphor for modern society, so yeah, the upper class needs some kind of outcast to victimize and make monsters of to keep the middle class in line.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
It’s human nature to always have someone to look down on
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Through the entire movie I assumed that the twist was going to be that the rich folks were eating the people in the rear cars. There was so much that could have foreshadowed it, I was shocked when the reveal was "just" that small children were needed for tight spaces. I am still convinced that the whole piece works better as a metaphor that way, and I half suspect that they changed the nature of the rich's dependency on the poor after reactions from test audiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
It's very stupid that somebody who ate human infants would be so grossed out about protein bars made from processed insect matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:It's very stupid that somebody who ate human infants would be so grossed out about protein bars made from processed insect matter. Maybe that's on purpose
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
Maybe human infants taste better than bug bars?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
We have it on tradition that some of them are, in fact, tender and mild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:We have it on tradition that some of them are, in fact, tender and mild. Hmm, could I get this infant with a bit of chili oil, please?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Most of everything in Snowpiercer is a (at times rather heavy handed) metaphor for modern society, so yeah, the upper class needs some kind of outcast to victimize and make monsters of to keep the middle class in line. Wilford said the best way to achieve balance is to have individual units kill off other individual units. Tail enders were that target. I heard there were 2000 people living on the train at the time of the movie, and given that there were a thousand tail enders initially, there's probably still a significant proportion of them (especially since 74% were scheduled to be culled). This competition for resources could make for a good target. Finally, keeping them around makes Wilford look merciful. By not wiping them all out, he looks magnanimous and gets seen as the savior of humanity. Another thing that wasn't really a addressed was that tickets to the train had different teirs, but we don't exactly see any 'coach' passengers, it's all super fancy or super destitute. Eh, who knows, maybe the coach passengers themselves weren't useful to Wilford and he let them die in the MacGregor riots? Perhaps they didn't have a spiritual leader like Gilliam to be in a position to negotiate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
I’m going to guess the middle class were servants for the upper class since the poor people who would otherwise do it weren’t allowed forward. It’s not like a proper capitalist economy could function for generations on a train. I think I remember a hair salon at one point. The hair stylist? That’s the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
They’re all a load of useless bloody loonies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Krispy Wafer posted:I’m going to guess the middle class were servants for the upper class since the poor people who would otherwise do it weren’t allowed forward. It’s not like a proper capitalist economy could function for generations on a train. I think I remember a hair salon at one point. The hair stylist? That’s the middle class. Nah, more likely they either worked for Wilford from the very start or were tail sectioners that got recruited. Note that the guy who made the protein bars and the violinist were both from the tail section. It's likely they went back there as needed and asked "is anyone here a dentist/veteranarian/boot polisher/etc?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Torquemada posted:They’re all a load of useless bloody loonies. But who's going to sanitize the telephones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Nah, more likely they either worked for Wilford from the very start or were tail sectioners that got recruited. Note that the guy who made the protein bars and the violinist were both from the tail section. It's likely they went back there as needed and asked "is anyone here a dentist/veteranarian/boot polisher/etc?" I had to go back and look and they’re only on the train for about 15 years. So yeah, it’s possible they’re pulling talent from the tail section. I still think it’s a Faustian bargain for the servant class to act as a buffer for the wealthy in exchange for decent meals and sunlight. A normal middle class of accountants and middle managers wouldn’t really have a purpose on the train, but there’s definitely an IT guy struggling to keep the intranet going.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Stupid_Sexy_Flander posted:We have it on tradition that some of them are, in fact, tender and mild. That line always creeped me out hahaha. Why does baby jesus sound like an entree at a fast casual dining place
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
So good you'll be back 3 days later for another box!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
pret a manger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
ohoho
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:pret a manger. Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Gemini Man: The film definitely feels outdated in the sense it doesn't acknowledge that how well-trodden the spy-genre is. Will Smith chooses to retire after nearly slipping on a hit. An old-friend divulges info to Will about the hit, which puts Will in danger. The old-friend naturally gets murdered because he's an old-fat-guy cheating on his wife on a yacht in the middle of the sea. I really wished the cast of spy-movies would watch other spy-movies and take notes. It's painful to see every twist 10 minutes in advance. It take 40 minutes to arrive to the advertised premise, when Will learns he has a clone. This is like when Victorian novelists spent 50 pages of preamble trying to justify this outrageous premise where a man walks on the moon and a woman gets to vote. In comparison I loved Spider-Verse because it didn't need to school the audience with a 20 minute prologue on who Spider-Man is and what's an alternate-universe? Like Black Panther we have a scene where two guys who look the same have a scuffle in a too-dark-cave. A lot of action happens quickly in poorly-lit locales. We see the Bad Guy reside in a big-military-compound. The climax does not take place there. The climax happens in the corner-store of a small town. This is a 150 million-dollar that feels like a 50 million-dollar movie. They spent 50 million to achieve a framerate most theatres won't show, and another 50 to create a redundant CGI Smith even the though the real-deal still works. The Bad Guy's reasoning for cloning Will Smith is that he wants to create an army of emotionless clones who will fight our wars instead of having real people fight and die, or to have veterans succumb to PTSD and kill themselves. Holy gently caress, you can't jam a heavy real-life issue so thoughtlessly into your lame-movie about two Will Smiths. The film has jokes which are technically funny but it would have far better if the film had a sense of humour. Go OTT and make no apologies for being stupid. Mary Elizabeth Winstead gets bashed around but remains really hot. This isn't a criticism or anything, I just thought it was worth mentioning how hot she is. I regret having to taking a piss-break during the one scene where she takes her kit off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:Gemini Man: This isn't necessarily a bad thing though? Like, just off the top of my head (since I saw a video about it a little while ago), in the film Candyman, the titular character doesn't show up until like halfway through the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Will Smith finding out he has a clone should have been the inciting incident, not the first-act climax. Before that point it's just a generic spy-movie, and the true conflict between the two Smiths doesn't get much space to develop. I read in that McKee book this movie where the first thing we learn is that Mel Gibson's farm has to be destroyed for flood reasons. Mel Gibson doesn't find about that decision until the end of the movie, so the actual meat and conflict is squeezed into the last 10 minutes. Sometimes a movie works when the delay is intended, like seeing how hit poo poo Charlie's life is before he enters the chocolate factory, but in Gemini Man it feels like the clone-premise is an actual mind-blowing twist which speaks of how long the script has spent in limbo. Nowadays any good movie gets to it's central premise after the initial burst of action. You don't have to stall the narrative to explain at length how starships work or why there are aliens in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Isn't Jaws a revered film because it doesn't reveal the shark until the 3rd act?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Regardless of whether Jaws is on screen or not, Jaws the movie is from beginning to end all about the shark. Spielberg loving hated the book and the characters and jettisoned two-thirds of the content. He rightly figured no one would care about smuggling and adultery in a movie about a shark. I don't want to get into marigold-measuring, but if a movie is explicitly about something, and every creative-decision furthers to tell us about that something, then it doesn't matter if that something doesn't get all the screentime in the world. Star Trek II has Khan who both rightly and wrongly hates Kirk for exiling him and his people on the planetary-equivalent to New Jersey. Khan vows revenge on Kirk and forces him into a no-win situation when he dies in the process. All the themes of the movie (revenge, ageing, consequences of past-actions) cohere and resonate so strongly that you it's irrelevant that Khan himself never meets Kirk in person and has only 15 minutes of screentime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
Well, that and Ricardo was one hell of an actor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
Why do you keep putting-hyphens in-between random-words
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:22
|
|
|
So as not to piss off Spider-Man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Gemini Man was a pretty decent action movie. I liked it. Wanted to see it more than Joker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:Regardless of whether Jaws is on screen or not, Jaws the movie is from beginning to end all about the shark. Spielberg loving hated the book and the characters and jettisoned two-thirds of the content. He rightly figured no one would care about smuggling and adultery in a movie about a shark. Jaws is a funny case given the shark doesn't show up much onscreen because the robot prop they built barely worked, for some scenes they even resort to stock footage, so they had to use suspense and subplots to pad out the runtime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:08 |
|
|
packetmantis posted:Why do you keep putting-hyphens in-between random-words It doesn't seem to be random, but between most pairings of nouns and their antecedent adjectives, like "old-friend" and so on ("random-words" fits how they seem to do it). Really curious what their native language is that they do this; if it's English, I wonder where they picked up this bizarre habit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 08:36
|
|