|
That was Alison Brie?
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
awesmoe posted:did you miss the korean guy explaining that he checks every year using some landmarks and it's been getting warmer? Yeah I guess I did miss that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:That was Alison Brie? Alison Pill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
So wait what did the guy say about the seven people and the weather getting warmer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:Alison Pill. Sorry! Arglebargle III posted:So wait what did the guy say about the seven people and the weather getting warmer? Namgoong doesn't say that the weather is getting warmer there, it's more that he provides a contrast with the teacher. It's something of the form where the teacher is delivering propaganda to the children, part of this is showing the seven as evidencing the certain death outside the train, and Namgoong's aside to Yona underscores that what the teacher is saying is not the whole truth. The gist being that "outside is certain death," while not being immediately contradicted, is at least something we should be suspicious towards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
God this movie sucked. It seemed to take pains to avoid giving you reasons to get emotionally involved with any of the characters which is a feat since it was maybe the least subtle movie I've ever seen. This is a major problem for a movie that's treated like baby's first allegory. The dialogue was painful, the important one-liners completely stupid, even allowing for heavy-handedness. It felt like a videogame where each train car was a new level with puzzles to be solved and minibosses to be beaten, exacerbated by that violent battle scene. I have no patience for that kind of erotically shot, gratuitous violence, it's so boring. It would have made a great 15 minute film tops, since it's basically a thought experiment with a budget. But over two hours it's a turd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I just got this off redbox and it is amazing. I don't even know what to think right now. I'll have to watch this again tomorrow. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
The movie was really not very good. A lot of people imply that there is a "change of tone" in the middle but it isn't a change from Dickensian horror to absurdist black comedy like it wants. It's a change from a muddled, confusing, distracting tone to an absurdist black comedy tone. In the beginning of the movie everyone is acting like it's an episode of battle star galactica. Everything is grim and down to earth. This would be fine except for 2 completely tone breaking things. The thing is set on a train and some guy is ham handedly named Gilliam. It completely breaks you out of the movie and leaves the watcher asking questions about how this stupid train could possibly work, rather than focusing on the characters and the ideas that they represent. They could have reinforced the absurd nature from the beginning and really played to it, letting the viewer know that the author doesn't think the train makes any sense either. They also could have set it somewhere less dumb, named the character something other than Gilliam, and shifted tone as the movie went on. Instead the movie completely meanders with no focus until the school room scene. Up to that point Tilda Swinton's character is the only thing holding out the tantalizing hope that the movie will get better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
What is wrong with the name Gilliam?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:What is wrong with the name Gilliam? It breaks the fourth wall. It would have been fine as a last name later on but it's really distracting early on when the tone is otherwise really serious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:It breaks the fourth wall. It would have been fine as a last name later on but it's really distracting early on when the tone is otherwise really serious. No, no. We haven't got time for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
But guys for real, HOW DOES THAT TRAIN WORK???!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:It breaks the fourth wall. It would have been fine as a last name later on but it's really distracting early on when the tone is otherwise really serious. Again, what's wrong with the name? I don't see how it even breaks the fourth wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
I assume because it's a Terry Gilliam shout? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I assume because it's a Terry Gilliam shout? I don't know. That would be a really silly reason to be upset though. "This character has a first name that a real person has but as a last name! MY POOR IMMERSION IS RUINED!  "
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:That would be a really silly reason to be upset though. "This character has a first name that a real person has but as a last name! MY POOR IMMERSION IS RUINED! Not arguing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
The train complaint is silly too. It's just the setting, who cares how realistic it is? We don't complain that hyperdrives aren't real when we watch Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
I really hated that Chris Evans' character had to sacrifice so much to get the tail car folks as far as he did and then turned down ultimate power, I mean did they HAVE to cast an actor named Chris? All I kept thinking was "man this dude is almost like Jesus." It always pulls me right out of the movie when a character goes through a lot and is played by someone named Chris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
The tone at the start already has hints of black humor- One of the first scenes is a man being punished by having his arm frozen and then smashed with a sledgehammer, and we have the first of the Swinton character's OTT speeches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Tilda Swinton is a goddamn treasure of whichever dimension she's from. I hope she can keep playing neurotic asexual weirdos for many decades to come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I assume because it's a Terry Gilliam shout? I don't know. Yeah, I don't get this at all, how is the name Gilliam wall breaking in any sense?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Yeah, I don't get this at all, how is the name Gilliam wall breaking in any sense? Maybe it's how often they say it? It felt really distracting to me and kept calling attention back to the stupidity of the train. Those two things just clashed horribly with the rest of the setting. Hyperdrives and warp drives are fine because they are just instant magical devices. No one is complaining about the perpetual motion engine because that's in the same vein. Asking why they are on the train is more like asking why they are on the Enterprise. It's a question of motivation and the characters' place in the setting that is really distracting. At that point it feels like Gilliam is name dropped to excuse the poor world building. Gilliam himself does a way better job dropping you into the setting and making it feel consistent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
It IS the character's name, and he's an important fixture on the train's mythology. The train is also not literal, the weirdness is to sell you on Chris Evan's character journey, as it increasingly becomes more unbearable. Also, call Gilliam John Hurt or something, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I really hated that Chris Evans' character had to sacrifice so much to get the tail car folks as far as he did and then turned down ultimate power, I mean did they HAVE to cast an actor named Chris? All I kept thinking was "man this dude is almost like Jesus." It always pulls me right out of the movie when a character goes through a lot and is played by someone named Chris. Christ figures are pretty common in modern storytelling and Chris is one of the most popular names in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
speshl guy posted:Christ figures are pretty common in modern storytelling and Chris is one of the most popular names in the United States. I'm pretty sure Neo Rasa was being facetious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
I don't even know... Anyway here's a pretty great Every Frame a Painting video about Snowpiercer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Yeah, I don't get this at all, how is the name Gilliam wall breaking in any sense? it's way too on the nose for a movie that's already humping Terry Gilliam a lot it's the equivelant of if, in Robocop, the cop's name was Jesus H. Murphy
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:it's way too on the nose for a movie that's already humping Terry Gilliam a lot But a Latino-Anglican Robocop would have been awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:But a Latino-Anglican Robocop would have been awesome. Touché
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
I think the Gilliam stuff is partially another signifier that this is not going to be a work of gritty realism. There's already a heavy Jeunet vibe to the early scenes (which makes sense for an adaptation of a European comic)- I got reminded of Delicatessen a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
i'll put it this way: it's less corny and stupid than all of the characters in Final Destination being named after classic horror directors, but more corny and stupid than the two lead characters in Return of the Living Dead being named Burt and Ernie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i'll put it this way: it's less corny and stupid than all of the characters in Final Destination being named after classic horror directors, but more corny and stupid than the two lead characters in Return of the Living Dead being named Burt and Ernie. I agree, but in all those cases the movies are corny and stupid, and I like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Not to dredge up an argument from a few pages ago, but the idea that Snowpiercer's central message and filmic qualities are sophomoric and juvenile next to an adult masterwork like Inception is so laughably stupid I can't even begin to grasp it. Inception is a movie about a dude getting over a break-up through filmmaking, and learning to move on with his life after loss. It is as deep as the poetry of a heartbroken high schooler. Snowpiercer is explicitly about the systemic failings of capitalism, condemning our socio-economic system as broken and unfixable. That Inception dude keeps harping on the "babies taste best" line without cluing in to how important it is to both the message of the film and the exact place it occurs in the story. It not only radically alters our perception of our would-be protagonist, but the movie then asks us to transfer those ill feelings from Curtis to capitalism itself, almost immediately revealing that just like those tail-car savages, the train (and the system it represents) only survives by feeding poor children to the engine. The perpetual motion machine is not self-sustaining, it keeps on spinning only by eating the poor -- and babies taste best. Contrast this message with Inception's "oh boo hoo, my woman is gone, my life is ruined!!!" and ask yourself again which one is really appealing to 13-year-olds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
I do prefer Snowpiercer to Inception, but "having a theme that's important and morally correct" is not synonymous with "depth."
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Why did he have to reach into the gears to save the boy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Why did he have to reach into the gears to save the boy? You cannot change the world without sacrificing a part of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Tripwyre posted:Snowpiercer is explicitly about the systemic failings of capitalism, condemning our socio-economic system as broken and unfixable. I'm not sure about that, I think it's about the systemic failure of the People Who Kvetch About The Systemic Failings Of Capitalism. the folks who want to shut down the system that keeps everyone alive don't really have anything better to bring to the table, and their idea of shutting down the system just manages to kill everyone off for no good reason. the black husserl posted:You cannot change the world without sacrificing a part of yourself. I think he meant in a more practical way. I was confused by that as well, since it really felt like a "Sure, he could've gotten the kid out just fine between the gears, but we needed something ~symbolic~ to happen" moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I think he meant in a more practical way. I was confused by that as well, since it really felt like a "Sure, he could've gotten the kid out just fine between the gears, but we needed something ~symbolic~ to happen" moment. I must reiterate: the entire film is a symbolic representation. Complaining about how the ending fails to provide a "practical" solution is utterly at-odds with the highly metaphorical nature of the rest of the work. The theme of sacrificing limbs (especially arms and hands, things mostly used for performing manual labour) for the betterment of others is repeated throughout the rest of the film from nearly the very start; it's not some weird thing they introduce at the very end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Vermain posted:I must reiterate: the entire film is a symbolic representation. See, this is where we're going to disagree. The train can symbolically represent whatever the movie-maker wants, but unless that representation also works to solve the practical story, it's going to come off as lazy. If the symbolic intent is that the Metaphorical System causes you to sacrifice Metaphorical Arms and Limbs, you have to have the Literal Train cause you to sacrifice Literal Arms and Legs. Since it doesn't look like the train literally required Evans to jab his arm in there, there's incongruity in the film. Vermain posted:Complaining about how the ending fails to provide a "practical" solution is utterly at-odds with the highly metaphorical nature of the rest of the work. On the contrary; I'd argue that any symbolic/metaphorical solution that doesn't get mirrored adequately in the practical is a false/lazy solution. Saying "guise it's symbolic" doesn't absolve a film's problems, unless its a film that's purely symbolic... which is really rare and I can't think of one off the top of my head that actually does that. After all, there has to be a solid practical foundation to underpin the narrative. The Hugh Jackman movie with some dude on a tree in space, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
It's very clearly illustrated in the film that Curtis needs to reach into the gears because A) There's no way for someone his size to descend into that compartment of the train. Wilford has designed it this way presumably because the mechanisms of his God machine are so delicate that they need this sort of closely insulated and precise work. B) Because the kids themselves are too traumatized by the soul-crushing monotony of their lives to be coaxed out by any other means. This is not an issue of the symbolic or metaphoric structure of the movie obfuscating "a solid practical foundation" for the plot. The plot has a solid practical foundation, which is the motivations and subjective experiences of its characters. This is more important than, "Why didn't the evil villain completely go against his own interests and create a system that didn't require people sacrificing themselves in order to stop?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:42
|
|