|
Rannos22 posted:This is quite literally in the rules for the movie forum and a big reason for why it has gone just as far off the rails as the movie reviews for the front page. The lunatics are running the asylum. The opposite reading is true! THE OPPOSITE READING IS TRUE!
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Oh come on, nobody who actually finds that poo poo sexually arousing is worthy of being defined as a human being.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:I've already posted this elsewhere, but I might as well put it here too: That has to be the single most forced and unfunny attempt at the "loss.jpg" meme I have ever witnessed. Either that or it is the spewing of a mind which should not be allowed to handle even moderately sharp objects without the presence of multiple psychiatric ward professionals.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Even if you don't believe in "death of the author*," that old CineD chestnut, it's impossible to say that a movie shares intentions with its creators because movies take thousands of man-hours from hundreds of people to be made. The classic argument is that Ridley Scott doesn't think that Deckard is a replicant, but Harrison Ford does. Who's correct!? They were both involved in the character's creation! The answer is neither of them are technically "correct," and the ambiguity and people discussing what THEY thought the answer was is what makes the movie fun. I like how you tried to use Blade Runner here in your post but don't even know enough about it to know that it was Ridley Scott who's claiming Deckard was a replicant, and Harrison Ford saying "Wait, what? No he wasn't."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 21:39
|
|