|
Diogines posted:There are many, many, many, many (many many many many) possible points of failure for a train traveling the whole drat planet. Like rocks slides or avalanches onto the drat train or the tracks breaking. The propaganda video shown to the kids suggests that Wilford is a gigantic weirdo and his super train was seen as something incredibly stupid until it happened to be able to survive the apocalypse. Why a train? Because he was a megarich weirdo obsessed with trains since childhood.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Hold on, look, okay - sorry, rabbis, but this just doesn't jive. How can there only be a single man and a single woman in this primordial garden? They can't be the direct descendents of humankind due to genetic bottlenecking. Oh, and this "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" thing? Well, you can't gain that knowledge from eating from a fruit! There's also definitely not a flaming cherubim by the Tigris and the Euphrates - we know this for a real solid fact. Sorry to point out so many obvious plot holes in your story, but it's become painfully obvious that you really didn't think this one out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
The train was shown to be powerful enough to crash through several multi-ton ice buildups anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
speshl guy posted:The train was shown to be powerful enough to crash through several multi-ton ice buildups anyway. I dunno, I like the idea that they're actually just lucky that the train hasn't been taken out by a random natural disaster. It fits with the movie's greater critique that the train (and systems it represents) being eternal is not true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I dunno, I like the idea that they're actually just lucky that the train hasn't been taken out by a random natural disaster. It fits with the movie's greater critique that the train (and systems it represents) being eternal is not true. But boy do I love the imagery of Curtis single-handedly stopping the engine of capitalism if only for a short while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Pierogi posted:This greater critique seems more like wishful thinking. There is no catastrophe big enough to cause the status quo to collapse with repercussions similar to Snowpiercer crashing (i.e. no going back). For all intents and purposes the class system is eternal. I mean eternal in the sense that "this system is itself self-sustaining." I'm thinking about how characters constantly assert that the engine is "eternal," but we're also shown throughout that parts (and other things) go extinct. The analog wouldn't be a system of hierarchy (the class system finds its analog not in the machinations of the train but the front section/middle section/tail section stratification) but particular political and economic systems. Sort of like how every boom market comes with pundits shouting that the forever bull market has arrived. "Rumble rumble // Rattle Rattle // It will never stop"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Was the ending supposed to be in any way inspirational? I mean it's pretty obvious those two are getting eaten by a polar bear or dying of cold / starvation. This film took itself way too seriously considering the dumb as gently caress concept, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Was the ending supposed to be in any way inspirational? I mean it's pretty obvious those two are getting eaten by a polar bear or dying of cold / starvation. This film took itself way too seriously considering the dumb as gently caress concept, too. Did you not see the scene where the guy slips on a fish? The ridiculous school room scene? Babies taste the best? There are many of legitimate criticisms you can make of this movie, but I don't think "takes itself too seriously." is one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
There were some gags here and there but overall this film did feel much too serious, IMO. The overbearing music throughout, the main character's heroic sacrifice at the end, all of humanity loving dying. Really though what the gently caress was that ending supposed to mean? Those two kids are goners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:There were some gags here and there but overall this film did feel much too serious, IMO. The overbearing music throughout, the main character's heroic sacrifice at the end, all of humanity loving dying. Really though what the gently caress was that ending supposed to mean? Those two kids are goners. http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/director-bong-joon-ho-talks-snowpiercers-ending.html: Bong Joon-ho posted:I thought the ending might be a little harsh, maybe I should show some survivors. But actually: I killed them all! [Laughs] Except for two kids...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:Did you not see the scene where the guy slips on a fish? The ridiculous school room scene? Babies taste the best?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Could you please explain how the film "aggressively avoided giving anyone a reason to care about the characters," and what techniques Bong Joon-ho could have employed in order to generate audience sympathy? Start from the very beginning. What did the film do wrong in its opening half-hour, when the major characters are being introduced, and what would you change?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Diogines posted:Why the hell didn't the billionaire genius just build a big rear end bunker? The story would've been the same in a bunker, with the opressed taking 1 room at a time, it just would've looked more bland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:The story would've been the same in a bunker, with the opressed taking 1 room at a time, it just would've looked more bland. The train setting plays into the critique, too. It argues that capitalism gives the illusion of progress while things are mostly static.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
As well, as previously mentioned, it's a truly "stateless" system that nevertheless traverses the entire world, and also happens to be one of the key signifiers of industrialization and the spread of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
The in movie reason was because the train was a perpetual energy machine as long as none of the parts break down or are not manned by children. The train was the only way they could still have electricity on a (relatively) big scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/director-bong-joon-ho-talks-snowpiercers-ending.html: Sounds like a cop out to me. They're in the middle of nowhere, there's an ICE AGE going on and a goddamn polar bear is looking right at them. The director's dumb and this movie's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:http://www.vulture.com/2014/06/director-bong-joon-ho-talks-snowpiercers-ending.html: "those two kids will spread the human race." *ends movie with worlds last remaining top predator licking it's lips*
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Could you please explain how the film "aggressively avoided giving anyone a reason to care about the characters," and what techniques Bong Joon-ho could have employed in order to generate audience sympathy? Start from the very beginning. What did the film do wrong in its opening half-hour, when the major characters are being introduced, and what would you change? Hi Vermain it's Laws. Snowpiercer did not give any of us any reason to like any of the main characters. It treated scenes like a video game with canned dialogue and boringly pornographic violence that was not in any way shocking or subversive so it can't even claim to have been tongue in cheek or satirical. So I couldn't get into it because it gave me nothing to identify with or enjoy. Waste of time imo. edit as to how to make characters likeable idk I'm not a director but other movies seem to do it pretty well and I bet a better written script could have gone a long way to that end!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Van Dis posted:edit as to how to make characters likeable idk I'm not a director but other movies seem to do it pretty well and I bet a better written script could have gone a long way to that end! Maybe they could have been made to not do aggressively stupid things at every turn as a kludge to fill some allegorical reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Maybe they could have been made to not do aggressively stupid things at every turn as a kludge to fill some allegorical reason. I don't know if you know this, but that's pretty much how allegorical storytelling works. You are trying to make a point so you need characters to behave in a way that serves that point. Also what stupid things were they doing? They were trying to get from car to cart so that they could reach the front. How would tactical realism in a movie about an allegorical train have helped you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Van Dis posted:Hi Vermain it's Laws. Snowpiercer did not give any of us any reason to like any of the main characters. It treated scenes like a video game with canned dialogue and boringly pornographic violence that was not in any way shocking or subversive so it can't even claim to have been tongue in cheek or satirical. So I couldn't get into it because it gave me nothing to identify with or enjoy. Waste of time imo. Yes, it did. The main characters were underdogs whose exploitation by the train's ruling class was showcased really luridly. That guy made grubby little drawings in hopes of helping his friends to feel better and that lady lost her kid. Maybe it didn't do it for you, I don't know, but it's kind of weird to claim that the movie didn't give you someone to root for or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:I don't know if you know this, but that's pretty much how allegorical storytelling works. You are trying to make a point so you need characters to behave in a way that serves that point. Also what stupid things were they doing? They were trying to get from car to cart so that they could reach the front. How would tactical realism in a movie about an allegorical train have helped you. One thing I thought was really stupid was when Curtis had to choose between saving Edgar or capturing Mason in the big hatchet fight. Before this, it's mentioned how Edgar is essentially the most important person in Curtis's life, and there was no real point in capturing Mason since they already had Namgoong to open the doors for them, so there wasn't really a good reason for Curtis to allow Edgar to die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:One thing I thought was really stupid was when Curtis had to choose between saving Edgar or capturing Mason in the big hatchet fight. Before this, it's mentioned how Edgar is essentially the most important person in Curtis's life, and there was no real point in capturing Mason since they already had Namgoong to open the doors for them, so there wasn't really a good reason for Curtis to allow Edgar to die. I thought that scene was framed well. He's not capturing Mason for the sake of opening the doors - she bargains for that later - but rather to have her stop the battle. It is her authority to do so - Fuyu appeals to her after Grey captures him and flashes that great "surrender or die" arm tattoo. Curtis clearly values Edgar - and I think Edgar looks betrayed that Curtis didn't go back - but I think it's properly conveyed that Curtis is choosing between his personal connections (Edgar) and the greater revolution (Mason). Since Curtis looks back at Edgar, then forwards to Mason, I think the film is on his side albeit sympathetic to Edgar. I also wonder if Curtis thought that his best chance to save Edgar was to take Mason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Could you please explain how the film "aggressively avoided giving anyone a reason to care about the characters," and what techniques Bong Joon-ho could have employed in order to generate audience sympathy? Start from the very beginning. What did the film do wrong in its opening half-hour, when the major characters are being introduced, and what would you change? I'm gonna go with establishing why a bunch of cannibals are being kept on a train as breeding stock to replace failing train parts instead of a loving machining car, given there was a car dedicated to nothing but turning roaches into protein bars. I feel like I watched some sort of terrible parody version of the Hunger Games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I thought that scene was framed well. He's not capturing Mason for the sake of opening the doors - she bargains for that later - but rather to have her stop the battle. It is her authority to do so - Fuyu appeals to her after Grey captures him and flashes that great "surrender or die" arm tattoo. I think a major problem with the movie is that it doesn't give a good reason for the audience to care for characters like Edgar. The only information we're given about Edgar before he dies is that he's Curtis's super best friend for some reason. It's only at the end of the movie where it's revealed that Edgar was a baby that Curtis was going to eat, which makes it seem like he was only friends with him out of guilt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I don't know, I kinda cared about all the Untouchables by virtue of their abject suffering. I don't really know what else these characters were supposed to have objectively to 'make us' care since the point is more that they have so little. I felt the desperation of their situation was enough. I mean, it's not like the internal logic of the film was contradictory - these characters are bereft of basic dignity and, of course, that in and of itself could be alienating, but if you waste a lot of time trying to convince the spectator that they're smart and nice people sympathize with for some other reason besides them being mercilessly oppressed you're kinda asking the film to undercut its own premise. They're not here to play fiddles for us. And I'm not sure how springing that twist on their past earlier on would have been as dramatically effective. Like, when I watch A Night to Remember, I'm not thinking, "Boy, I just have no objective reason to care about these third class passengers. All they do is dance around!" I just kinda care for people whose lives are so thoroughly hosed by a classist system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:I think a major problem with the movie is that it doesn't give a good reason for the audience to care for characters like Edgar. The only information we're given about Edgar before he dies is that he's Curtis's super best friend for some reason. It's only at the end of the movie where it's revealed that Edgar was a baby that Curtis was going to eat, which makes it seem like he was only friends with him out of guilt. Caring about Edgar (and we'll make this particular to Edgar, if you want to sidestep what K Waste is writing) is achieved not through Edgar's relationship to Curtis but through what we're shown about Edgar. He's the member of the revolution who is young and optimistic and naive. He's a true believer. Also, importantly, he was born on the train so the dark tail section is literally all he's ever known. This means that he manages the optimism in spite of the squalor that has contoured his existence. In this sense, it's importance that Curtis abandoning him is framed against Edgar saving Curtis earlier in the battle. Edgar really believed that Curtis was going to save him. More than this, the film also takes time to show us Edgar's emotional reactions so he's not serving a merely functional role. He is angry and upset when Maude takes Timmy and Andy. He is having fun playing soccer with Timmy. He celebrates the new year (with the ironic "I hate getting old"). It's not like these reactions are hugely divergent from own so... what's missing? Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Yasser Arafatwa posted:I'm gonna go with establishing why a bunch of cannibals are being kept on a train as breeding stock to replace failing train parts instead of a loving machining car, given there was a car dedicated to nothing but turning roaches into protein bars. I feel like I watched some sort of terrible parody version of the Hunger Games. This is a joke, right? Why would you care about the engineering contradictions of a make-believe train in a science-fiction movie? Also, how does this address the "sympathy-generating' question post you quoted?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
The film Alien features faster than light travel and artificial gravity, both of which it gives no plausible engineering explanation for. Further we are shown an android that is capable of all the actions the rest of the crew carry out which renders the human crew obsolete. Without there being a need for humans to be on the Nostromo and with no explanation of FTL travel the events of the film make no sense. Ergo Alien is a bad film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Plus they checked out the thing so that they could all get a better share so I don't really see why I'm supposed to care about people trying to make money. poo poo film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
There's some real terrible opinions on this page. Makes me wonder what movie some people actually saw. I don't think Snowpiercer completely worked for me, by the end I saw the allegorical point of the feature supersede the actual film they were trying to make. But to think this movie is "poo poo"? Especially for autist related reasons involving the mechanics of rail road trains? Please. This movie was a propulsive constantly engaging blast of originality from the first frame, chock filled with fantastic actors, action beats, and real substance. There are some iconic scenes here (personally, the axe fight is one of favorite action scenes of the year, only beaten out by Raid 2). People who think this movie is poo poo need to watch more movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:But to think this movie is "poo poo"? Especially for autist related reasons involving the mechanics of rail road trains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOhBBEQwE8
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The film Alien features faster than light travel and artificial gravity, both of which it gives no plausible engineering explanation for. Further we are shown an android that is capable of all the actions the rest of the crew carry out which renders the human crew obsolete. Without there being a need for humans to be on the Nostromo and with no explanation of FTL travel the events of the film make no sense. Ergo Alien is a bad film. This is a pretty bad post. Suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing but it's something you can mess up in ways that aren't obvious. Most people are willing to accept that Superman is a super strong alien that can fly and freeze things with his breath. The ridiculous thing about him is that he's a reporter that millions of people see every day and nobody ties Clark Kent to Superman because he takes off a pair of glasses. Alien works because the film handwaves a lot of the technical stuff that isn't important for the film like anti-grav and does a good job on the social stuff that makes it the story work. Snowpiercer isn't the worst movie about this that I've ever seen but a lot of it was odd enough that I wouldn't fault someone for being taken out of the movie by disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
The arguments that the train was a stupid and ineffective society seem to completely miss the point of the movie, which is that the train is a stupid and ineffective society. Yes, of course it would have been better to build a bunker or have a machine car to produce more parts. But this isn't an optimal solution or a wonderful ark built by mankind's best and brightest, it's explicitly a vanity project by a spoiled madman stroking his ego. The fact that this is a flawed, unsustainable, broken, stupid system is literally the message of the film: that's why it has to blow up at the end, because the basic setup is inherently unsustainable and unsalvageable. Critiquing the setup of the train for inefficiency is like looking at North Korea and saying "Why don't they invest in educating and feeding their population? That would be a way more effective society! Suspension of disbelief destroyed!" I feel like a lot of people making these arguments had these annoyances at the start of the movie, when it seemed more like the train was being portrayed as a viable solution, and then didn't reconsider them in the light of everything that's revealed about it throughout the rest of the film. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:There's some real terrible opinions on this page. Makes me wonder what movie some people actually saw. I don't think Snowpiercer completely worked for me, by the end I saw the allegorical point of the feature supersede the actual film they were trying to make. There were more things wrong with this movie other than the premise of the last of humanity living on a train. None of the characters really had any depth and were only used to prove points that really didn't make any sense. For example, at the end of the movie, we get this huge exposition about how Curtis ate babies and how Wilford showed him how to sacrifice himself for others by cutting off his own limbs for others to eat. Then later, Curtis sacrifices his arm to save that kid from the innards of the train, which is suppose to be a parallel to Wilford's sacrifice. This is suppose to be a good way for Curtis to grow as a character, but then Curtis is killed in an explosion right after this. You can argue that this was suppose to be another form of sacrifice since he used his body to protect those two kids, but ultimately, Curtis's actions in the movie essentially cause nearly everyone in the world to die. Now, it's been said that the reason for this was because the "system" was so broken that it had to be reset somehow, but the fact that pretty much everyone died, including a bunch of innocent people, pretty much undermines this new fresh start. Even the director admitted that the movie meant to end on a positive note because the the polar bear symbolized the return of life and the kids could procreate with each other or something. Also, on the topic of science explaining stuff, that polar bear didn't just manifest out of nowhere. This implies that life had always existed outside the train and no one except one person in over a decade was smart enough to figure this out. This is a dumb movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:Also, on the topic of science explaining stuff, that polar bear didn't just manifest out of nowhere. This implies that life had always existed outside the train and no one except one person in over a decade was smart enough to figure this out. This is a dumb movie. Perhaps if this movie had used imagery and events to underscore a theme of people being blinkered by ideology, and have a character or two defined by their ability to look beyond those limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Harold Krell posted:There were more things wrong with this movie other than the premise of the last of humanity living on a train. None of the characters really had any depth and were only used to prove points that really didn't make any sense. So his sacrifice from the perspective of a character arc didn't matter because he died shortly after? What about every character arc in fiction about, say, a selfish character who sacrifices their life for a greater good? The whole point of a character arc is that it matters in terms of relevance to the character, not the broader story. Harold Krell posted:Also, on the topic of science explaining stuff, that polar bear didn't just manifest out of nowhere. This implies that life had always existed outside the train and no one except one person in over a decade was smart enough to figure this out. This is a dumb movie. Or that they've been indoctrinated for more than a decade by an aggressive propaganda machine for which a key component was maintaining the belief that life didn't exist outside the train? I mean, do you think your average North Korean citizen is dumb for not knowing how things really are outside his country? The whole point is that the train is an inherently broken, unsustainable, terrible thing for humanity, and predicated on systemic lies and propaganda. That's the function of the polar bear: if it exists, then other life exists, rendering the 'point' of the train a lie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:So his sacrifice from the perspective of a character arc didn't matter because he died shortly after? What about every character arc in fiction about, say, a selfish character who sacrifices their life for a greater good? The whole point of a character arc is that it matters in terms of relevance to the character, not the broader story. The most Curtis ever learns is that the train is bad, which the movie constantly reminds us each time it gets. The only reason he changes his mind from ruling the train to leaving it was because children were forced to toil for it (because the train is bad, you see). His death is never really portayed as an intentional sacrifice since the derailment could've end up sparing or killing them all anyways. Curtis is never really portayed as a selfish character. He wants to help people and never comes into any real moral conflict that isn't brought up through exposition, and because of that he never develops greatly as a character. The movie loses a lot of nuance by having predictable and flat characters. The people in the back of the train are crude, yet have an innocent beauty to them like how that one guy draws pictures of things, yet I can't think of anyone in the front of the train that we're really supposed to sympathize with. Even wise people like Gilliam lament that life in the world outside the train is gone. The guy that did find out there was life outside the train found out by simply looking out the window. Why did no one else notice? Are we to assume that after years of observation, no one else thought life outside the train was a possibility?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
Harold Krell posted:Are we to assume that after years of observation, no one else thought life outside the train was a possibility? This is explicitly stated. So probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:29
|
|
