|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxEzUgoCF3w This movie wasn't very good and felt like it kept setting up plot threads that went nowhere. But there seems to be no thread about it and I want to talk about this movie so I'm making a thread. Did anyone see this?
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
The ending especially was weird, because it felt like they were setting up some really dumb "we keep the only servers that run facebook google and have the only copy of the data in this easily floodable tunnel that only you know about" but that never came up again and instead the great revenge was leaking tom hank steve job's emails and like I guess we are just supposed to understand he's totally secret evil so his email definitely has stuff that will definitely sink the whole evil plan. Even though his evil plan seems to be pretty much public anyway and mostly seemed like a bad idea that he thought was a good idea rather than overall evil.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
(this movie made less than 1000 dollars per theater on opening day so I think I'm the only person that watched this bad movie)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
It based off a bad Dave Eggers book that is a ripoff of a book from one of the early Facebook employees (Kate Losse), called The Boy Kings. You should read it instead of seeing The Circle!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:It based off a bad Dave Eggers book that is a ripoff of a book from one of the early Facebook employees (Kate Losse), called The Boy Kings. You should read it instead of seeing The Circle! At least the book managed some sort of 1984 ending where mae internalizes big brother. The movie just sort of... ends. And we just have to assume transparency destroys the entire company forever I guess?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Haha wait how does the movie end?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I hope it ends like the book.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:At least the book managed some sort of 1984 ending where mae internalizes big brother. The movie just sort of... ends. And we just have to assume transparency destroys the entire company forever I guess? Absolutely not, given what the movie shows us, it's pretty clear that Emma Watson is still a true believer in radical transparency. By taking out Tom Hanks she hasn't betrayed The Circle, she's perfected it. She's cleansed the temple. The ending shot where she's on her Kayak and smiles up at the drones confirms it. She's made peace with The Circle. General Dog fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Some other assorted thoughts about this fantastically bad but also fantastically entertaining movie. I haven't read the book, maybe some of this makes sense in that light. -Why is getting caught borrowing a kayak without permission such a transformative experience for Mae. She's somewhat skeptical up until that point, afterwards she's been straight up bathed in the blood of the lamb. -I was shocked to find out that John Boyega's character wasn't completely added on in reshoots. It would be incredibly easy to cut him from the movie entirely- we only ever see him with Mae, and other than one offhand instance toward the end no one else ever even mentions him. He only exists for his role in the ending, and he performs that role offscreen. -On a similar note, this ending had to be changed in reshoots, right? As I went into in my previous post, I kind of like the ending, but it's totally out of left field. I think the worst cheat is that it's never really set up that Tom Hanks and Patton Oswald are hypocritical to begin with. -If John Boyega has had the means and desire to leak this information and take down The Circle's leadership for all this time, why did he wait until now? -Mae's friend Annie starts acting like she hates her out of nowhere for about fifteen minutes, but then when they talk she just says she's overworked and after that they seem alright.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
And holy poo poo was Ellar Coltrane bad in this.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Some other assorted thoughts about this fantastically bad but also fantastically entertaining movie. I haven't read the book, maybe some of this makes sense in that light. In the book the whole boyega plot is the climax where he does the same "we need to bring down the company!" thing plays out and then mae goes "yes, absolutely, tell me all your plans" then she immediately hands all the plans to the company and you know she is lost forever. In the Book annie gets jealous of mae and makes her whole family history public to be like, extra double transparent and the DARK SECRETS they find are so shocking they drive annie into a coma. I agree with you that the ending has to be last second reshoots, it's not the book ending, but the movie also sets up the weird "we keep every server in a secret tunnel and only you mae know about it and also the tunnel is under a river and has a flooding problem" that never ever comes up ever again.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
General Dog posted:And holy poo poo was Ellar Coltrane bad in this. I had to look up to see if he was even a real actor he was so bad I assumed he had to be some sort of weird facebook celebrity gimmick casting or something. He may have been the worst actor in a hollywood movie I've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
General Dog posted:-Why is getting caught borrowing a kayak without permission such a transformative experience for Mae. She's somewhat skeptical up until that point, afterwards she's been straight up bathed in the blood of the lamb. Getting caught wasn't the transformative experience, it was almost dying after committing a transgression\sin in an emotionally compromised state. She was saved by the Circle's surveillance, and Hanks\Oswalt took advantage of her compromised emotional state to turn her into a true believer and further their own ends. If I recall correctly, near-death experiences are sometimes used as brainwashing tools by real cults. It's a pity this movie sucked, i thought it was really interesting how The Circle continually took advantage of Emma Watson's issues to manufacture consent.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
MajorB posted:Getting caught wasn't the transformative experience, it was almost dying after committing a transgression\sin in an emotionally compromised state. She was saved by the Circle's surveillance, and Hanks\Oswalt took advantage of her compromised emotional state to turn her into a true believer and further their own ends. If I recall correctly, near-death experiences are sometimes used as brainwashing tools by real cults. And I can buy that, but I really needed a scene where somebody- Boyega, her parents, Annie, whoever- compels her to explain herself. I can buy her having an Emmaus road type conversion, but they've got to hit the note harder because she's firmly in crazytown before the significance of the kayak rescue even registers. She does explain her "conversion" to Tom Hanks, but at that point I just assumed she was scared for her job and telling him what he wanted to hear. It wasn't until a lot later that I realized she'd been sincere the whole time. Owlofcreamcheese posted:I had to look up to see if he was even a real actor he was so bad I assumed he had to be some sort of weird facebook celebrity gimmick casting or something. He may have been the worst actor in a hollywood movie I've ever seen. He was in Boyhood, which I didn't really care for or like him in, but a lot of people smarter than me enjoyed it and enjoyed his performance. To put it kindly, he comes across as a very "naturalistic" actor. I could see him playing fine in some kind of Duplass bros, mumblecore-type stuff, but setting him in a big Hollywood movie against classically trained actors he stands out like a sore thumb. I'll give him half a break and say it's a terribly written character performed terribly. General Dog fucked around with this message at 00:47 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Is this the movie where aliens abduct a bunch of Vancouver Canadians and shoot them to death with lasers, but some of them are kind of jerks, so you're not sure if they're really Canadians or if they're be Americans who went to Vancouver to audition for Stargate: Atlantis?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:Is this the movie where aliens abduct a bunch of Vancouver Canadians and shoot them to death with lasers, but some of them are kind of jerks, so you're not sure if they're really Canadians or if they're be Americans who went to Vancouver to audition for Stargate: Atlantis? The Star Wars spoiler thread is that way
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:Is this the movie where aliens abduct a bunch of Vancouver Canadians and shoot them to death with lasers, but some of them are kind of jerks, so you're not sure if they're really Canadians or if they're be Americans who went to Vancouver to audition for Stargate: Atlantis? I would rather have this be the actual movie.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Warm und Fuzzy posted:Is this the movie where aliens abduct a bunch of Vancouver Canadians and shoot them to death with lasers, but some of them are kind of jerks, so you're not sure if they're really Canadians or if they're be Americans who went to Vancouver to audition for Stargate: Atlantis?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
The one part of the book (the shark tank) I thought would translate brilliantly to the film was removed in order to shoehorn a Beck performance into it. This was never a great book but they sure made it way less interesting than it had any right to be.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
One bit of praise I have for this movie is that some of the on screen "chat" felt super authentic in a way that movie internet stuff normally doesn't. "I like to fart in bed"/"I'm covered in hair"/"go to sleep forevvvevver"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Man. I was hoping more people watched this so I could enjoy their frustration at a movie based on a mediocre book.Owlofcreamcheese posted:I agree with you that the ending has to be last second reshoots, it's not the book ending, but the movie also sets up the weird "we keep every server in a secret tunnel and only you mae know about it and also the tunnel is under a river and has a flooding problem" that never ever comes up ever again. A Redditor, back when the first trailer came out, was claiming that whatever the original filmed ending was, tested so bad with audiences that they had to rework the entire thing. I haven't seen the movie, nor do I want to until Netflix. Book wasn't good. General Dog posted:-Why is getting caught borrowing a kayak without permission such a transformative experience for Mae. She's somewhat skeptical up until that point, afterwards she's been straight up bathed in the blood of the lamb. My understanding is there's helicopters and poo poo in the movie version of that event. In the book an old lady runs the kayak shack and her son has set up a spycam on the beach for security purposes. He sees her trespass and calls the cops for stealing a kayak at night. It's a quiet calm scene where she stealthily drags the kayak up the beach while cops casually walk up to greet her. She lies, the shack owner shows up just in the nick of time to back up her lie, and Bailey confronts her about it like a day later. I think she panics about losing her job at the greatestest place ever. If anyone reads this: - Did they remove both romance sub-plots? It looks like one character was completely removed from the movie. - Is the giant fish tank from the latter half of the book in the movie?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Andrigaar posted:
Haven't read the book, but -There are no romantic interests -There is no giant fish tank, or if there is it had no bearing on the plot.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
My new favorite observation is how totally nonsensical the party scene is. Like Finn goes to parties that he hates that he absolutely does not need to go to and then hides out in the corner so he doesn't have to talk to anyone and drinks cupcake brand wine that he has hidden secretly in random bushes? Like why would he go to the party? Why does he need to hide his 7 dollar girl wine in a bush? They would clearly let him bring it from his office or whatever. The party already had alcohol. It wasn't like he was sneaking in the hard stuff at some office party.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Haven't read the book, but There are two love interests. One's a guy named Francis who has no listing on the IMDB cast, the other's a guy who hides his identity for most of the story. I'm not sure if this thread is against spoilers. The fish tank was a godawful, lovely metaphor for how people consume data. Owlofcreamcheese posted:My new favorite observation is how totally nonsensical the party scene is. Since I'm having fun seeing how they rearranged the plot, I'll bite. Was this the first party after Mae gets the job? In the book there's a popular riesling wine that she almost misses out on, but Francis has two bottles hidden in a waterfall.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The ending especially was weird, because it felt like they were setting up some really dumb "we keep the only servers that run facebook google and have the only copy of the data in this easily floodable tunnel that only you know about" but that never came up again and instead the great revenge was leaking tom hank steve job's emails and like I guess we are just supposed to understand he's totally secret evil so his email definitely has stuff that will definitely sink the whole evil plan. Even though his evil plan seems to be pretty much public anyway and mostly seemed like a bad idea that he thought was a good idea rather than overall evil. I figured the secret e-mails were about framing the senator. There wasn't too much focus on that subplot, but the senator wanting to divide their company, then being brought up on corruption charges (or something like that, I forget) while Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt put in their own senator seemed suspicious. Movie wasn't great.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I figured the secret e-mails were about framing the senator. There wasn't too much focus on that subplot, but the senator wanting to divide their company, then being brought up on corruption charges (or something like that, I forget) while Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt put in their own senator seemed suspicious. Did they actually frame him? I sort of assumed they just used their vast surveillance network to take down political rivals. Which seems lovely and creepy but by the end of the movie they had gotten in bed with apparently every government in the world to make mandatory online facebook voting so it doesn't seem like the level of crime that is going to exactly sink them forever.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Yeah, I honestly wasn't clear either.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Like the writing was abysmal so maybe they made something up whole cloth but reasonable would be that they use their surveillance selectively to get what they want.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 17:12 |
|
|
The Francis character from the book was changed to a woman, which I found intriguing if they were going to continue the love interest angle, but then they did nothing at all with her. They mention her ChildTrack project or whatever but it's just a plot device to get to them being able to accurately track people.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2017 03:00
|
|