Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend
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.

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend
And holy poo poo was Ellar Coltrane bad in this.

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend

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.

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.

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

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008

Everybody's working for the weekend

Andrigaar posted:


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?

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.

  • Locked thread