Printable View
Finally, someone said it.Quote:
Originally posted by arjue
also, The tangent universe ended, NOT the world.
Also, it takes skill to have a movie that can be open to interpetation without being obnoxiously ambigious. Any schlub can make a movie open to interpetation if they add all these caparisons.
I think you have your dimensions backwards. I think that the dimension where he dies in is the Primary dimension. He leaves that dimension to see what it would be like if he were to die there. Once he sees this future, he comes back to where he left and chooses to die, cause remember: he still had a few seconds to bail before the engine hit.
What exactly is a "caparison" and who added it?Quote:
Originally posted by Sqoon
Any schlub can make a movie open to interpetation if they add all these caparisons.
Elaborate adornment, but usually used in reference to clothing (you can turn what I said into a metaphor if you so wish). Richard Kelly added it by putting all of that outside text on the official website.
All that extra text WAS on the website, sure, but it's not like it was made up after the fact. It was always his intention, and the book that is quoted IS a part of the movie.
But, whatever.
I know that the website text was concomitant with the movie (it came a little bit earlier I think, since my sister was obsessed with the site for a day or so), and even though the book was quoted, it's not enough to substantiate any 'world/tangent universe ending' theory. Films should be paid attention to as films only, any external text (regardless of how official) that seems to be required reading is an insult to the final creation. I appreciate Kelly's ambitious vision (though I still think he's making poor decisions and has a giant ego) but he has seriously weakened his film.
But whatever, indeed. I'm tired of this arguement.
its all so confusing.... :sweat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Sqoon
Films should be paid attention to as films only, any external text (regardless of how official) that seems to be required reading is an insult to the final creation.
Well, thats your opinion, and anyway, the movie still works as a movie by itself, as shown by the almost 2 pages before I posted the book.
The website and the book are not required to enjoy this film, and could even be viewed as spoiling it. By spelling out what happens, it destroys the mistery and kills the discussion to follow. Think of them as supplimentary material.
POSSIBLE MEMENTO SPOILER
The movie memento also has a website full of supplimentary material, with documents from the mental hospital the main character was in. Because there is extra insight to be gained from it does not mean that the movie is less good.
And also, if its the creators intention to make it so you need to read the website (which niether of the movies mentioned do) to understand the plot, it does not make the movie worser, it just makes it different. In a case where this is true, the website must be included and considered as a part of the final creation.
Donnie Darko does not spell anything out, but neither does it give any strong support for more than one conclusion. A film needs to find a middle ground if you want a discussion.
No, it means you're good at creating a unified network for an idea but a poor filmmaker. Movies with deep plots can be created without any kind of crutch.Quote:
And also, if its the creators intention to make it so you need to read the website (which niether of the movies mentioned do) to understand the plot, it does not make the movie worser, it just makes it different. In a case where this is true, the website must be included and considered as a part of the final creation.
I disagree with the first sentance.
Well, this is purely opinionated debate, so theres no point in arguing.