This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:42 pm
To be fair, Tyler specifically says that the buildings are empty and they aren't killing anyone. I'm not sure anyone actually dies in the movie at all except in the existential sense.
Fair enough. It's been around twenty years since I last watched it and was left unimpressed, so I admit my recollection of the details is fuzzy at best. That's a good excuse for the purposes of the finale, but don't really hold up to scrutiny IMO (the post-Jedi Endor problem). Both in the immediate (the destruction of a large building is difficult to control for experts let alone an amateur who is not mentally stable), and in the long-term goal of destabilizing society. Even with good motives, there will be collateral damage involving innocents, and I don't recall it engaging with that reality at all.
Most of my memories of this film relate to how heavily merchandised it was, and how big the commercial marketing for it was. Irony.
Edward Norton's job in the movie was an automobile recall specialist. The movie showed his job entailing how various, often dire, circumstances of automobiles miraculously combusting etc... So his forensic capabilities involving electronics and raw combustibles was probably astute enough to be able to learn just what we see in the garage basement of the building.
The long term goal in 1999 is more believable than in 2022 with cloud data. No doubt though that taking out headquarters of multiple credit card companies right next to each other was going to have a pronounced effect on the national credit infrastructure. The credit card industry alone dwarfs the housing market, so the amount of data being demolished in such a disparately networked though all encompassing financial framework is quite compelling for a story narrative.
What I find interesting is that the Chinese authorities probably take the themes of the film a lot more seriously than most people who've watched it.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:42 pm
To be fair, Tyler specifically says that the buildings are empty and they aren't killing anyone. I'm not sure anyone actually dies in the movie at all except in the existential sense.
You try to bring down civilization to reset it you're gonna kill people. Simply messing with the food supply chain with the population the world has will do that.
clearspira wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:28 pm
Just remember: Corporations like Disney who claim to be all about LGBT issues, diversity, inclusion, equality - they are the one's who work side-by-side with China to remove the ''offending'' scenes.
They have no ideological concerns other than what sells. If they thought they could make more money by saying the exact opposite of what they do now, they would. If that bothers you, don't patronize their products and services.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:42 pm
To be fair, Tyler specifically says that the buildings are empty and they aren't killing anyone. I'm not sure anyone actually dies in the movie at all except in the existential sense.
His name... was Robert Paulson.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows." -- George Orwell, 1984
Beastro wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:26 pm
What I find interesting is that the Chinese authorities probably take the themes of the film a lot more seriously than most people who've watched it.
Why wouldn't they though? It's just a game of numbers as far as they're concerned. They're not going to let what they perceive to be no different from a propaganda piece circulating freely in their society.
Interesting to note though; with the implicit attention to themes here, we have a very democratic approach to how we interpret them. So much so that the hierarchical attention to it in the form of empirical analysis seems somewhat stilted or shrouded. AFI, the Oscars... Very vague, though we do pay attention and celebrate themes somewhat.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:42 pm
To be fair, Tyler specifically says that the buildings are empty and they aren't killing anyone. I'm not sure anyone actually dies in the movie at all except in the existential sense.
You try to bring down civilization to reset it you're gonna kill people. Simply messing with the food supply chain with the population the world has will do that.
Deledrius wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:03 pm
Amusingly, I (would) actually prefer this. Not the why, or the who, and in context this is pretty awful.
But I'm also sick of the trend in post-9/11 films where the bad guy gets to succeed at blowing things up and killing loads of people and the good guy "wins" not by stopping the terrorist/supervillain/whatever but just apprehending them after the fact.
It's more "gritty" and "realistic."
I'm also rather tired of the cynical, depressing nature of so much entertainment. "And they all live happily ever after" might've become a cheesy cliche but "everything turns to crap" has become just as much of one, and is plain less fun. I don't want all of one or the other - that's the main reason they get tired, so not knowing what's coming (in general) is preferable.
We can have "how are they going to get out of this bad situation?" or "how's this finally looking like it's going well situation going to turn to shit?" but isn't it better to never be certain either way?
clearspira wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:28 pm
Just remember: Corporations like Disney who claim to be all about LGBT issues, diversity, inclusion, equality - they are the one's who work side-by-side with China to remove the ''offending'' scenes.
They have no ideological concerns other than what sells. If they thought they could make more money by saying the exact opposite of what they do now, they would. If that bothers you, don't patronize their products and services.
The idea that its possible to not give money to Disney is laughable.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:57 pm
Edward Norton's job in the movie was an automobile recall specialist. The movie showed his job entailing how various, often dire, circumstances of automobiles miraculously combusting etc... So his forensic capabilities involving electronics and raw combustibles was probably astute enough to be able to learn just what we see in the garage basement of the building.
The long term goal in 1999 is more believable than in 2022 with cloud data. No doubt though that taking out headquarters of multiple credit card companies right next to each other was going to have a pronounced effect on the national credit infrastructure. The credit card industry alone dwarfs the housing market, so the amount of data being demolished in such a disparately networked though all encompassing financial framework is quite compelling for a story narrative.
The only real difference that cloud data would bring would that it would have to be Google, Amazon, or Microsoft's servers rather than the credit card company's servers. Because ultimately cloud computing is just renting someone else's hardware and interacting with it over the internet.
