[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]

tpaine posted:


within the first two minutes this guy says that macready "will be the last man standing at the end of the movie"

[account deactivated]
or the movie ends am fucking biguously to leave the cocksucking viewer on a goddamn unresolved state of self-perpetuating paranoia.. shit.....
[account deactivated]
oh shiiiit.
[account deactivated]
people asked russell and carpenter about those sorts of theories at different times and they both suggested that the only thing the actors and carpenter intended to bring to the last scene was radical doubt & lack of knowledge for whatever intent is worth in this post modern world of memes and kale
[account deactivated]
like carpenter said, i was sure macready was a thing, i don't know about childs. and then at the end of the same interview he said haha jk i don't know about either of them & no one does.
this guy's idea is interesting and probably influenced by 1950s-1960s science fiction about the devil trying to trick people into atheism but i'm not sure he escapes the alternate conclusion that the choices to present the monster through traditional western symbols of malice & evil, eerie music & out of place sound effects were because that's an effective way for carpenter to scare his audience. or some shit
[account deactivated]
the thing is probably my favourite horror movie, and i really like two things about it. 1. one of the few horror movies where the victims make no errors and still get mercilessly killed. most horror movies have you figuring things out far sooner than they do, and thus lead to you being all "this wouldn't happen to me because i wouldn't be sleeping in the cabin where all those kids died, or i wouldn't split up to look for the missing friend who's blood was everywhere, but just book it." the thing's characters figure it out quickly, they work together pretty well, but it doesn't save them from their fate.
2. jump scenes that will make you jump even if you've seen the movie before, because the preceding scenes are slightly repetitive (blood testing, performing cpr on guy who had heart attack) so even if you know it's coming, you can't remember exactly when, so the repetition before has you going "this time it'll jump scare, this time, this... oh shit!"
the people behind the movie have also liked to hint that the Things can fool some part of themselves into thinking it's the person that was eaten & obviously this guy doesn't like that idea. although tbh i feel more like that was an idea people who watched the movie seized upon based on a line or two in it and later carpenter was like, yeah sure that makes me look clever.
The thing is actually bad.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
To be clear: the film that you enjoy, "The Thing", actually isn't good like you think it is and instead of that is bad - meaning that in addition to the film being bad you have poor taste.
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
[account deactivated]
it was 2011. it was different time

tpaine posted:

i saw another vid where the guy argued that the whiskey he hands childs is actually a bottle of gas for a molotov cocktail and he sees that childs just drinks it down and the little laugh is him realizing that the alien will freeze and survive and probably assimilate the earth. just like Today


This article abt the Thing is still up http://gayutopia.blogspot.com/2007/12/noah-berlatsky-fecund-horror_12.html
Currently watching: the finale of this shit show of an election
That link you posted tpaine about The Thing being about "radical spiritual evil" is weird horseshit and I'm confused that it could even exist.

The Thing to me is pretty explicitly a statement on the horror of selective biological existence & capitalism, in which the most competitive survivor thrives by ruthlessly eviscerating all opposition regardless of how miserable a world it creates. I can understand modern ideology missing the social critique because people are fucking stupid, but misinterpreting the point that severely is goddamn mysterious. Viable interpretations of the movie fit with either gnostic or athiestic cosmologies, but certainly not with an idea of a spiritual antagonist that can be opposed by fundamental purity/humanity.
[account deactivated]
I'm watching The Young Pope. it owns and it's only in the 5th episode that the Pope says the line 'I am the young pope'
ive been watching a lot of cheers on netflix. so much talent in one place!
whoa hbo made the movie from hollywood handbook?

gay_swimmer posted:

I'm watching The Young Pope. it owns and it's only in the 5th episode that the Pope says the line 'I am the young pope'

i watched Zootopia
I anticipate that Adam Curtis' "Hypernormalisation" will be getting a lot more play in liberal circles in the wake of Trump's election as they look for answers to the question "how could this happen?".

The doc relies on very selective points to construct its narrative; geopolitical complexity is reduced to strongman narcissism, technoculture is simplified and its actors taken at face value, its treatment of radicalism in the US erases black/socialist struggle while radicalism in MENA is presented through the lens of orientalism and poetic justice. In short, it is non-marxist and consistently erases class. Yet this presents a useful opportunity to reach/educate people dissatisfied and questioning liberalism and the current state of the world.

Starting end of November I will work on an effortpost to meticulously go through the film, point out what is has been left out, contextualise/correct facts it does include and present a more accurate analysis. I'm not an expert so will be learning as I go. It will be far easier, more interesting/fun, and the results of much better quality if some of you want to hop on to a collaborate document and contribute also. It's already online with the film transcript, so PM me for the link.

gay_swimmer posted:

I'm watching The Young Pope. it owns and it's only in the 5th episode that the Pope says the line 'I am the young pope'

Jon Glaser Loves Gear, produced by PFFR which should be enough for most of you to give it a shot.

http://www.avclub.com/review/parts-jon-glaser-loves-gear-shouldnt-fit-together--244788 posted:

The title (and some of the advertising) make Jon Glaser Loves Gear out to be a reality show about buying stuff, and the enjoyment of that stuff... Each item, as it’s quickly introduced, is greeted with an onscreen graphic with its details: a particular watch, for example, or a jacket, each with their manufacturer listed. Is this clever product placement? Is this how a show as weird as Jon Glaser Loves Gear actually funds itself? Or is it just taking the idea of this fake reality show to its logical, realistic conclusion?

It's easily the most meta thing I've seen in a long time but also the dumbest in terms of humor which is a great combination. An elaborate prank on the sponsors who find themselves associated with an incredibly annoying and loathsome personality? An elaborate prank on the network itself, considering the first scene of the first episode is Glaser pitching the show to the execs? Whatever it is, it's way more absurd and funny than I expected.

4 episodes in so far. Kind of hard to get hold of so if you're interested, PM me for invites to the secret MP4 forum