Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: https://www.wren.co/start/jacksaint The first 100 people who sign up will have 10 extra trees planted in their name!If ...
I liked the movie but did feel afterwards this disappointed feeling. Heard from some people I trusted that it was by far the best movie of the year and it was just a good movie. Idk if I'm too :kim: pilled or so, but I felt like it was so removed from its own meanings that it became too loose. Like in the opposite of socialist realism way or something. I get what the movie was saying, but felt disappointed in how it said it. Hard to articulate exactly why though, maybe just because the "love conquers all" trope felt kinda unearned at the end
But it wasn't a component, it was the only thing, right? The love just instantly healed basically everyone except the 2 main characters who had to use even more love to begin healing.
Ok I think I then agree with this analysis, for the general meaning being better than my original comment in that it wasn't just "love conquers all" but still showed the hard work associated with it. I still think that this wasn't entirely clear enough because of how removed the action was from material reality as we experience it. It makes it more interesting art for sure, but in my mind, the shit going on in random universes wasn't really "hard work" but a sort of cheating to find someone's weak point (or love point or whatever). Considering this was the point of the movie (to be so crazy and hectic and fun), I think the movie did its goal well. I just think I would react more to a movie that was more visceral about that struggle in a literal as opposed to analogous way.
Good analysis, pretty convincing at all aspects. I hadn't thought too hard about the movie afterwards but i appreciate the introduction of some good ideas by you here. I guess the speed of switching around led me to feel that it wasn't hard work while the intention was that it WAS but the movie couldn't be 10hours long. Which brings me back to: i guess i just react more to a sort of realism that can show pain and suffering and hard work in a directly relatable way: hence my juche-pilled take at the beginning.
But you've convinced me that i was too harsh in every way outside of this broad philosophical desire to utilize realism more often
I guess a leftover question here: why did the versions of the attackers become docile when other versions of themselves were treated well by the main character? I guess i may have missed it, but that also led to the disconnect i think
But yeah thanks for the detailed and serious explanations, was enjoyable to read
I will look into both! Not a big movie-head but i have pirate bay so easy access, and will watch em
I liked the movie but did feel afterwards this disappointed feeling. Heard from some people I trusted that it was by far the best movie of the year and it was just a good movie. Idk if I'm too :kim: pilled or so, but I felt like it was so removed from its own meanings that it became too loose. Like in the opposite of socialist realism way or something. I get what the movie was saying, but felt disappointed in how it said it. Hard to articulate exactly why though, maybe just because the "love conquers all" trope felt kinda unearned at the end
It's not "love conquers all" so much as "love is a necessary component of psychological healing, and everyone needs some healing"
But it wasn't a component, it was the only thing, right? The love just instantly healed basically everyone except the 2 main characters who had to use even more love to begin healing.
deleted by creator
Ok I think I then agree with this analysis, for the general meaning being better than my original comment in that it wasn't just "love conquers all" but still showed the hard work associated with it. I still think that this wasn't entirely clear enough because of how removed the action was from material reality as we experience it. It makes it more interesting art for sure, but in my mind, the shit going on in random universes wasn't really "hard work" but a sort of cheating to find someone's weak point (or love point or whatever). Considering this was the point of the movie (to be so crazy and hectic and fun), I think the movie did its goal well. I just think I would react more to a movie that was more visceral about that struggle in a literal as opposed to analogous way.
deleted by creator
Good analysis, pretty convincing at all aspects. I hadn't thought too hard about the movie afterwards but i appreciate the introduction of some good ideas by you here. I guess the speed of switching around led me to feel that it wasn't hard work while the intention was that it WAS but the movie couldn't be 10hours long. Which brings me back to: i guess i just react more to a sort of realism that can show pain and suffering and hard work in a directly relatable way: hence my juche-pilled take at the beginning.
But you've convinced me that i was too harsh in every way outside of this broad philosophical desire to utilize realism more often
deleted by creator
I guess a leftover question here: why did the versions of the attackers become docile when other versions of themselves were treated well by the main character? I guess i may have missed it, but that also led to the disconnect i think
But yeah thanks for the detailed and serious explanations, was enjoyable to read
I will look into both! Not a big movie-head but i have pirate bay so easy access, and will watch em
Yeah everyone is all "remove the sausage fingers" but sausage finger IRS lady crying out of confusion and hurt is an important emotional moment
No there was a raccoon too pay attention
True, I'm a fuckin dumbass. So besides the 3 main characters then?