Honestly this person seems to be looking at all the times the movie shows something weird, or inconsistent, on the expectation that the viewer will use it to color their read on the person doing the weird thing or who said something that isn't borne out by reality, and instead went 'wow this movie is stupid, it keeps contradicting itself! Can't believe no one noticed that' Like ...yeah. yeah, it didn't. Wilford was lying. Because he wanted to keep everyone play-acting in the daydream he had when he was eight, and he had the power to restrict their access to information to make that happen, because privilege and wealth and power had rotted his mind to the point where he thought that he could and should do that. It's something that the film did very intentionally to show just how fucked up he was, and how little he cared about anyone else's dignity or autonomy or safety, and this person seems to think it just happened because no one proofread the script.
Or ...no. it is actually the face of someone acting. Specifically it is someone acting in the role of a guy who has had to eat arms and bugs for seventeen years seeing someone who has drunk the cult Kool-Aid so hard that they seem to be getting high off it in the middle of indoctrinating the youth. And you know what, I think that he is capturing that specific emotion pretty well!
I completely forgot Evans was in that. How long ago did Snowpiercer come out? I was still young and dumb and watching Cinemasins, so I missed on the good commentary
I'm definitely with @KarrinBlue on this. Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror--especially stories of those genres that are more high concept or have a literary bent--are built on metaphor. It's definitely a subjective call whether those metaphors are working for you, but it's really easy to read metaphorical texts in bad faith, and when you do, you miss out on a lot. Silent Hill is better when the monsters are a manifestation of the MC's demons. Bloodborne is better when it's not about werewolves, its about powerful, entitled men whipping up xenophobic mass hysteria. Annihilation (the movie, I understand the book is different) is better when it's not about aliens but about different reactions to trauma.
Yeah, complaining about the polar bear at the end of Snowpiercer has the same vibes to me as complaining about the last line of Animal Farm because of course they should be able to tell the pigs from the men, the pigs are the ones with hooves.
Or like saying Get Out is bad because you can't actually transplant an entire brain, and even if you could how would a bright flash of light make someone switch back if their original brain is gone.
I dont mean to say it's terrible fiction, because I don't plan to watch it, but I really don't understand Wandavision. I'm sure it's much better in the comics, but in the movies it kind of came out of nowhere, suddenly vision was flirting with wanda and then he died and he was maybe brought back? I watched neither of the final avenger films. Has anyone seem the show, or know anything about the two of them in the comics?
Musk's indentured servants on Mars plan makes perfect sense: The purpose is to have indentured servants, preferably on Mars. It may not be *moral* but it is what it is. (The tail, might, in the same way, serve the purpose of an audience and/or contrast.) Wilford's privilege made a man's arm freeze off in seconds? Neat. Could be more metaphor, where destroying the train actually makes the Earth livable again, but like, it is a bit both-ways. Okay. It takes minutes in the movie. That works. Creates its own problems, but works. Further Edit: There's also the Seven who froze in place, apparently seconds after leaving the train. It could be an elaborate trick, but the security guy... Yona's father, whose name I have somehow already forgotten, remembers one of them. That requires the very cold temperatures that would, indeed, result in no life on Earth. This is possibly just my literal-mindedness, but there's a certain point at which a work becomes overloaded by its own metaphors. If nothing can stand on its own, then the metaphor suffers because its own validity is called into question. If you're using the masked guys to represent... I dunno, 'race blindness' or something, well, okay, except that what we actually see is absurd, so in turn, the metaphor feels absurd. It's... putting the theme, the core or 'bones' of a work, as its skin. It works for bugs, but it doesn't work so well for fiction IMO. Spoiler: Show Spoilers (Also, having just seen the first season of the show, I just realized that Wilford being played by Sean Bean means he does the opposite of his usual gimmick. :P)
Okay. Having witnessed the movie firsthand, it is... very weird. Honestly I think more of the problem might be that it shifts in tone from serious and gritty to whimsical at a moment's notice. And right up until the utterly bizarre masked fight scene, it's been mostly grounded. So you could believe you're watching Seriousface Post-Apocalyptic Sci-Fi and that what the heck, that mask is dumb, what are they doing with that fish, and uh... New Years, what the hell? It's overall very... I guess 'avant garde' would be a good term. Or maybe just Korean, between this and Parasite they seem pretty blunt-metaphor heavy... unless they're both by the same person, which would sure make me look stupid. It's actually an interesting contrast: the show has the same themes (with a bit of grief thrown in) ultimately, and of course a very similar plot, but it's, as mentioned, a pretty serious and grounded sci-fi drama, premise aside. It manages to reuse a surprising number of the same beats, but without being... quite so blunt in its metaphors. The movie has almost the tone of a parable, and it's a pretty good dramatic parable, but... yeah, most of the them don't stand up to serious scrutiny. And that's kind of a categorical error on the reviewer's part, but also like... it's odd. (It's also all based on a comic, which I believe is quite different. But that's another story).
You could possibly do some scarification, but that’s a distinct thing and would also likely be an issue. So yeah, wtf seconded. (Clarifying edit: The scarification thing is mostly me speculating on the author’s intent, but since I don’t know the specifics of the situation I could absolutely be off-base. If it was used as tattoo ink, wtf to the MAX.)
Specifically, the molten gold was brought to the tattoo parlour, not specified as being in a special heatproof container or anything, nor is it explained how it didn't cool back down en route, and mixed in with the ink, somehow not resulting in evaporated ink or re-solidified gold. Maybe the writer thinks once you've melted gold it stays liquid forever? Also, I Googled, and micron-sized gold powder can be used in tattoos, but it doesn't look gold if you do, because light can't reflect off it once it's under a layer of skin, so that wouldn't provide the look the writer's going for either.
This is about halfway into the first chapter, mind you. I think I now have to read the rest of it to see what else is totally misunderstood... Spoiler: nsfw ... and we get the "guy has to RAM into girl to get painful hymen breaking 'over with'" trope. OW. No! Not how it's done!
Yeah, you... probably can't really tattoo someone with molten gold. I suppose maybe if they were supernaturally fire resistant, you could like, dab it on or inject it. I have a bit in which someone has a (temporary) 3d gold tattoo, but that's done with... something like a self-hardening spray on paste.
To be entirely fair, this character is supernatural, but at the time the tattoo happens, she thinks she's human, so why it even occurred to her to try it I don't know.
Man if they invent shiny/iridescent tattoos it is OVER for me im spending the rest of my free money getting as shiny as possible until i run out of skin
