Radiohead sighting -- Fight Club
Jean Ra
>
>I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
>Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
>They mentioned that they were both "fixated with the last two Radiohead
>albums."
>
>I thought that was cool,
>
>Again, I would like to apologize deeply and humbly if this has already been
>brought to your attention.
Radiohead think Brad Pitt is annoying.
J.R.
Hetman
Cheers,
--
Hetman
"What are you looking at Swampie!"
good weather for airstrikes
>albums."
>
>I thought that was cool,
>
>Again, I would like to apologize deeply and humbly if this has already been
>brought to your attention.
>
>Cheers,
>
>--
>
>
>Hetman
>
>"What are you looking at Swampie!"
noone has brought it up actually..thats really fucking cool! i remnember when
fight club first came out that brad pitt, in his interview with rolling stone,
went on for like 2 paragraphs comparing the film to ok computer.
it was wild.
MaTT
"be prepared for anything at any time from anybody, don't take no shit, always
stand your ground. people wanna come up to me and run their mouth - guess what?
i'll throw them through the fucking window...i won't think a thing of it."
-----GYBE-----
kingrolypolybugmeanie
>
>J.R.
and of course, that means you should too.
-el Faxman
the alt.music.radiohead FAQ is located at:
http://www.radioheadfaq.co.uk/
peacel
> Radiohead think Brad Pitt is annoying.
So I guess all five of them got together one day and agreed that Brad
Pitt was annoying? I'd like to have been there for that conversation.
What's your source on this? Is it MEETING PEOPLE IS EASY, where Thom
is unimpressed that Calvin Klein and Brad Pitt were at one of the L.A.
concerts?
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"What we have here is a company [TI] with unlimited resources that
wants to take film away from us and replace it with their system.
And the film community is so technically uninterested and illiterate
that there is no outcry."
-Roger Ebert on digital projection
warren and judith
good weather for airstrikes wrote:
> noone has brought it up actually..thats really fucking cool! i remnember when
> fight club first came out that brad pitt, in his interview with rolling stone,
> went on for like 2 paragraphs comparing the film to ok computer.
> it was wild.
cool. the star of the greatest movie of the 90s sharing his love for the greatest
cd of the nineties.
KING MOB
>Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>
>I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
>Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
and THANK GOD they didnt. it would disappoint me to see them be part of such a
flawed film.
ditto for the avengers.
and what's with david fincher getting stuck with all these stinker films? even
the perfect circle vid is pretty bla-zey.
and ya dont stop..
evan
--
p.s. everyone not old enough to vote should defer to my will by default.
peacel
> and THANK GOD they didnt. it would disappoint me to see them be part
> of such a flawed film.
FIGHT CLUB is one of those films that on a first viewing seems flawed
because of its unrelenting unconventionality, but that on repeat
viewings ends up cohering in such a way that you stop and think, "Hey,
why did I ever think this movie was flawed in the first place? This is
exactly how it should be. I can't imagine it being any different."
It's a movie that you need to see before you can really see it.
Luc Besson's THE FIFTH ELEMENT was like that as well.
> ditto for the avengers.
I liked THE AVENGERS. It's not a great film, but it has some wonderful
imagery. But Big Boots is all wrong, emotionally, for the picture.
> and what's with david fincher getting stuck with all these stinker
> films? even the perfect circle vid is pretty bla-zey.
David Fincher's last three movies are all spectactular, and along with
the Coen brothers and Martin Scorsese, I rank him as one of the
premiere American filmmakers of the nineties. But you're right; that
Perfect Circle video is pretty boring. Maybe it's more effective if
you're a fan of heavy metal and guys with long hair.
![[pris]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVX6fiTrXYFgIoHMzfvOJll1KFpmmgfBai_oQt7nxPaHvlu7w=s40-c)
[pris]
songs. but i hope they will do a soundtrack one day that's meant to be a
soundtrack and nothing else; something like neil young's dead man or air's
virgin suicides. but even though i really liked fight club and it is
somewhat subversive and anti-whatever, it is still a major hollywood
production with all its inevitable hypocrisies (like brad pitt mocking
sixpacked underwear models: ha!).
so, no fight club soundtracks please, but for a good indie movie...
"Hetman" <het...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:uvT55.9315$%o1.8...@news21.bellglobal.com...
> Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>
> I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
> Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
> Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
> They mentioned that they were both "fixated with the last two Radiohead
> albums."
>
> I thought that was cool,
>
> Again, I would like to apologize deeply and humbly if this has already
been
Ian
kingrolypolybugmeanie <faxm...@aol.comeOnBaby> wrote in message
news:20000627005613...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> >Radiohead think Brad Pitt is annoying.
> >
>
> and of course, that means you should too.
Ian
news:39584718...@bigpond.net.au...
Goliath
<het...@sympatico.ca> writes
>Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>
>I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
>Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
>They mentioned that they were both "fixated with the last two Radiohead
>albums."
>
>I thought that was cool,
>
>Again, I would like to apologize deeply and humbly if this has already been
>brought to your attention.
I read in a Brad Pitt interview where he was trying to describe the
film, and he did so by saying it had a very "Radiohead" vibe to it
...which was cool.
--
Goliath
Autumnatic
say was only slightly flawed, but it didn't phase me much. I liked that movie a
lot. The novel's good--interesting prose style. It's wildly (darkly) funny, ike
the movie. There are some really frightening scenes in the book that didn't
make the film. At one point they burn an entire city park (a block wide or so).
Great image of this nice little oasis in the city completely in flame.
Autumnatic
years deflating the oooh-isn't-he-good-looking predjudice. Similar to J. Depp.
You do enough Edward Scissorhands and Fight Clubs and people start to realize
you're talented. (Incidentally, Ed Norton is the MAN.)
Jeny Palacios
> Jean Ra wrote:
Actually, it was in an article published about the Tibetan Freedom Concert in
1998. They were interviewing Thom and he was talking about the tibetan
issues that they wanted to address to Bill Clinton. Then it was said that
the whole weekend was a success even though they had the celebrities there
to 'hang out.' the journalist specifically mentioned Brad pitt and
jennifer aniston trying to befriend thom yorke and how he was really annoyed
by it because he was just there for the cause. Anyways, they kept trying
to corner him all weekend and he didn't like it. that's how the
journalist portrayed it.
> So I guess all five of them got together one day and agreed that Brad
> Pitt was annoying? I'd like to have been there for that conversation.
> What's your source on this? Is it MEETING PEOPLE IS EASY, where Thom
> is unimpressed that Calvin Klein and Brad Pitt were at one of the L.A.
> concerts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'i'll take a quiet life. a handshake some carbon monoxide. no alarms and
no surprises'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ian
news:8jaa0q$ah6$2...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca...
> peacel (pea...@sk.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > Jean Ra wrote:
>
>
> Actually, it was in an article published about the Tibetan Freedom Concert
in
> 1998. They were interviewing Thom and he was talking about the tibetan
> issues that they wanted to address to Bill Clinton. Then it was said that
> the whole weekend was a success even though they had the celebrities there
> to 'hang out.' the journalist specifically mentioned Brad pitt and
> jennifer aniston trying to befriend thom yorke and how he was really
annoyed
> by it because he was just there for the cause. Anyways, they kept trying
> to corner him all weekend and he didn't like it. that's how the
> journalist portrayed it.
your work and would like to talk to you? Basically he was shitting on a fan.
Radiohead are an incredible band, possibly the best of the day, but Thom's a
self important (abeilt fantastically talented) psuedo intellectual knob.
I
IAmUltragrrrl
actually watching the film which i had rented a day or two earlier.
I had NO clue that they spliced brad pitt's image into a bunch of scenes.
that's so damn cool. I don't care what you guys say, this movie is tops.
sarah
Jean Ra
>
If you say so.
J.R.
Jean Ra
>kingrolypolybugmeanie <faxm...@aol.comeOnBaby> wrote in message
>news:20000627005613...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> >
>>
>> and of course, that means you should too.
me too
Jean Ra
>in
>> 1998. They were interviewing Thom and he was talking about the tibetan
>> issues that they wanted to address to Bill Clinton. Then it was said that
>> the whole weekend was a success even though they had the celebrities there
>> to 'hang out.' the journalist specifically mentioned Brad pitt and
>> jennifer aniston trying to befriend thom yorke and how he was really
>annoyed
>> by it because he was just there for the cause. Anyways, they kept trying
>> to corner him all weekend and he didn't like it. that's how the
>> journalist portrayed it.
>And who does that reflect badly on? Thom, arrogant twat or Brad Pitt, I like
>your work and would like to talk to you? Basically he was shitting on a fan.
>Radiohead are an incredible band, possibly the best of the day, but Thom's a
>self important (abeilt fantastically talented) psuedo intellectual knob.
You love the song,
But not the singer"
(Placebo)
J.R.
Autumnatic
orla...@my-deja.com
tele...@aol.computethis (KING MOB) wrote:
>
> and THANK GOD they didnt. it would disappoint me to see them be part
> of such a flawed film.
>
eh, no..! watch it again.. it's the best film ever..!
> ditto for the avengers.
>
> and what's with david fincher getting stuck with all these stinker
> films? even the perfect circle vid is pretty bla-zey.
>
i liked the vid.. its simple, but stylish.. and paz is in it. and
fincher is cool, though lost higway is impossible to even understand.
-orlando
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
orlando
>
> Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>
> I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
oh god, i so want that dvd :D
first i need a player though
> Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
> Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
that would've be fucking cool.. but the dust brothers or whoever it was
did an magnificant job, anyways.. BUT, i can't imagine radiohead scoring
the film in the first place!
orlando
--
i am orlando's missing .sig
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ian
news:mlhhlsgqke5pe3lk1...@4ax.com...
Sorry thing is I used to like him, then he started to believe his own press.
Leonard Holliday
<orla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jakha$h2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I think your confusing Fincher with David Lynch who directed Lost
Highway...but your right about it being impossible to understand. Now if
anyone had a case for pseudo intellectualism 'Lost highway' must be
included...apparantly it's supposed to be a commentary on society's growing
dependence on television. Lynch is cool though Twin Peaks rules and is out
on DVD in november.
Jean Ra
>> You love the song,
>> But not the singer"
>> (Placebo)
>What tracks that?
"I know
You love the song,
But not the singer"
(Placebo, "I Know")
There.
J.R.
orlando
>
> <orla...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jakha$h2q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <20000627025359...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
> > tele...@aol.computethis (KING MOB) wrote:
>
> > i liked the vid.. its simple, but stylish.. and paz is in it. and
> > fincher is cool, though lost higway is impossible to even understand.
> >
> > -orlando
>
> I think your confusing Fincher with David Lynch who directed Lost
> Highway...but your right about it being impossible to understand. Now if
er, yes i am.. sorry me. :P
> anyone had a case for pseudo intellectualism 'Lost highway' must be
> included...apparantly it's supposed to be a commentary on society's growing
> dependence on television. Lynch is cool though Twin Peaks rules and is out
> on DVD in november.
well, whatever, i didn't get it.. i watched it twice too.. bleh.
orlando
np: and you will know us by the trail of dead -- when we begin to
steal..
Goliath
<tele...@aol.computethis> writes
>"Hetman" het...@sympatico.ca:
>
>>Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>>
>>I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>>Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
>flawed film.
>
>
>and what's with david fincher getting stuck with all these stinker films? even
>the perfect circle vid is pretty bla-zey.
You didn't like Fight Club, then? Ho hum, I bet you thought American
Beauty (real title "Fight Club lite") was much better, yes? I bet you
didn't like 7even either. Weirdo. Fight Club is dazzling the first time
you see it, but then improves further when you notice the foreshadowing
of the Ultimate Twist (TM).
--
Goliath
Ian
Chris JB McDonald
Title is actually se7en.
I have to say that I enjoyed Fight CLub immensely, and having heard the
commentary by Brad and Edward, I was most impressed by their musical
tastes. I'm not sure where in the film RH's song(s) could have fit in, but
I bet during some of the explosion scenes, we could have had the harsh
guitar rifts of Paranoid Android.
Just my two cents.
Chris
Goliath
<autum...@aol.com> writes
Ed Norton is the MASTER of men
--
Goliath
Goliath
>> Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>>
>> I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>
>
>first i need a player though
>
>> Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>>
>
>did an magnificant job, anyways.. BUT, i can't imagine radiohead scoring
>the film in the first place!
>
>
>orlando
Not even when they make music like "Motion Picture Soundtrack"? ;-)
--
Goliath
illwill
tele...@aol.computethis says...
> "Hetman" het...@sympatico.ca:
>
> >Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
> >
> >I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
> >Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
> flawed film.
>
> ditto for the avengers.
>
> and what's with david fincher getting stuck with all these stinker films? even
> the perfect circle vid is pretty bla-zey.
>
>
>
> evan
> --
> p.s. everyone not old enough to vote should defer to my will by default.
>
fight club was one of the best film of the 90s, but thats not saying
much. i thought the beginning was really good, especially the ikea
catalogue scene and the support group addiction, but once it got on with
the lets overthrow the government and blow shit up stuff it lost its
coolness and descended into mainstreamness. fincher is a good director
but his movies are way too dark. literally :]
Liz Taylor
>
> KING MOB wrote:
>
> (FIGHT CLUB spoilers. Off-topic for this newsgroup.)
>
> > the first 30 minutes of fight club were fantastic... and then the
> > movie simply fell apart. the intellectualisms presented in the
> > beginning are only half realized - instead it quickly becomes a
> > testosterone oozing gore-fest and everything else pretty much takes a
> > back seat.
>
> If you're referring to the fight club stuff, I have to disagree. For a
> movie called FIGHT CLUB, Fincher and Jim Uhls (the screenwriter)
> include about as little actual fighting as you can imagine. There's a
> few fistfights, almost all of them seen briefly under Edward Norton's
> voice-over, and Jack's pummeling of Angel, which, although gory, isn't
> played in an upbeat, exploitative way. It's graphic and disturbing
> because it's *supposed* to be graphic and disturbing. There's also the
> scene where Jack kicks the shit out of himself in his boss's office,
> which comes off as satire/black comedy, and the scene where Tyler
> coughs blood all over the mob boss, which is mostly a chilling comment
> on modern-day blood phobias ("You don't know where I've been, Lou! You
> don't know where I've been!").
well, i don't know what evan was thinking (so don't mistake what i say
for his thoughts), but...it wasn't really the gore that bothered me
about the movie, although I do agree with what evan said, insofar as
recognizing that it was eye-candy (it wasn't just the fight scenes that
were eye-candy though, there were plenty of cool scenes aside from the
gory ones). the problem is that the movie pretends to address huge
problems of society (not that they're not already obvious)... we KNOW
people feel emasculated, and the movie shows us that by showing these
people in their "Fight Club" but it completely fails to address why, or
to go in depth with that problem at all. in fact, the problem gets
slagged off in a totally lazy way...by turning the character into a
person with a sleep deprivation-induced psychosis. with some real
thought, they probably could've done a lot more with the "double
identity" thing, but they didn't.
anyway, Fight Club (disappointingly) ends up being an apocalyptic-trash
story that fools people into thinking that it was deep (but it looks
cool).
> Except there are hardly any cool explosions (I count three, only one of
> which can be called "cool"). And what it says is that Tyler Durden's
> extremist, fascist politics are in fact *not* the answer, and that
> anyone who blindly follows another's ideals will ultimately turn into
> another faceless, brainless space monkey.
how much is knowing that really worth?
> "Yeah, well, that's like, you know, your *opinion*, man."
> -The Dude, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
i don't think anyone ever says something thinking that they're laying
down the fucking law here.
> > if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE PROFESSIONAL.
>
> Thanks, but I own it. On Laserdisc. Both the regular release and the
> extended Japanese import.
shi-it! (man he really got us there!)
sarah
--
Your performance at dinner really disgusted me.
KING MOB
night and in the process of proofreading it aol logged me off of my ng's and i
lost it all.
anyway:
peacel pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
>> and THANK GOD they didnt. it would disappoint me to see them be part
>> of such a flawed film.
>
>FIGHT CLUB is one of those films that on a first viewing seems flawed
>because of its unrelenting unconventionality, but that on repeat
>viewings ends up cohering in such a way that you stop and think, "Hey,
>why did I ever think this movie was flawed in the first place? This is
>exactly how it should be. I can't imagine it being any different."
>It's a movie that you need to see before you can really see it.
my sentiments were the exact opposite. when i first saw it i was fairly blown
away - i mean it's a fucking BRUTAL film - but after i had a day or two to
reflect on the movie i couldn't believe i was so easily suckered.
the first 30 minutes of fight club were fantastic... and then the movie simply
fell apart. the intellectualisms presented in the beginning are only half
realized - instead it quickly becomes a testosterone oozing gore-fest and
everything else pretty much takes a back seat. in fact the movie pretty much
wallowed in graphic violence and homo eroticism and discarded anything that
asked the audience to think.
not to mention the significance given to tyler's ideals about "consumerism" and
"conformity" when it's revealed at the end that these are being spouted by a
schizo. then again, what does it say about society when the men who follow
tyler to rebel against these ideals in return become sheep to the fight club?
well we never really find out, we're too distracted by the cool explosions.
entertainment? yes, very entertaining. art? nope.
>Luc Besson's THE FIFTH ELEMENT was like that as well.
the fifth element is pure escapist fantasy.
if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE PROFESSIONAL. a superb
love story, the direction is pure poetry, and gary oldman is simply amazing. if
anyone has not seen this movie yet, RENT IT.
>I liked THE AVENGERS. It's not a great film, but it has some wonderful
>imagery. But Big Boots is all wrong, emotionally, for the picture.
nice imagery. the rest of it was fucked in so many ways the film could have
been the appendix to the kama sutra.
>David Fincher's last three movies are all spectactular,
>I rank him as one of the
>premiere American filmmakers of the nineties.
i do also. i loved seven. the game was an interesting story, but too
straightforward and lacking substance. fincher needs to pick a project that
will allow him some creative expression in order to fully gain a name for
himself. i think if he had given the rest of fight club as much thought as he
put into the first 30 min it would have turned out much better.
fuck it
FakPlastikTrees
Norton....small, unassuming......Id.....Brad Pit.....Loud, did you see the
shoes?....Ego.....I see where this is going.
"Never in the same room together".....Bingo!! :)
Norton is in my city filming at my boyfriends friends house. Sorry. I'm
Canadian. This is a rare thing. These things amuse me.
good weather for airstrikes
>>
>
>
>J.R.
er, he was being sarcastic.
or were you too?
arg.
Matt
"be prepared for anything at any time from anybody, don't take no shit, always
stand your ground. people wanna come up to me and run their mouth - guess what?
i'll throw them through the fucking window...i won't think a thing of it."
-----GYBE-----
good weather for airstrikes
>I had NO clue that they spliced brad pitt's image into a bunch of scenes.
>that's so damn cool. I don't care what you guys say, this movie is tops.
>
and penis's.
MaTT
good weather for airstrikes
>> journalist portrayed it.
>And who does that reflect badly on? Thom, arrogant twat or Brad Pitt, I like
>your work and would like to talk to you? Basically he was shitting on a fan.
>Radiohead are an incredible band, possibly the best of the day, but Thom's a
>self important (abeilt fantastically talented) psuedo intellectual knob.
>
>I
>
>
ah! its brad pitt!
::cough::
or as simon would have it
::fart::
good weather for airstrikes
>>I had NO clue that they spliced brad pitt's image into a bunch of scenes.
>>that's so damn cool. I don't care what you guys say, this movie is tops.
>>
>
>and penis's.
>
i mean they spliced some in there.
MaTT
peacel
(FIGHT CLUB spoilers. Off-topic for this newsgroup.)
> the first 30 minutes of fight club were fantastic... and then the
> movie simply fell apart. the intellectualisms presented in the
> beginning are only half realized - instead it quickly becomes a
> testosterone oozing gore-fest and everything else pretty much takes a
> back seat.
If you're referring to the fight club stuff, I have to disagree. For a
movie called FIGHT CLUB, Fincher and Jim Uhls (the screenwriter)
include about as little actual fighting as you can imagine. There's a
few fistfights, almost all of them seen briefly under Edward Norton's
voice-over, and Jack's pummeling of Angel, which, although gory, isn't
played in an upbeat, exploitative way. It's graphic and disturbing
because it's *supposed* to be graphic and disturbing. There's also the
scene where Jack kicks the shit out of himself in his boss's office,
which comes off as satire/black comedy, and the scene where Tyler
coughs blood all over the mob boss, which is mostly a chilling comment
on modern-day blood phobias ("You don't know where I've been, Lou! You
don't know where I've been!").
There's a certain amount of testosterone oozing throughout the picture,
I guess, but that's sort of the point, since the film is partly a
satire on that sort of thing.
> in fact the movie pretty much wallowed in graphic violence and homo
> eroticism and discarded anything that asked the audience to think.
First, if you've seen the film all the way through, then you know that
homo eroticism is impossible. Second, even if it was possible, why
would undertones of homosexuality be a justified criticism of the film?
And third, the people who see the homo eroticism thing are generally
just misinterpreting one of Tyler Durden's bathtub lines ("I'm starting
to think that another woman is really what we need.").
There's some fairly graphic violence in the film, sure, but it's all
legitimate. This isn't a violence-for-mindless-entertainment film
like, I don't know, END OF DAYS or something (which I haven't actually
seen).
> not to mention the significance given to tyler's ideals about
> "consumerism" and "conformity" when it's revealed at the end that
> these are being spouted by a schizo.
The fact that the Narrator suffers from multiple personality disorder
doesn't alter the ideas presented in the first two acts. I don't even
know why you would think that it does.
> then again, what does it say about society when the men who follow
> tyler to rebel against these ideals in return become sheep to the
> fight club? well we never really find out, we're too distracted by
> the cool explosions.
Except there are hardly any cool explosions (I count three, only one of
which can be called "cool"). And what it says is that Tyler Durden's
extremist, fascist politics are in fact *not* the answer, and that
anyone who blindly follows another's ideals will ultimately turn into
another faceless, brainless space monkey.
> entertainment? yes, very entertaining. art? nope.
"Yeah, well, that's like, you know, your *opinion*, man."
-The Dude, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
> >Luc Besson's THE FIFTH ELEMENT was like that as well.
>
> the fifth element is pure escapist fantasy.
>
> if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE PROFESSIONAL.
Thanks, but I own it. On Laserdisc. Both the regular release and the
extended Japanese import.
And you're right; it's a great film.
But I still like THE FIFTH ELEMENT.
> >I liked THE AVENGERS. It's not a great film, but it has some
> >wonderful imagery. But Big Boots is all wrong, emotionally, for the
> >picture.
>
> nice imagery. the rest of it was fucked in so many ways the film
> could have been the appendix to the kama sutra.
Blame the studios for that one. They took the film away from the
director and cut it down so that it was less British, like the old "The
Avengers" TV show, and more American, like "Mission: Impossible".
Then, in a brilliant marketing move, they proceeded to cut a trailer
that captured the tone of the old "Avengers" TV show and slapped it
across 3000 screens, all to ensure that absolutely everyone involved in
the picture, from filmmakers to old fans to new viewers, would be as
disappointed in the final product as they could possibly be.
Good job, guys. Way to go.
> fincher needs to pick a project that will allow him some creative
> expression in order to fully gain a name for himself.
Huh? After the debacle of ALIEN^3, Fincher has had pretty much
complete creative control over his last three films. If you don't like
what he's doing, it's because you don't like what he's doing, and not
because he's being marginalized by the suits.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"What we have here is a company [TI] with unlimited resources that
wants to take film away from us and replace it with their system.
And the film community is so technically uninterested and illiterate
that there is no outcry."
-Roger Ebert on digital projection
good weather for airstrikes
>complete creative control over his last three films. If you don't like
>what he's doing, it's because you don't like what he's doing, and not
>because he's being marginalized by the suits.
>
hmm...so am i the only one who actually liked that movie then?
(alien 3 i mean)
and i liked fight club. certainly wasnt a bad movie...
better then the matrix :)
peacel
(spoilers)
> the problem is that the movie pretends to address huge problems of
> society (not that they're not already obvious)... we KNOW people feel
> emasculated, and the movie shows us that by showing these people in
> their "Fight Club" but it completely fails to address why, or to go
> in depth with that problem at all.
Come on, practically everything Tyler Durden says for half the movie is
an explanation for that emasculation. And what about all of Jack's
voice-over for the first two reels? All that stuff about corporations
naming planets, cornflower blue icons, refridgerators filled with
condiments and no food, the emptiness of his lifestyle, single-serving
friends. The declarations of self-destruction, self-loathing, the fuck
Martha Stewarts, the whole parental rejection and the rejection of God
thing, lines like "I don't want to die without any scars", "at least
*she's* trying to hit bottom", "it's not until you lose everything that
you're free to do anything". All of this stuff is there to explain a)
the emasculation of the modern male, b) the desire to have someone kick
the crap out of you as a raw form of release, and c) the eventual
progression of Fight Club into Project Mayhem.
> in fact, the problem gets slagged off in a totally lazy way...by
> turning the character into a person with a sleep deprivation-induced
> psychosis.
I still don't see how this changes anything in the film. If anything,
it makes the metaphor even stronger.
And Jack's psychosis doesn't alter the facts of the emasculation/fight
club stuff.
> > And what it says is that Tyler Durden's extremist, fascist politics
> > are in fact *not* the answer, and that anyone who blindly follows
> > another's ideals will ultimately turn into another faceless,
> > brainless space monkey.
>
> how much is knowing that really worth?
That's not the only point the film makes, though. It's only the point
that answers the original poster's question about the relevance of the
members of Project Mayhem turning into such mindless Tyler Durden
worshippers.
> > "Yeah, well, that's like, you know, your *opinion*, man."
> > -The Dude, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
>
> i don't think anyone ever says something thinking that they're laying
> down the fucking law here.
I was just joking around. The line should be read in a really relaxed,
laid-back manner. You know, it's the Dude.
> > > if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE
> > > PROFESSIONAL.
> >
> > Thanks, but I own it. On Laserdisc. Both the regular release and
> > the extended Japanese import.
>
> shi-it! (man he really got us there!)
As a friend of mine would say: Neener neener.
orlando
>
> KING MOB wrote:
>
> (FIGHT CLUB spoilers. Off-topic for this newsgroup.)
>
> > the first 30 minutes of fight club were fantastic... and then the
> > movie simply fell apart. the intellectualisms presented in the
> > beginning are only half realized - instead it quickly becomes a
> > testosterone oozing gore-fest and everything else pretty much takes a
> > back seat.
>
> If you're referring to the fight club stuff, I have to disagree. For a
> movie called FIGHT CLUB, Fincher and Jim Uhls (the screenwriter)
> include about as little actual fighting as you can imagine. There's a
> few fistfights, almost all of them seen briefly under Edward Norton's
> voice-over, and Jack's pummeling of Angel, which, although gory, isn't
> played in an upbeat, exploitative way. It's graphic and disturbing
> because it's *supposed* to be graphic and disturbing. There's also the
> scene where Jack kicks the shit out of himself in his boss's office,
> which comes off as satire/black comedy, and the scene where Tyler
he really did think tyler was beating him up there.. he wasn't trying to
get his boss in trouble, at least not on a concious level. then again,
he was fucked up in the head till the end..
> coughs blood all over the mob boss, which is mostly a chilling comment
> on modern-day blood phobias ("You don't know where I've been, Lou! You
> don't know where I've been!").
>
> There's a certain amount of testosterone oozing throughout the picture,
> I guess, but that's sort of the point, since the film is partly a
> satire on that sort of thing.
i think it's more than just a satire.. see the first 2 lines of nin's
"hurt", which the writer of the book admitted as an influence. it'll
explain some of it.. actually, a *whole* lot of it.
fight club is not an easy movie to get, and after three viewings i still
have some doubts.. but that's the beauty of it. everytime you watch it,
you'll realize something that you had missed before..
>
> There's some fairly graphic violence in the film, sure, but it's all
> legitimate. This isn't a violence-for-mindless-entertainment film
> like, I don't know, END OF DAYS or something (which I haven't actually
> seen).
>
agreed. this film got blasted for that when it came out (around
columbine, no less), for being a 'very violent, testosterone-ridden
film'.. well, for a 'violent', this is about as clean as they get.. and
yes, it is a film aimed at guys. but it is so much more than that,
> > not to mention the significance given to tyler's ideals about
> > "consumerism" and "conformity" when it's revealed at the end that
> > these are being spouted by a schizo.
>
> The fact that the Narrator suffers from multiple personality disorder
> doesn't alter the ideas presented in the first two acts. I don't even
> know why you would think that it does.
>
aye, well said..
orlando
np: slint -- nosferatu man
peacel
(spoilers)
> he really did think tyler was beating him up there.. he wasn't trying
> to get his boss in trouble, at least not on a concious level. then
> again, he was fucked up in the head till the end..
Wow, I haven't heard that interpretation before. It's kind of bizarre.
If that was Tyler beating Jack up, why wouldn't it appear as Tyler
beating Jack up, since that's how Fincher presents Tyler's presence for
the previous eighty (?) minutes. It wouldn't make structural sense for
him to suddenly switch from a subjective point-of-view to an objective
one for this single scene. And if Jack thought Tyler was beating him
up, why, in voice-over, would he say, "I was reminded of my first fight
with Tyler."? And why would the fight have the blackmail lead-in if
Jack wasn't intentionally kicking the shit out of himself?
KING MOB
>You didn't like Fight Club, then? Ho hum, I bet you thought American
>Beauty (real title "Fight Club lite") was much better, yes? I bet you
>didn't like 7even either. Weirdo. Fight Club is dazzling the first time
>you see it, but then improves further when you notice the foreshadowing
>of the Ultimate Twist (TM).
i was entertained by it, but no i did not necessarily like fight club (real
title "a clockwork orange 4 dummies").
i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
i like seven.
yes, i *am* pretty weird.
and the "Ultimate Twist" was one of the many things wrong with the movie. it
was thrown in there for little else than shock value and it compromised the
entire character of tyler durden. (but made for cool skyscraper blowie-uppy,
yeh?)
ho hum.
orlando
>
> orlando wrote:
>
> (spoilers)
>
> > he really did think tyler was beating him up there.. he wasn't trying
> > to get his boss in trouble, at least not on a concious level. then
> > again, he was fucked up in the head till the end..
>
> Wow, I haven't heard that interpretation before. It's kind of bizarre.
> If that was Tyler beating Jack up, why wouldn't it appear as Tyler
> beating Jack up, since that's how Fincher presents Tyler's presence for
> the previous eighty (?) minutes. It wouldn't make structural sense for
> him to suddenly switch from a subjective point-of-view to an objective
> one for this single scene. And if Jack thought Tyler was beating him
> up, why, in voice-over, would he say, "I was reminded of my first fight
> with Tyler."? And why would the fight have the blackmail lead-in if
> Jack wasn't intentionally kicking the shit out of himself?
"I was reminded of my first fight with Tyler."
When 'jack' learns that tyler.. well, doesn't exist, we get a whole
bunch of flashbacks from earlier scenes.. and one of them is that first
fight with tyler. there, he is beating himself up, on the floor in his
knees, punching himself in the face.
and throught that fight (with the boss) he's screaming "stop it!" or
"not now!" or some shit like that.. presumably to tyler. why fincher did
it like that, i don't know, but that is my interpretation of the scene..
the blackmail lead-in was probably just to confuse, or maybe i'm wrong..
but i'm not. showing tyler fighting him in the boss' office would
completely give away everything though.. foreshadowing or something?
i still don't understand why he saw tyler fucking the girl, though..
orlando
KING MOB
>i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
>
oops, i wonder what happened there.
anyway, i fail to see how american beauty's theme shared anything with fight
club.
Jean Ra
>>Beauty (real title "Fight Club lite") was much better, yes? I bet you
>>didn't like 7even either. Weirdo. Fight Club is dazzling the first time
>>you see it, but then improves further when you notice the foreshadowing
>>of the Ultimate Twist (TM).
No. The Sixth Sense had an "Ultimate Twist" (tm). Fight Club was just
kinda like ... "Wha?"
>i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
Both are about the abnormal middle class or "normal" middle class
engaging in abnormal activities to get away from the monotony of the
American dream they've strived so hard to achieve.
J.R.
orlando
>
> >i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
>
> Both are about the abnormal middle class or "normal" middle class
> engaging in abnormal activities to get away from the monotony of the
> American dream they've strived so hard to achieve.
>
sure, but so are hundreds of movies when one's that brief.. that said,
the themes might be somewhat similar, which they're not even, but the
big picture is extremely different.
Jean Ra
>> engaging in abnormal activities to get away from the monotony of the
>> American dream they've strived so hard to achieve.
>>
>
>sure, but so are hundreds of movies when one's that brief.. that said,
>the themes might be somewhat similar, which they're not even, but the
>big picture is extremely different.
>
I'll agree with you about the big picture being extremely different.
But I still believe that the themes are somewhat similar. (And yes just
like the hundreds of other movies out there. Just like comparing
Gladiator to Braveheart, which all trails back to Ben Hur, and so on.)
It's just that right now is passed my bedtime. And Mommy's gonna be
pissed if I oversleep tomorrow. So I can't elaborate on my disagreement
with you just yet.
J.R.
K a r m
> if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE PROFESSIONAL. a superb
> love story, the direction is pure poetry, and gary oldman is simply amazing.
yes.. as were jean reno and natalie portman.
>
> >I liked THE AVENGERS. It's not a great film, but it has some wonderful
> >imagery. But Big Boots is all wrong, emotionally, for the picture.
>
> nice imagery. the rest of it was fucked in so many ways the film could have
> been the appendix to the kama sutra.
grr... I hated the avengers...
K a r m.
AMR FAQ: http://www.radioheadfaq.co.uk
K a r m
>
> >and penis's.
> >
>
> i mean they spliced some in there.
>
ouch!
K a r m.
AMR FAQ: http://www.radioheadfaq.co.uk
;-P
KING MOB
<SPOILERS>
peacel pea...@sk.sympatico.ca:
>If you're referring to the fight club stuff, I have to disagree. For a
>movie called FIGHT CLUB, Fincher and Jim Uhls (the screenwriter)
>include about as little actual fighting as you can imagine. There's a
>few fistfights, almost all of them seen briefly under Edward Norton's
>voice-over, and Jack's pummeling of Angel, which, although gory, isn't
>played in an upbeat, exploitative way. It's graphic and disturbing
>because it's *supposed* to be graphic and disturbing. There's also the
>scene where Jack kicks the shit out of himself in his boss's office,
>which comes off as satire/black comedy, and the scene where Tyler
>coughs blood all over the mob boss, which is mostly a chilling comment
>on modern-day blood phobias ("You don't know where I've been, Lou! You
>don't know where I've been!").
>
>There's a certain amount of testosterone oozing throughout the picture,
>I guess, but that's sort of the point, since the film is partly a
>satire on that sort of thing.
is this just your stock answer?
anyway, you can't sit there and deny that FC has some of the most graphic and
realistic fight scenes ever filmed.
>First, if you've seen the film all the way through, then you know that
>homo eroticism is impossible. Second, even if it was possible, why
>would undertones of homosexuality be a justified criticism of the film?
because it brings up the issue and doesnt address it. in fact thats the problem
with most of the film: it brings up a shitload of ideas and doesnt expound or
resolve any of them. instead they are allowed to bounce around and conflict
with each other. how can you not say a man with bitch tits and a group of
greasy, sweaty men in a basement - with the idea of rebelling against society
and its beliefs, (ie that homosexuality should be supressed etc) - rolling
around on the ground half naked does not point to homo erotic undertones?
>And third, the people who see the homo eroticism thing are generally
>just misinterpreting one of Tyler Durden's bathtub lines ("I'm starting
>to think that another woman is really what we need.").
oh. my bad. you just debunked my entire argument in one quote.
>There's some fairly graphic violence in the film, sure, but it's all
>legitimate. This isn't a violence-for-mindless-entertainment film
>like, I don't know, END OF DAYS or something (which I haven't actually
>seen).
the point is that the focus of the film is the violence. there was violence in
"a clockwork orange" yet the film was still able to present and address
specific ideas and themes and in a more effective manner.
>The fact that the Narrator suffers from multiple personality disorder
>doesn't alter the ideas presented in the first two acts. I don't even
>know why you would think that it does.
no, it doesnt alter the ideas, but it does undermine their significance. how
much credit can you give to the words of an insane megalomaniac? he's preyed on
the minds of these men in order to achieve his own ends. he's no longer
speaking on the behalf of society but on the behalf of his own insane
ambitions. he turns these ppl in what he promises to free them from. how is
that not a contradiction?
>Except there are hardly any cool explosions (I count three, only one of
>which can be called "cool"). And what it says is that Tyler Durden's
>extremist, fascist politics are in fact *not* the answer, and that
>anyone who blindly follows another's ideals will ultimately turn into
>another faceless, brainless space monkey.
the explosions i was referring to were the exploding buildings that proved to
be a complete cop out ending. shock me shock me shock me.
>> if you want to see a truly great film rent besson's THE PROFESSIONAL.
>
>Thanks, but I own it. On Laserdisc. Both the regular release and the
>extended Japanese import.
oh shit im busted.
>Blame the studios for that one. They took the film away from the
>director and cut it down so that it was less British, like the old "The
>Avengers" TV show, and more American, like "Mission: Impossible".
>Then, in a brilliant marketing move, they proceeded to cut a trailer
>that captured the tone of the old "Avengers" TV show and slapped it
>across 3000 screens, all to ensure that absolutely everyone involved in
>the picture, from filmmakers to old fans to new viewers, would be as
>disappointed in the final product as they could possibly be.
>
>Good job, guys. Way to go.
uhhhh avengers was bad.
>Huh? After the debacle of ALIEN^3, Fincher has had pretty much
>complete creative control over his last three films. If you don't like
>what he's doing, it's because you don't like what he's doing, and not
>because he's being marginalized by the suits.
i like what he's doing, i dont like his projects. he just seems to be jumping
from script to script instead of developing a story that presents his own
ideas. (which may have been his attempt with FC, unfortunately it wasnt done
too well)
warren and judith
KING MOB wrote:
> and the "Ultimate Twist" was one of the many things wrong with the movie. it
> was thrown in there for little else than shock value and it compromised the
> entire character of tyler durden. (but made for cool skyscraper blowie-uppy,
> yeh?)
uh wasn't the whole POINT of the movie jack's creation of Tyler in order to
persue a different lifestyle? wel, one of the points at least.
orlando
yeap.. subconcious creation at least. bye.
orlando
KING MOB
>>i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
>
>Both are about the abnormal middle class or "normal" middle class
>engaging in abnormal activities to get away from the monotony of the
>American dream they've strived so hard to achieve.
true, but thats only a vague concept. both movies address two completely
different issues: fight club applies this to consumerism while american beauty
to suburban america. you're confusing objective issues with separate
criticisms.
illwill
iamult...@aol.com says...
> I started reading these Radiohead/Fight Club posts while taking a break from
> actually watching the film which i had rented a day or two earlier.
>
> I had NO clue that they spliced brad pitt's image into a bunch of scenes.
> that's so damn cool. I don't care what you guys say, this movie is tops.
>
>
they splice brad pitt in as a kind of precursor to edward norton's
character creating him. i think, maybe, not sure, stoned.
Nir Graham
>Hetman wrote:
>>
>> Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>>
>> I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
>
>oh god, i so want that dvd :D
>
>first i need a player though
>
>> Pitt with Ed Norton and they both agreed that they were trying to get
>> Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>>
>
>that would've be fucking cool.. but the dust brothers or whoever it was
>did an magnificant job, anyways.. BUT, i can't imagine radiohead scoring
>the film in the first place!
Goliath
Doh! :)
I was thinking of 5ive, wasn't I? Doh again.
--
Goliath
peacel
(SPOILERS!)
> "I was reminded of my first fight with Tyler."
>
> When 'jack' learns that tyler.. well, doesn't exist, we get a whole
> bunch of flashbacks from earlier scenes.. and one of them is that
> first fight with tyler. there, he is beating himself up, on the floor
> in his knees, punching himself in the face.
But Jack was reminded of his first fight with Tyler because -- although
he doesn't know it -- he's beating himself up in his boss's office in
the exact same manner as that night outside the bar. It's not because
he thought Tyler appeared in the office out of thin air and for no
reason at all started beating him up in front of his boss.
I mean, come on, that's just retarded.
> and throught that fight (with the boss) he's screaming "stop it!" or
> "not now!" or some shit like that.. presumably to tyler.
Actually, he's yelling all of those things at his boss. After first
threatening him verbally, Jack begins to create a scene in which it
will look like the boss has beaten his own employee to a bloody pulp.
He first cues his boss into this by looking at him and saying, "What
are you doing? No. Stop it." And later, after he's smashed the table
and bloodied his nose, he looks up at his boss and says, "Why would you
do that?" And then, even later, before security comes rushing into the
room, Jack crawls up to the boss and -- "in their most excellent moment
together" -- pretends to be begging him for mercy. Afterwards, we see
Jack emerge from the boss's office, whistling successfully as he pushes
a shopping cart full of his requested blackmail items down the hall.
In fact, this all seems so clear to me that I'm starting to think that
maybe you're just joking around, and you really understood what was
going on in the scene. If so, good job. You really had me going there
for a second.
> i still don't understand why he saw tyler fucking the girl, though..
What don't you understand? All of that stuff with Jack walking around
the house and peeking in on Tyler and Marla didn't actually occur,
since Tyler was the dominant personality at the time, and Jack was just
a non-existent entity, tucked away somewhere in Tyler's brain. That's
why when Tyler answers the door and asks Jack if he "wants to finish
her off", Marla looks up and asks, "Who are you talking to?"
peacel
(Spoilers!)
> anyway, you can't sit there and deny that FC has some of the most
> graphic and realistic fight scenes ever filmed.
I guess. But it still seems to be one of those films, like RESERVOIR
DOGS or THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, that is remembered as being *far*
more graphic than it actually is. I don't think it's nearly as violent
as movies like BRAVEHEART, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or DEAD ALIVE, and like
I say, I can't imagine a movie called FIGHT CLUB being any less
interested in the actual physical act of fighting than this one is.
And you know, only one person died in the entire movie. I think that
might be some kind of record for a $70 million dollar picture.
> because it brings up the issue and doesnt address it. in fact thats
> the problem with most of the film: it brings up a shitload of ideas
> and doesnt expound or resolve any of them.
Of course it doesn't resolve them. The intention was never to resolve
them. In almost every interview I've read, Fincher and Norton talk
about the fact that they just dump all of these ideas into the viewer's
lap and say, "There you go. What do you think of all that, eh? You
tell us, because weren't not entirely sure."
I wish more movies did that.
> instead they are allowed to bounce around and conflict with each
> other.
I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily.
> how can you not say a man with bitch tits and a group of greasy,
> sweaty men in a basement - with the idea of rebelling against society
> and its beliefs, (ie that homosexuality should be supressed etc) -
> rolling around on the ground half naked does not point to homo erotic
> undertones?
The bitch tits thing wasn't about homosexuality, though, it was about
emasculation. And those greasy men in the basement weren't rebelling
against society's tendency to want to suppress homosexuality -- or, if
they were, no one in the movie ever did anything or said anything that
would even begin to suggest that. As for whether or not seeing two
half-naked guys fighting each other on the ground automatically denotes
homosexuality -- well, I disagree, but your mileage may vary.
Still, I fail to see why unresolved undertones of homosexuality, even
if they were there, would be a legitimate criticism.
> the point is that the focus of the film is the violence.
I think this statement can almost be considered *objectively*
incorrect. There is violence in the film, yes, but it isn't even close
to being the focus of the narrative at all. I don't think Jack even
hits Tyler in the ear until about fifty minutes into the film, and from
there until the end of the picture I doubt there's more than ten or
fifteen minutes of violence in total. And even if there were more, and
even if the violence was depicted in a much more graphic, brutal
fashion, it would still be wrong to assert that that violence was the
focus of the film. You may think they did it in a confused, muddled,
or inconsistent way, but Fincher and co. *were* developing ideas and
making statements that went far beyond the (minimal) violence they were
depicting.
> no, it doesnt alter the ideas, but it does undermine their
> significance. how much credit can you give to the words of an insane
> megalomaniac?
As much as they warrant. And at any rate, his insanity isn't something
you're supposed to take too literally. The film is a nightmarish
little metaphor -- a big part of which is the Narrator's MPD -- but the
fact that he's so unhinged doesn't really detract from the ideas that
he and Tyler represent, and the themes that Fincher is dealing with.
> he's preyed on the minds of these men in order to achieve his own
> ends. he's no longer speaking on the behalf of society but on the
> behalf of his own insane ambitions.
But that aspect of the film would stay the same whether or not the
Narrator had MPD.
> he turns these ppl in what he promises to free them from. how is that
> not a contradiction?
What is it a contradiction of? It's only a contradiction if you think
that the film's politics are synonymous with Tyler Durden's politics.
And they aren't.
> the explosions i was referring to were the exploding buildings that
> proved to be a complete cop out ending. shock me shock me shock me.
Okay. Why were they a cop-out?
> >Blame the studios for that one. They took the film away from the
> >director and cut it down so that it was less British, like the old
> >"The Avengers" TV show, and more American, like "Mission:
> >Impossible". Then, in a brilliant marketing move, they proceeded to
> >cut a trailer that captured the tone of the old "Avengers" TV show
> >and slapped it across 3000 screens, all to ensure that absolutely
> >everyone involved in the picture, from filmmakers to old fans to new
> >viewers, would be as disappointed in the final product as they could
> >possibly be.
> >
> >Good job, guys. Way to go.
>
> uhhhh avengers was bad.
All right. Didn't you read what I wrote? I just explained to you why
it wasn't as good as it could have been.
post coitum triste
me, that ed norton's character is not named "jack," but in fact, "the
narrator." he's never named in the film. the "jack" thing came from when he
was reading those old magazines in the house that had a series about some guys
named jack and his different organs.
if you're just calling him jack so you have something to call him...then ok.
carry on then.
twentieth century bitch
if you think you might be, you are
Periodic
orlando wrote:
>
> and throught that fight (with the boss) he's screaming "stop it!" or
> "not now!" or some shit like that.. presumably to tyler. why fincher did
> it like that, i don't know, but that is my interpretation of the scene..
The reason the narrator's screaming that is because he's trying to give the
impression that the boss guy is beating the crap out of him, so everyone
else in the building hears him scream "No! Stop! Please, no more" while
hearing the sound of things smashing, and then he walks out all bloody while
the boss has blood smeared all of him. What would you think happened?
Thats the whole point of what he's doing. He's blackmailing the guy. It
doesn't make sense for Fincher to direct it the way he did if it was Tyler
beating him up.
-Periodic.
Jean Ra
>> that's so damn cool. I don't care what you guys say, this movie is tops.
>>
>character creating him. i think, maybe, not sure, stoned.
>
the second time) and wondered the same thing: Is it a precursor or just
the filmmakers fucking with us?
J.R.
Goliath
for airstrikes <para...@aol.comission.?> writes
>>Huh? After the debacle of ALIEN^3, Fincher has had pretty much
>>complete creative control over his last three films. If you don't like
>>what he's doing, it's because you don't like what he's doing, and not
>>because he's being marginalized by the suits.
>>
>
>
>(alien 3 i mean)
I liked it as well. The acting was sometimes a bit ragged early on, but
the action scenes (alien running along ceiling, anyone?) and the Henry V
speech sooo made up for it.
--
Goliath
Goliath
>slagged off in a totally lazy way...by turning the character into a
>thought, they probably could've done a lot more with the "double
>identity" thing, but they didn't.
>
You've missed something pretty big. Jack's spell of insomnia was not
meant to be insomnia at all. Jack was actually going out and being Tyler
Durden during those "sleepless nights" (getting jobs in restauraunts and
pissing in the soup, making human fat soap, etc). He actually "meets"
Tyler (i.e. becomes aware of his own alter-ego) only after he finds an
alternate outlet for his emotions (going to Terminal cancer groups and
crying into Meatloaf). How else do you think "Tyler" had an entire squat
set-up ready for Jack to move into, complete with bomb-making equipment?
>no, it doesnt alter the ideas, but it does undermine their significance. how
>much credit can you give to the words of an insane megalomaniac? he's preyed on
>the minds of these men in order to achieve his own ends. he's no longer
>speaking on the behalf of society but on the behalf of his own insane
>ambitions. he turns these ppl in what he promises to free them from. how is
>that not a contradiction?
I'd like to point out that half of the hero's mind's ambitions include
his own death. The building Tyler/Jack is standing in at the end would
have also exploded if Jack hadn't gone down and defused the bomb. He's
not a megalomaniac, part of his aims are to blow himself up as well.
>i was entertained by it, but no i did not necessarily like fight club (real
>title "a clockwork orange 4 dummies").
"A Clockwork Orange for the 90s"? "Clockwork Orange without literary
credibility"? "Clockwork Orange without such a hammy ending"?
>
>i fail to see how american beauty with fight club.
The main character is an unpromotable office drone who breaks free of
his capitalist yoke using blackmail and goes forward to express his
freedom in an antisocial way. Both involve critisism of furniture (!).
The hero gets shot at the end in both, with the same type of gun. Both
films expose VERY similar sentiments basically, and have heros with
similar dispositions. Oh, and both have homo-erotic undertones :)
>and the "Ultimate Twist" was one of the many things wrong with the movie. it
>was thrown in there for little else than shock value and it compromised the
>entire character of tyler durden. (but made for cool skyscraper blowie-uppy,
>yeh?)
>
It was only forshadowed a MILLION times earlier in the film! Why do you
think Tyler and Jack never talk at the same time when another person is
in the room, and one always talks for both of them or takes a dominant
role towards third parties (Tyler and Jack never fight each other at the
Fight Club). They both have the same briefcases, even (that's not just a
device to get them to meet each other).
--
Goliath
orlando
precursor... the dick at the end is the filmmaker fucking with us ;P
orlando
>
> orlando wrote:
>
> (SPOILERS!)
>
> > "I was reminded of my first fight with Tyler."
> >
> > When 'jack' learns that tyler.. well, doesn't exist, we get a whole
> > bunch of flashbacks from earlier scenes.. and one of them is that
> > first fight with tyler. there, he is beating himself up, on the floor
> > in his knees, punching himself in the face.
>
> But Jack was reminded of his first fight with Tyler because -- although
> he doesn't know it -- he's beating himself up in his boss's office in
> the exact same manner as that night outside the bar. It's not because
> he thought Tyler appeared in the office out of thin air and for no
> reason at all started beating him up in front of his boss.
>
> I mean, come on, that's just retarded.
er, yes it is...... good point. still.. i need to rewatch again, cause i
still think i'm right to an extent.
>
> > and throught that fight (with the boss) he's screaming "stop it!" or
> > "not now!" or some shit like that.. presumably to tyler.
>
> In fact, this all seems so clear to me that I'm starting to think that
> maybe you're just joking around, and you really understood what was
> going on in the scene. If so, good job. You really had me going there
> for a second.
>
no, actually.. er, maybe i'm just too sleepy to think right now. but i
think there's more to that scene than it meets the eye, like the rest of
the movie.. what you say happened is what i thought at first.. of
course, during the second viewing, my thories on the every single scene
changed..
um, that doesn't make sense. i need to watch it again, cause i think
there's more to it than that.. the whole film has a different meaning
resting below the surface, and it would be pretty weird if this was the
only scene were everything was as obvious as it seems.
> > i still don't understand why he saw tyler fucking the girl, though..
>
> What don't you understand? All of that stuff with Jack walking around
> the house and peeking in on Tyler and Marla didn't actually occur,
> since Tyler was the dominant personality at the time, and Jack was just
> a non-existent entity, tucked away somewhere in Tyler's brain. That's
> why when Tyler answers the door and asks Jack if he "wants to finish
> her off", Marla looks up and asks, "Who are you talking to?"
>
you've obviously seen this film more than me :P
Jean Ra
>>>complete creative control over his last three films. If you don't like
>>>what he's doing, it's because you don't like what he's doing, and not
>>>because he's being marginalized by the suits.
>>
>>hmm...so am i the only one who actually liked that movie then?
>>(alien 3 i mean)
>
>I liked it as well. The acting was sometimes a bit ragged early on, but
>the action scenes (alien running along ceiling, anyone?) and the Henry V
>speech sooo made up for it.
I liked it too and thought Alien 3 captured the dark, gloomy, cyber feel
of the comic book / graphic novel a lot more than other efforts.
J.R.
KING MOB
<SPOILERS>
>> anyway, you can't sit there and deny that FC has some of the most
>> graphic and realistic fight scenes ever filmed.
>
>I guess. But it still seems to be one of those films, like RESERVOIR
>DOGS or THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, that is remembered as being *far*
>more graphic than it actually is. I don't think it's nearly as violent
>as movies like BRAVEHEART, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or DEAD ALIVE, and like
>I say, I can't imagine a movie called FIGHT CLUB being any less
>interested in the actual physical act of fighting than this one is.
dead alive is hardly realistic, and braveheart and saving private ryan do not
glorify violence in the manner FC does. but i do see where you're coming from.
>And you know, only one person died in the entire movie. I think that
>might be some kind of record for a $70 million dollar picture.
well that's nice to know.. (although i could say that is one too many in
comparison to the significance of a single film.)
>Of course it doesn't resolve them. The intention was never to resolve
>them. In almost every interview I've read, Fincher and Norton talk
>about the fact that they just dump all of these ideas into the viewer's
>lap and say, "There you go. What do you think of all that, eh? You
>tell us, because weren't not entirely sure."
>
>I wish more movies did that.
point taken, not all movies aim to resolve the tension in the film. however, i
feel fight club presents these themes in a contridictory and sloppy manner. it
was an interesting film, well told and well directed, but all the ideas
presented half baked. "because we're not entirely sure" is simply PATHETIC. if
not a clear message, the story should at least have a clear intention. (unless
this intention was to confuse, in which case FC did wonderfully.) to simply
dump half-assed ideas in the viewers lap sounds like shoddy filmaking.
(depending on how much the viewer merits these ideas, of course.)
>> instead they are allowed to bounce around and conflict with each
>> other.
>
>I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily.
necessarily? i like coming away from a film with a clear idea that something
about the movie has sort of found a place in my head to burrow itself in to be
digested. i felt that with with movies like 2001, clockwork orange, possibly
thin red line for example... with fight club the only reaction i really had
was, "wooo that's nuts."
>The bitch tits thing wasn't about homosexuality, though, it was about
>emasculation. And those greasy men in the basement weren't rebelling
>against society's tendency to want to suppress homosexuality -- or, if
>they were, no one in the movie ever did anything or said anything that
>would even begin to suggest that. As for whether or not seeing two
>half-naked guys fighting each other on the ground automatically denotes
>homosexuality -- well, I disagree, but your mileage may vary.
it wasnt about homosexuality, it was about blurring the lines between genders.
showing men in an intimate atmosphere. it never meant to blatently show this,
but to provide undertones.
>Still, I fail to see why unresolved undertones of homosexuality, even
>if they were there, would be a legitimate criticism.
because it does that to too many issues and fails to provide enough exposition
on any single one. it's simply an example of what was done with too many other
ideas.
>> the point is that the focus of the film is the violence.
>
>I think this statement can almost be considered *objectively*
>incorrect. There is violence in the film, yes, but it isn't even close
>to being the focus of the narrative at all. I don't think Jack even
>hits Tyler in the ear until about fifty minutes into the film, and from
>there until the end of the picture I doubt there's more than ten or
>fifteen minutes of violence in total. And even if there were more, and
>even if the violence was depicted in a much more graphic, brutal
>fashion, it would still be wrong to assert that that violence was the
>focus of the film. You may think they did it in a confused, muddled,
>or inconsistent way, but Fincher and co. *were* developing ideas and
>making statements that went far beyond the (minimal) violence they were
>depicting.
yes, and those initial 50 minutes i would say were the best of the film. to say
that the violence could be "more graphic" is silly. it wasn't its severity, but
the degree of reality that made it truly violent - and any ideas they were
developing weren't very well developed by the film. i never came away with a
clear picture with what the film was attempting to get accross. instead it was
a bunch of half ideas and introductions, but nothing expository enough to leave
any impression upon me.
>> no, it doesnt alter the ideas, but it does undermine their
>> significance. how much credit can you give to the words of an insane
>> megalomaniac?
>
>As much as they warrant. And at any rate, his insanity isn't something
>you're supposed to take too literally. The film is a nightmarish
>little metaphor -- a big part of which is the Narrator's MPD -- but the
>fact that he's so unhinged doesn't really detract from the ideas that
>he and Tyler represent, and the themes that Fincher is dealing with.
what ideas are those? do you even know?
>> he's preyed on the minds of these men in order to achieve his own
>> ends. he's no longer speaking on the behalf of society but on the
>> behalf of his own insane ambitions.
>
>But that aspect of the film would stay the same whether or not the
>Narrator had MPD.
this statement says nothing. please elaborate. whether or not the character has
MPD, he still shows psychotic tendencies and loses credibility.
>> he turns these ppl in what he promises to free them from. how is that
>> not a contradiction?
>
>What is it a contradiction of? It's only a contradiction if you think
>that the film's politics are synonymous with Tyler Durden's politics.
>
>And they aren't.
so then fight club isnt about consumerism? you're running in circles and
failing to back up your statements with actual ideas.
>> the explosions i was referring to were the exploding buildings that
>> proved to be a complete cop out ending. shock me shock me shock me.
>
>Okay. Why were they a cop-out?
it provides an easily satisfying ending without providing any insight into the
theme, but merely to facilitate the story.
>> >Blame the studios for that one. They took the film away from the
>> >director and cut it down so that it was less British, like the old
>> >"The Avengers" TV show, and more American, like "Mission:
>> >Impossible". Then, in a brilliant marketing move, they proceeded to
>> >cut a trailer that captured the tone of the old "Avengers" TV show
>> >and slapped it across 3000 screens, all to ensure that absolutely
>> >everyone involved in the picture, from filmmakers to old fans to new
>> >viewers, would be as disappointed in the final product as they could
>> >possibly be.
>> >
>> >Good job, guys. Way to go.
>>
>> uhhhh avengers was bad.
>
>All right. Didn't you read what I wrote? I just explained to you why
>it wasn't as good as it could have been.
yes, and i just said it in as many words or less.
illwill
het...@sympatico.ca says...
> Sorry if this has already been brought up, I apologize in advance.
>
> I was just watching the Fight Club DVD with the audio commentary of Brad
> Radiohead to do the soundtrack for the film.
>
> albums."
>
> I thought that was cool,
>
> Again, I would like to apologize deeply and humbly if this has already been
> brought to your attention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
>
>
> Hetman
>
> "What are you looking at Swampie!"
>
>
>
i think pumpkins would have been perfect for fightclub sndtrck. guitar
riffs + corgans whiney voice + depressing songs = the fight club score.
imagine corgans voice screaming 'despite all my rage i am still just a
rat in a cage' while jack breaks blondies face good.
i thought the techno didnt fit in, as the film i thought was too 'dirty'
for techno. but they didnt fill the soundtrack full of modern rock shit
so its still good
Jean Ra
>understand what all you people are arguing about. ;]
I hope you haven't been reading too many of the posts. There's a lot of
spoilers we never warned you about, especially the part when the main
character, Jack, finds out that Tyler, played by Brad Pitt, is ... Duh
duh duh!
[winks]
J.R.
orlando
>
> orlando wrote:
>
> (SPOILERS!)
>
>
> There's no hidden meaning that you have to worry about.
>
> (And by the way, there was a scene that didn't make the final cut of
> the film in which Jack returns home with the shopping cart, eager to
> tell Tyler about what he did to his boss that day. But Tyler, busy
> planning Project Mayhem, is uninterested. If it had been Tyler beating
> Jack up, and if Jack interpreted it as Tyler beating him up, why would
> he feel the need to rush home and tell Tyler what he did? If anything,
> he would have come home and said, "What the fuck, Tyler? You appear
> out of thin air and start kicking the shit out of me in front of my
> boss? That's not cool, Zeus. Not cool."
>
ah, ok.. they should've left that scene in then, for those of us who
worry too much about not being 100% sure on something... er, anyways. i
need to get that fucking dvd. :/
and i heard there's gonna be a special edition dvd with the other
endings!? there were like 3 different endings shot, according to the
writer of the book, along with some extra material and scenes that were
left out of the dvd.. now this dvd is already pretty damn pack, imagine
a special edition.. oh my..!
> Seven times (though four of those were with audio commentary).
me, three times (though one of those i was too busy looking at the chips
i was eating).
Jonathan McArthur
news:ig8jlsk1mdp56o3en...@4ax.com...
| >>You didn't like Fight Club, then? Ho hum, I bet you thought American
| >>Beauty (real title "Fight Club lite") was much better, yes? I bet you
| >>didn't like 7even either. Weirdo. Fight Club is dazzling the first time
| >>you see it, but then improves further when you notice the foreshadowing
| >>of the Ultimate Twist (TM).
|
| No. The Sixth Sense had an "Ultimate Twist" (tm). Fight Club was just
| kinda like ... "Wha?"
I disagree. I picked the Bruce-Is-Dead bit in Sixth Sense very early on, but with Fight Club I
didn't pick the 'twist' until near the end, when Jack is flying from place to place asking
people if they've seen Tyler. On reflection/second-sitting/whatever, however, it seemed quite
obvious. So yeah. Poor English results from no sleep. I apologise.
--
Jonathan McArthur
NP: nothing / nobody
Web: d8e coming soon...
"You've won this round, dean, but the war isn't over!"
kingrolypolybugmeanie
understand what all you people are arguing about. ;]
-el Faxman
the alt.music.radiohead FAQ is located at:
http://www.radioheadfaq.co.uk/
peacel
(SPOILERS!)
> I'd like to point out that half of the hero's mind's ambitions
> include his own death. The building Tyler/Jack is standing in at the
> end would have also exploded if Jack hadn't gone down and defused the
> bomb. He's not a megalomaniac, part of his aims are to blow himself
> up as well.
This seems to be a common interpretation of the ending, but it's
actually incorrect. The film makes a slow fade to black after Jack
tumbles down the stairs and passes out, and when it fades back in,
we're inside an office building other than the one with the bomb.
This is all from the mouth of screenwriter Jim Uhls.
peacel
(SPOILERS!)
> um, that doesn't make sense. i need to watch it again, cause i think
> there's more to it than that.. the whole film has a different meaning
> resting below the surface, and it would be pretty weird if this was
> the only scene were everything was as obvious as it seems.
Actually, there are a lot of straight forward scenes (think of Jack's
earlier threats after his boss finds the "Rules of Fight Club"
photocopy, or some of the scenes with Marla). In fact, before the
twist is revealed, Fincher never cheats his audience in the way that
you seem to think he does. At no point in the first two acts does
Tyler ever speak to or interact with Jack unless he's presented as
doing just that. So if Tyler hits Jack, we see it as Tyler hitting
Jack, not Jack hitting Jack and secretly thinking it's Tyler. And if
Tyler speaks to Jack, we see it as Tyler speaking to Jack, and not Jack
mumbling to himself.
You had the blackmail scene figured out the first time you saw it.
There's no hidden meaning that you have to worry about.
(And by the way, there was a scene that didn't make the final cut of
the film in which Jack returns home with the shopping cart, eager to
tell Tyler about what he did to his boss that day. But Tyler, busy
planning Project Mayhem, is uninterested. If it had been Tyler beating
Jack up, and if Jack interpreted it as Tyler beating him up, why would
he feel the need to rush home and tell Tyler what he did? If anything,
he would have come home and said, "What the fuck, Tyler? You appear
out of thin air and start kicking the shit out of me in front of my
boss? That's not cool, Zeus. Not cool."
> you've obviously seen this film more than me :P
Seven times (though four of those were with audio commentary).
peacel
(SPOILERS!)
> dead alive is hardly realistic, and braveheart and saving private
> ryan do not glorify violence in the manner FC does. but i do see
> where you're coming from.
Since you see where I'm coming from I don't want to get stuck on this
too much, but I think BRAVEHEART and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN both glorify
violence far, far more than FIGHT CLUB does. I didn't feel any of the
(multiple, prolonged, graphic) deaths in either of those war-action
films, but the one death in FIGHT CLUB -- the wasted demise of the most
sympathetic character -- is pretty depressing.
I hate to turn to box-office since I mostly think it's irrelevant, but
if you want to look at which of these three films gives the least
amount of bloody thrills, look at the grosses. SPR was the highest
grossing film of the year, pulling in more than ARMAGEDDON, BRAVEHEART
was way up there (past $100 million, I'm pretty sure), and FIGHT CLUB
barely cracked $35 million.
> if not a clear message, the story should at least have a clear
> intention. (unless this intention was to confuse, in which case FC
> did wonderfully.) to simply dump half-assed ideas in the viewers lap
> sounds like shoddy filmaking. (depending on how much the viewer
> merits these ideas, of course.)
I think there's a difference between complicated or unfinished ideas
and half-assed ones.
> to say that the violence could be "more graphic" is silly. it wasn't
> its severity, but the degree of reality that made it truly violent
> [...]
But shouldn't violence be harsh and realistic? If it's just mindless
gore or entertainment, isn't that more harmful? (Not that I actually
think it's harmful, but you know, if you had to pick one or the other.)
> >The film is a nightmarish little metaphor -- a big part of which is
> >the Narrator's MPD -- but the fact that he's so unhinged doesn't
> >really detract from the ideas that he and Tyler represent, and the
> >themes that Fincher is dealing with.
>
> what ideas are those? do you even know?
Here's the core of the film:
-Jack, our Ikea hero, is trapped inside an empty, consumerist
lifestyle and a heartless, immoral job, all created by his parents and
the world around him. He's a slave to his furniture. He has a fridge
full of condiments. He's sardonic, closed-off, and unfeeling.
-Tyler, his id, appears to him one day and basically says, "All of this
stuff you've surrounded yourself with? It's all nonsense. It's not
you." He then begins to indoctrinate Jack into his grungy lifestyle
and his anti-consumerist world view, all of which takes up most of the
film's running time. It's "you're not your fucking khakis", "it's
not until you've lost everything that you're free to do anything",
"self-improvement is masturbation; now self-destruction...", "what did
you want to be, Raymond?", "in the world I see...", etc.
-Gradually, Jack accepts Tyler's lifestyle and reaches a deeper
understanding of his life and how he fits into society. But Tyler is
an extremist and an ideal, and as a fictional creation isn't governed
by the compromises and consequences of reality. The struggle at the
end, then, is between Tyler's id-like view of the world -- which is
total chaos, the world debt wiped out, leather clothes that will last
you a lifetime, etc. -- and Jack's super-ego-like view of the world,
which is essentially just a toned-down, empathetic version of Tyler's.
It's anti-consumerism not to the point of terrorism and murder and
attacking the EPA, but anti-consumerism to the point of not giving a
fuck about the name on the inside of your jeans, where you buy your
coffee, and the catalogue you happened to get your cabinets out of.
> >But that aspect of the film would stay the same whether or not the
> >Narrator had MPD.
>
> this statement says nothing. please elaborate. whether or not the
> character has MPD, he still shows psychotic tendencies and loses
> credibility.
You were arguing that the Narrator's MPD is what made Tyler become such
a cult leader/fascist. It wasn't. With or without the MPD twist, that
aspect of the narrative would have stayed the same.
And in real life, yeah, a person with psychotic tendencies would lose
credibility, but this isn't real life. It's a satire, and the MPD
stuff shouldn't be taken as literally as you're taking it. It's just a
metaphor. It's not supposed to affect anyone's credibility. The movie
is just a "Twilight Zone" episode with some social commentary; it's not
a documentary on multiple personality disorder, or an Elect Jack for
President commercial.
What the characters represent in the context of the story is more
important than how much credibility they would(n't) have in real life.
> >What is it a contradiction of? It's only a contradiction if you
> >think that the film's politics are synonymous with Tyler Durden's
> >politics.
> >
> >And they aren't.
>
> so then fight club isnt about consumerism? you're running in circles
> and failing to back up your statements with actual ideas.
The film's politics are synonymous with Jack's, not Tyler's. Tyler is
the antagonist of the picture. The hero, who we root for, spends the
entire third act (and even a little bit before that) *actively* railing
against everything Tyler has built up. When Bob dies, he calls the
space monkeys "morons" and tries to get them to wake up; he goes to the
police and attempts to turn himself in; he tries to diffuse the bombs;
he even puts a gun in his mouth and blows a hold through his cheek.
Jack's politics are not the same as Tyler Durden's, and neither are the
filmmaker's.
The film is anti-consumerist, yes, but only to a degree. It's not
saying that you can't shop from Ikea; it's saying you can't make that
your life. You can't let it define you.
> it provides an easily satisfying ending without providing any insight
> into the theme, but merely to facilitate the story.
Do you say the same thing about the end of DR. STRANGELOVE? Because
they're basically the same endings.
peacel
> and i heard there's gonna be a special edition dvd with the other
> endings!? there were like 3 different endings shot, according to the
> writer of the book, along with some extra material and scenes that
> were left out of the dvd.. now this dvd is already pretty damn pack,
> imagine a special edition.. oh my..!
I think that was just a rumour about the same special edition DVD that
is currently available. It was supposed to have multiple endings, and
a musical number of some sort I guess, but none of those things seem to
be on it. I don't think they ever existed, to be honest, since the
Fincher-approved DVD that's out now already has just about everything
that's ever been connected with the film. It's such a complete,
attractive, impressive package that I can't imagine Fincher holding out
on it. Why would he spend -- what was it? -- two months perfecting
this DVD only to release another one after it?
Alex Dante
> and the "Ultimate Twist" was one of the many things wrong with the movie. it
> was thrown in there for little else than shock value and it compromised the
> entire character of tyler durden. (but made for cool skyscraper blowie-uppy,
> yeh?)
When the film is an adaptation of a book (and a damn good one at that)
how can the twist be 'thrown in' to the film? It's a fundamental part of
the story...should they have excluded it completely to make it a 'better'
film?
Alex
--
Why must I live in two worlds, Piece asked, why. Do we all, or is
it only some few, living always in two worlds, a world outside of
us that is real but strange, a world within that makes sense, and
draws tears of assent from us when we enter there. -- AEgypt
dave
>When the film is an adaptation of a book (and a damn good one at that)
>how can the twist be 'thrown in' to the film? It's a fundamental part of
>the story...should they have excluded it completely to make it a 'better'
>film?
>
I agree
Although,
aint they changin the end of hanibal the sequel to silence of the
lambs to make that a "better" film.
I cannot see how the writer lets them away with this shit even though
the ending was a bit shit.
Alex Dante
> aint they changin the end of hanibal the sequel to silence of the
> lambs to make that a "better" film.
Well, this differs from Fight Club in that one's a good book and the
other is, uh, Hannibal.
Actually, the real difference, I think, is that there's a pre-established
audience for a sequel to Silence of the Lambs *the movie*, who have
expectations from that sequel that differ in major ways from what Harris
provided in the book.
All in my opinion, of course :)
Alex
--
Why must I live in two worlds, Pierce asked, why. Do we all or is
a smith
illwill <ill...@canada.communist> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> i think pumpkins would have been perfect for fightclub sndtrck. guitar
> riffs + corgans whiney voice + depressing songs = the fight club score.
> imagine corgans voice screaming 'despite all my rage i am still just a
> rat in a cage' while jack breaks blondies face good.
hmm i dunno that might have been too simple. something more perverted would
be better.... sp wouldnt have seemed deep enough. actually i cant remember
the sound track... apart from where is my mind, the perfect exit music. ;o)
Autumnatic
although with Fight Club the movie they presented the split personality as
though it was a twist, whereas the novel broke the news a little more smoothly
(plus it all but said outright on the back cover).
Goliath
<pea...@sk.sympatico.ca> writes
>Goliath wrote:
>
>(SPOILERS!)
>
>> I'd like to point out that half of the hero's mind's ambitions
>> include his own death. The building Tyler/Jack is standing in at the
>> end would have also exploded if Jack hadn't gone down and defused the
>> bomb. He's not a megalomaniac, part of his aims are to blow himself
>> up as well.
>
>This seems to be a common interpretation of the ending, but it's
>actually incorrect. The film makes a slow fade to black after Jack
>tumbles down the stairs and passes out, and when it fades back in,
>we're inside an office building other than the one with the bomb.
>
>This is all from the mouth of screenwriter Jim Uhls
Really? That's weird.... I mean, why'd they have him changing office
buildings? It kind of seems unnecessarily complicated, especially
considering it all made sense the way I thought it was supposed to have
occured...
Is Tyler/Jack supposed to survive, then? The building he's in at the end
doesn't have a bomb in it, right?
--
Goliath
Goliath
<nipi...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>>When the film is an adaptation of a book (and a damn good one at that)
>>how can the twist be 'thrown in' to the film? It's a fundamental part of
>>the story...should they have excluded it completely to make it a 'better'
>>film?
>>
>I agree
>Although,
>lambs to make that a "better" film.
>the ending was a bit shit.
No, that's a rumour. The first script (which changed the ending to a
more palatable one) was rejected, and now the script follows the
storyline of the book. And good thing too, because the written ending to
Hannibal is literally, when you think about it, the ONLY ending that
would have worked while staying true to the characters, their
motivations, and the chain of events Harris sets up. And Hannibal IS a
really good book, BTW (better than SOTL).
--
Goliath
Goliath
<tele...@aol.computethis> writes
>peacel pea...@sk.sympatico.ca this is damn long:
>
><SPOILERS>
>
>>> anyway, you can't sit there and deny that FC has some of the most
>>> graphic and realistic fight scenes ever filmed.
>>
>>I guess. But it still seems to be one of those films, like RESERVOIR
>>DOGS or THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, that is remembered as being *far*
>>more graphic than it actually is. I don't think it's nearly as violent
>>as movies like BRAVEHEART, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, or DEAD ALIVE, and like
>>I say, I can't imagine a movie called FIGHT CLUB being any less
>>interested in the actual physical act of fighting than this one is.
>
>dead alive is hardly realistic, and braveheart and saving private ryan do not
>glorify violence in the manner FC does. but i do see where you're coming from.
>
Both BH and SPR depict violence in a rather sickeningly patriotic
manner, they both specifically say you should die for your country at
several points throughout. They both also sentimentalise violence to a
great degree ("They may take our lives, but they'll never take our
FREEDOOMM!"). They both equate violence with glory or success. In short
they do exactly what you say they don't - they both glorify violence in
a way that Fight Club never does. Indeed by showing the violent
characters as a bunch of losers and an insane guy with MPD it does the
opposite of glorifying violence.
>>And you know, only one person died in the entire movie. I think that
>>might be some kind of record for a $70 million dollar picture.
>
>well that's nice to know.. (although i could say that is one too many in
>comparison to the significance of a single film.)
How many people do you see die in Saving Private Ryan? What about
Braveheart?
>
>point taken, not all movies aim to resolve the tension in the film. however, i
>feel fight club presents these themes in a contridictory and sloppy manner. it
>was an interesting film, well told and well directed, but all the ideas
>presented half baked. "because we're not entirely sure" is simply PATHETIC. if
>not a clear message, the story should at least have a clear intention. (unless
>this intention was to confuse, in which case FC did wonderfully.) to simply
>dump half-assed ideas in the viewers lap sounds like shoddy filmaking.
>(depending on how much the viewer merits these ideas, of course.)
You could also regard it as letting the audience make up their own minds
rather than programming them with a lot of patriotic bull which has come
pre-packaged along with a lot of equally fluffy ideas. I'd rather have a
film that makes me think than one which tells me what to think.
>>The bitch tits thing wasn't about homosexuality, though, it was about
>>emasculation. And those greasy men in the basement weren't rebelling
>>against society's tendency to want to suppress homosexuality -- or, if
>>they were, no one in the movie ever did anything or said anything that
>>would even begin to suggest that. As for whether or not seeing two
>>half-naked guys fighting each other on the ground automatically denotes
>>homosexuality -- well, I disagree, but your mileage may vary.
>
>it wasnt about homosexuality, it was about blurring the lines between genders.
>showing men in an intimate atmosphere. it never meant to blatently show this,
>but to provide undertones.
An intimate atmosphere??? Are you a sadomasochist? It was about
emasculation, which has nothing to do with intimacy and only a tenuous
link with gender-bending
>
>>> the explosions i was referring to were the exploding buildings that
>>> proved to be a complete cop out ending. shock me shock me shock me.
>>
>>Okay. Why were they a cop-out?
>
>it provides an easily satisfying ending without providing any insight into the
>theme, but merely to facilitate the story.
It's a very well fore-shadowed, integral part of the story. It's not
like they threw in an ending that allowed skyscrapers to blow up simply
because it'd look cool. Are you saying they should have put in an
unlikely, ridiculous ending because it would tie up all the loose ends?
--
Goliath
Autumnatic
www.aint-it-cool-news.com, for example) have reported that screenwriter Steve
Zaillian has in fact altered the novel's ending. There's still to be the
brain-eating scene, but Hannibal and Starling go their own ways.
Periodic
KING MOB wrote:
> yes, and those initial 50 minutes i would say were the best of the film. to say
> that the violence could be "more graphic" is silly. it wasn't its severity, but
> the degree of reality that made it truly violent
Eh? I disagree. I would much prefer a film which handles violence in as realistic
a situation as possible with real consequences then a film that treats it as just
another way to advance the plotline. Besides, you're a big boy, I'm sure you can
handle it. If the violence is a part of the story, is handled without glorifying
it, and shown to have real consequences I fail to see the problem. And I
completely disagree about it glorifying violence. Simply putting it into a movie
does not glorify it, and I definitely wasn't thinking "Woah, I wish I was doing
that, thats so cool". I was thinking "Oh my god, that must hurt like hell". Which
is what you _should_ be thinking when you see a guy get slammed against a hard
object.
-Periodic.
orlando
>
> orlando wrote:
>
> > and i heard there's gonna be a special edition dvd with the other
> > endings!? there were like 3 different endings shot, according to the
> > writer of the book, along with some extra material and scenes that
> > were left out of the dvd.. now this dvd is already pretty damn pack,
> > imagine a special edition.. oh my..!
>
> I think that was just a rumour about the same special edition DVD that
> is currently available. It was supposed to have multiple endings, and
remember this isn't a special edition dvd, it's the normal one.. which
is why it is so damn impressive.
> a musical number of some sort I guess, but none of those things seem to
> be on it. I don't think they ever existed, to be honest, since the
there are rumors that the musical number is very very very well hidden
;P
> Fincher-approved DVD that's out now already has just about everything
> that's ever been connected with the film. It's such a complete,
> attractive, impressive package that I can't imagine Fincher holding out
> on it. Why would he spend -- what was it? -- two months perfecting
> this DVD only to release another one after it?
>
that's what i don't get.. maybe it's fox's action or something. anyways,
it was just a rumor i saw in one of the dvd sites.. the writer was
pissed off at the exclusion of the endings, though..
orlando
np: sigur rós -- bium bium bambalo
peacel
(SPOILERS!)
> Really? That's weird.... I mean, why'd they have him changing office
> buildings?
The office building they moved to had the best view of the fireworks.
I believe Tyler even says something to this effect earlier on, in the
garage scene.
> Is Tyler/Jack supposed to survive, then? The building he's in at the
> end doesn't have a bomb in it, right?
Right. Tyler wasn't suicidal, but Jack was.
(By the way, even Chuck Palahniuk, the novel's author, was unclear on
this point, so you're definitely not alone.)
Mike Kayser
rock!
"Goliath" <harr...@harriben.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NQZJZHAh...@harriben.demon.co.uk...
> In article <20000627090647...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Autumnatic
> <autum...@aol.com> writes
> >I think Brad Pitt's quite a good actor, really. He's done a great job in
recent
> >years deflating the oooh-isn't-he-good-looking predjudice. Similar to J.
Depp.
> >You do enough Edward Scissorhands and Fight Clubs and people start to
realize
> >you're talented. (Incidentally, Ed Norton is the MAN.)
>
> Ed Norton is the MASTER of men
> --
> Goliath
Jean Ra
>in IT, and, er, the ALIEN's in aliens. reverse the caps though. i hate pressing
>the backspace key.
I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't cashed-in more on people's fixation with
"scary clowns". I mean, Poltergeist and It are the only two I can think
of besides Killer Clowns from Outer Space (which doesn't really count).
Someone should make a John Wayne Gacy film.
J.R.
Goliath
<autum...@aol.com> writes
Oh, shit, that's annoying. Hannibal hypnotising Starling was the only
(really believable) way that you could remove Starling's wish to turn
Hannibal in from the equation. Oh well. At least they get to munch on
********'s brain. Phew.
--
Goliath
good weather for airstrikes
>>
>
>ouch!
>
you canadian!
maTT
"be prepared for anything at any time from anybody, don't take no shit, always
stand your ground. people wanna come up to me and run their mouth - guess what?
i'll throw them through the fucking window...i won't think a thing of it."
-----GYBE-----
good weather for airstrikes
>of the comic book / graphic novel a lot more than other efforts.
>
>J.R.
>
agreed. Alien 3 actually scared me..it was a very dark film..what alien
ressurection should have been (although i liked that one too)
MaTT
good weather for airstrikes
>the action scenes (alien running along ceiling, anyone?) and the Henry V
>speech sooo made up for it.
>--
The only things that actually scared me in movies were the clown mosnter thing
in IT, and, er, the ALIEN's in aliens. reverse the caps though. i hate pressing
the backspace key.
tra la la.
Matt
Autumnatic
Especially now that the horror genre is so popular again. It seems ripe for the
picking. You mentioned Killer Klowns from Outer Space--I've been meaning to see
that for years. Is it as wonderful-awful as I hope?
a smith
good weather for airstrikes <mailto:para...@aol.comission> wrote in
message news:20000629211547...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> >I liked it as well. The acting was sometimes a bit ragged early on, but
> >the action scenes (alien running along ceiling, anyone?) and the Henry V
> >speech sooo made up for it.
> >--
>
> The only things that actually scared me in movies were the clown mosnter
thing
> in IT, and, er, the ALIEN's in aliens. reverse the caps though. i hate
pressing
> the backspace key.
ah yes, that clown really terrified me... but what the hell was the end
about! big plastic monsters mm scary...