3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
This feels a bit like if someone heard one 30 second hook from a single and equated it to listening to the entire album.
It probably gave you an idea of whether you're interested in checking out the full album or not, certainly, but you didn't actually learn that much about what the album is like.
Unpopular opinion I'm sure but I feel like the MCU films are like the biggest of big "event" style comics and, love them or hate them, those are always about huge cross-overs between the characters in-universe. I therefore prefer an extremely connected MCU with films that build upon one another.
I mean, sure, they are
And if there were thirteen forty three minute episodes a year about a given hero, then I'd probably support and agree with this
But man cannot live on events alone
Nor should you have to. There are so many comic book properties out there - which makes me happy to let the MCU be the fully serialized version of superheros in film. Not saying everything has to be End Game either - I just prefer a connected MCU.
+1
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
i don't think the mcu is connected anywhere near as much as it pretends to be
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
I still think you're larger position is wrong as well.
I've read Shakespeare's plays, but that pales in comparison to seeing them performed or even movie productions of them. The acting performances give the scripts life and change just reading what happened.
I feel the opposite. Reading a play is infinitely better than seeing it performed, for me. Same as reading a book for me makes it so I deffo do not need to see the film.
I'm in movies and plays for the story, not the acting, not the CGI, not the action bits. If I know the story then the movie has very little for me (unless it's got a bangin soundtrack)
Magic Pink on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's not about what it's about, it's how it is about it
+3
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
I still think you're larger position is wrong as well.
I've read Shakespeare's plays, but that pales in comparison to seeing them performed or even movie productions of them. The acting performances give the scripts life and change just reading what happened.
I feel the opposite. Reading a play is infinitely better than seeing it performed, for me. Same as reading a book for me makes it so I deffo do not need to see the film.
i love seeing adaptations of things i've read because it is fun to see others' interpretation of the text imo
Not seeing a film because you've got a basic plot understanding of it is a wild thing to do. Films are so often about shit that's only tangentially related to the actual plot progression!
Like if I know the plot to a Jackie Chan movie, I'm not going to be like oh actually I already know he saves the day at the end of this no need to see these awesome fight sequences.
It definitely colors how the film works, and there's a reason people don't want spoilers, but dang
But you're assuming a basic understanding and you're picking a movie that's mostly visual in content.
I mean we're discussing Black Adam and the big aspect of that movie is the CGI setpieces and action scenes so it seems like a good comparison.
Ah, got ya. I was talking movies in general, sorry.
Not being a fan of action movies at all, my reading like, say, the wikipedia plot of Black Adam would be more than enough for me but others may differ!
I still think you're larger position is wrong as well.
I've read Shakespeare's plays, but that pales in comparison to seeing them performed or even movie productions of them. The acting performances give the scripts life and change just reading what happened.
I feel the opposite. Reading a play is infinitely better than seeing it performed, for me. Same as reading a book for me makes it so I deffo do not need to see the film.
i love seeing adaptations of things i've read because it is fun to see others' interpretation of the text imo
Unless it's hot crap and then i head out on a crusade
I think this, volume 483 of Forumers Argue Because People Have Subjective Opinions, is much worse than volumes 1 through 482, and brings nothing new to the franchise.
It is definitely an argument in favour of more original stories.
I think this, volume 483 of Forumers Argue Because People Have Subjective Opinions, is much worse than volumes 1 through 482, and brings nothing new to the franchise.
It is definitely an argument in favour of more original stories.
wait until you get to volume 501, shit hits the fan bro!
If you read a synopsis of a movie and say "nah, not for me" that's fine, to be clear. I've certainly done the same.
My point is that is not equivalent to seeing the movie. There's so much more that movies have to offer than the plot, much of which is experiential and can't be properly described.
Look, I can only speak for myself here but I know that I absolutely hated watching 'The Godfather' through no fault of the movie's own. It's because I knew every fucking story beat, every fuckin twist and turn, through cultural osmosis. It hurt my viewing experience. It was like watching a movie I had seen for a hundred times for the first time and it was boring as a result.
Maybe you just think The Godfather is boring. I also kind of think this
It seems weird to disregard how other people appreciate art, which is basically what's giving this conversation any legs at all. People choose to experience art differently and definitely have their preferences. Some people love to see movies in theaters, some at home. Some people hate spoilers, some don't care. For me, on a first watch I appreciate getting into the groove of a movie and letting it lead me along. If I know plot points for things that come up later I spend the whole movie thinking "but how does what I'm seeing lead to ____", which kind of detracts.
This whole backhanded conversation is oddly aggro and out of left field.
Spoilers for plot matter differently for different situations in my opinion. If you "spoil" a detail of a movie I have never heard of and never planned to watch, that could make me interested enough to track it down, if it was really interesting sounding. However, if I'm spoiled on basically any detail from something I was fully intending to watch, I'm pissed. I don't want internet person's editorial version of thing, I want it fully in its own context, sink or swim. I strongly disagree with the idea that "spoilers make it better!" No, they have never done that. They've made the experience different and sometimes that experience is okay, but I would never say better. I'm disengaged from experiencing the story as a story if I come in pre-spoiled, and that's my favorite part of the experience so... not great.
+2
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
It seems weird to disregard how other people appreciate art, which is basically what's giving this conversation any legs at all. People choose to experience art differently and definitely have their preferences. Some people love to see movies in theaters, some at home. Some people hate spoilers, some don't care. For me, on a first watch I appreciate getting into the groove of a movie and letting it lead me along. If I know plot points for things that come up later I spend the whole movie thinking "but how does what I'm seeing lead to ____", which kind of detracts.
This whole backhanded conversation is oddly aggro and out of left field.
When you have intrusive thoughts, it's hard to NOT constantly think about the spoiler you don't wanna think about.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
0
Options
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
I didn’t watch Get Out because I knew everything about it in advance.
I asked what it meant to know everything about a movie and someone else responded with the idea of having read a synopsis (which also would have been my assumption).
That's the thread that I have been following.
Straightzi on
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Spoilers rarely impact my enjoyment of a movie unless said movie is strongly built around a surprise ending and I already know it.
+2
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
I'm in movies and plays for the story, not the acting, not the CGI, not the action bits. If I know the story then the movie has very little for me (unless it's got a bangin soundtrack)
+5
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
I don’t wanna put words into Straightzi’s mouth, but I think he’s saying that there are a lot of other aspects of the film to enjoy, and it feels weird to write off ever seeing it because you know (some of? Most of?) the plot via trailers/cultural osmosis/etc, which is just one small part of the whole.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
My partner and I have pretty varying views on knowing the plot of something ahead of time
what I realized at some point is that she's got a lot a lot a lot more experience in theatre than I do and reads a lot of the books/scripts of stuff for fun, and to some extent carries that outlook to a lot of other media
and I do think there is a huge difference between hearing about a work secondhand and actually experiencing it — for example, on paper I should hate the '93 Super Mario Bros movie and oops I adore it
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
I don’t wanna put words into Straightzi’s mouth, but I think he’s saying that there are a lot of other aspects of the film to enjoy, and it feels weird to write off ever seeing it because you know (some of? Most of?) the plot via trailers/cultural osmosis/etc, which is just one small part of the whole.
yeah, it seems some people are just talking about spoilers whereas straightzi is talking about equating text or description to film. there is so much more to storytelling than the story. a picture is worth a thousand words and all that; someone can tell you the entire story to a movie but that won't give you the lighting, the facial expressions of, the background characters, etc. people all the time will say "i've watched this movie a million times during my life and just noticed this small detail that blew my mind"
i don't think anyone is arguing that spoilers don't impact someone's enjoyment of a movie, but saying there isn't anything to be gained from a movie if you know the story, or a play if you've read the script, is just...not how i experience art. different medium have different strengths
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
I don’t wanna put words into Straightzi’s mouth, but I think he’s saying that there are a lot of other aspects of the film to enjoy, and it feels weird to write off ever seeing it because you know (some of? Most of?) the plot via trailers/cultural osmosis/etc, which is just one small part of the whole.
I think some people feel like that, and it's more effort than it's worth to take the time to convince them otherwise unless they're significant enough in my life and in enough contact to make such efforts at holistic film appreciation better.
On it's own, I wouldn't give 2 figs about Citizen Kane when I was 7 or 8, but because the Simpsons on down referenced it to hell and back, I can appreciate the film itself for the story it tells and the choices made with regards to dialogue, actors, etc., then reflect back on the media that drew me to it and why they chose to parody it for 1 scene or the other. Does that mean I was spoiled on it? In as much as one can be spoiled on a movie that was old before they were born.
For more recent things, if I care about watching something, I'll go and watch it and I'd rather experience it for myself. If I just want the gist, I can find a summary and from there decide if I want to watch it. I can appreciate missing some of the experience if part of the story's already been told.
But just because you can tell a story's beats, that doesn't prevent a story you've heard before from being told in a different/unique way that can present it and the cast in a new and thought provoking light. I've said this before and I'll probably say it on my deathbed, there's nothing new under the sun, just novel ways to tell the stories.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
Hail Hydra
+1
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
I'm watching Equilibrium. This film is quite a bit dumber than I remember it being.
I will say, sometimes I'm not interested in a thing and then getting spoiled on it will actually make me more interested in getting around to watching it
like of course going in fresh and unspoiled is usually more fun to me, but every once in a while I'm like "oh I NEED to know the context for this thing I know now"
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
Also my brother pointed out early on that whenever someone says "sense offender" it sounds a lot like "sex offender" and now I can't take the film seriously at all, because it's now a heart warming tale of Christian Bale fighting an oppressive regime for the freedom to be a sex offender.
I'm watching Equilibrium. This film is quite a bit dumber than I remember it being.
when I watched Equilibrium as a kid I remembered it being a lot more intense of an action movie because I watched a compilation of all the fight scenes cut to Rammstein or some shit a gazillion times after the one time I ever saw it (it was like 2005 and I had a lot of free time on my hands), but then as an adult I finally rewatched it and I basically realized there's only literally those couple minutes of action and the rest is basically a very weird rendition of Fahrenheit 451
Straightzi a lot of your argument is coming off as aggressively "you're watching movies wrong"
E: yeah what duck said
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
I don’t wanna put words into Straightzi’s mouth, but I think he’s saying that there are a lot of other aspects of the film to enjoy, and it feels weird to write off ever seeing it because you know (some of? Most of?) the plot via trailers/cultural osmosis/etc, which is just one small part of the whole.
yeah, it seems some people are just talking about spoilers whereas straightzi is talking about equating text or description to film. there is so much more to storytelling than the story. a picture is worth a thousand words and all that; someone can tell you the entire story to a movie but that won't give you the lighting, the facial expressions of, the background characters, etc. people all the time will say "i've watched this movie a million times during my life and just noticed this small detail that blew my mind"
i don't think anyone is arguing that spoilers don't impact someone's enjoyment of a movie, but saying there isn't anything to be gained from a movie if you know the story, or a play if you've read the script, is just...not how i experience art. different medium have different strengths
Yeah, exactly.
The specific movies brought up were Get Out and Alien, both of which have some significant twists to them so I could see where some of the idea comes from.
But the acting and cinematography in Get Out is incredible, even if you already know the basics of the story - it's so well shot and acted that it doesn't matter if you know the twists, you get to experience the character going through them. And likewise the production design on Alien, a movie that tells a thousand stories with every background shot, a movie that managed to translate Giger's obscene abstractions into something palpable and terrifying.
(also probably more qualities for both, just highlighting a few parts)
The idea of dismissing those movies because you already know what happens was mind boggling to me, because those movies (and all movies, but especially those movies) are about so much more than what happens in them. I mean I made the comparisons I did for a reason - it felt like dismissing the Mona Lisa because you knew it was a portrait of a woman.
I'm watching Equilibrium. This film is quite a bit dumber than I remember it being.
when I watched Equilibrium as a kid I remembered it being a lot more intense of an action movie because I watched a compilation of all the fight scenes cut to Rammstein or some shit a gazillion times after the one time I ever saw it (it was like 2005 and I had a lot of free time on my hands), but then as an adult I finally rewatched it and I basically realized there's only literally those couple minutes of action and the rest is basically a very weird rendition of Fahrenheit 451
I hadn't thought of Fahrenheit 451 but yeah you're right. I was thinking 1984 mixed with Blade Runner made by people who reeeeally liked The Matrix.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited December 2022
Yeah, like Alien specifically is about the constant feeling of tension and dread that it makes you feel, almost more than any describable scenario the characters themselves go through. It’s way way more about the experience it invokes for the viewer to internalize than it is about a series of events and plot twists.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Posts
It probably gave you an idea of whether you're interested in checking out the full album or not, certainly, but you didn't actually learn that much about what the album is like.
Nor should you have to. There are so many comic book properties out there - which makes me happy to let the MCU be the fully serialized version of superheros in film. Not saying everything has to be End Game either - I just prefer a connected MCU.
I feel the opposite. Reading a play is infinitely better than seeing it performed, for me. Same as reading a book for me makes it so I deffo do not need to see the film.
I'm in movies and plays for the story, not the acting, not the CGI, not the action bits. If I know the story then the movie has very little for me (unless it's got a bangin soundtrack)
i love seeing adaptations of things i've read because it is fun to see others' interpretation of the text imo
Unless it's hot crap and then i head out on a crusade
It is definitely an argument in favour of more original stories.
wait until you get to volume 501, shit hits the fan bro!
Maybe you just think The Godfather is boring. I also kind of think this
This whole backhanded conversation is oddly aggro and out of left field.
E: yeah what duck said
When you have intrusive thoughts, it's hard to NOT constantly think about the spoiler you don't wanna think about.
proud wrong-watcher of all films
sometimes i turn around, sometimes i just walk into a wall endlessly
hid under a blanket twice
Someone said not knowing who Black Adam was is a problem.
I wanted to say it’s ok to not know. Guardians of the Galaxy etc.
You could make up a superhero (or anything) and if the movie about them was good (plus a bit of luck) people would go see it.
Glass onion?
Definitely not my intent
I'm questioning the idea that a plot synopsis could give you the entirety of a movie
Like, maybe that is true for some folks - I know I don't really appreciate a movie's score, for instance, so if you told me I'd accidentally watched a version of a movie that had its score missing, I probably wouldn't rush to rectify that
But it feels weird to me to only be watching movies for the plot, like, with no appreciation for acting, production design, cinematography, et cetera
Just because you know the plot of a movie doesn't mean you know everything about it
Not watching movies wrong, technically
I do not like being spoiled on media and actively avoid spoilers in most cases
This is, as far as I'm concerned, an unrelated discussion
why tho
no one has said that
Why are you assuming that though? People can appreciate those things while still wanting to go into a movie blind
This is the post I was responding to initially, to be very clear:
I asked what it meant to know everything about a movie and someone else responded with the idea of having read a synopsis (which also would have been my assumption).
That's the thread that I have been following.
not an assumption, it was said in a post
I don’t wanna put words into Straightzi’s mouth, but I think he’s saying that there are a lot of other aspects of the film to enjoy, and it feels weird to write off ever seeing it because you know (some of? Most of?) the plot via trailers/cultural osmosis/etc, which is just one small part of the whole.
what I realized at some point is that she's got a lot a lot a lot more experience in theatre than I do and reads a lot of the books/scripts of stuff for fun, and to some extent carries that outlook to a lot of other media
and I do think there is a huge difference between hearing about a work secondhand and actually experiencing it — for example, on paper I should hate the '93 Super Mario Bros movie and oops I adore it
yeah, it seems some people are just talking about spoilers whereas straightzi is talking about equating text or description to film. there is so much more to storytelling than the story. a picture is worth a thousand words and all that; someone can tell you the entire story to a movie but that won't give you the lighting, the facial expressions of, the background characters, etc. people all the time will say "i've watched this movie a million times during my life and just noticed this small detail that blew my mind"
i don't think anyone is arguing that spoilers don't impact someone's enjoyment of a movie, but saying there isn't anything to be gained from a movie if you know the story, or a play if you've read the script, is just...not how i experience art. different medium have different strengths
I think some people feel like that, and it's more effort than it's worth to take the time to convince them otherwise unless they're significant enough in my life and in enough contact to make such efforts at holistic film appreciation better.
On it's own, I wouldn't give 2 figs about Citizen Kane when I was 7 or 8, but because the Simpsons on down referenced it to hell and back, I can appreciate the film itself for the story it tells and the choices made with regards to dialogue, actors, etc., then reflect back on the media that drew me to it and why they chose to parody it for 1 scene or the other. Does that mean I was spoiled on it? In as much as one can be spoiled on a movie that was old before they were born.
For more recent things, if I care about watching something, I'll go and watch it and I'd rather experience it for myself. If I just want the gist, I can find a summary and from there decide if I want to watch it. I can appreciate missing some of the experience if part of the story's already been told.
But just because you can tell a story's beats, that doesn't prevent a story you've heard before from being told in a different/unique way that can present it and the cast in a new and thought provoking light. I've said this before and I'll probably say it on my deathbed, there's nothing new under the sun, just novel ways to tell the stories.
like of course going in fresh and unspoiled is usually more fun to me, but every once in a while I'm like "oh I NEED to know the context for this thing I know now"
when I watched Equilibrium as a kid I remembered it being a lot more intense of an action movie because I watched a compilation of all the fight scenes cut to Rammstein or some shit a gazillion times after the one time I ever saw it (it was like 2005 and I had a lot of free time on my hands), but then as an adult I finally rewatched it and I basically realized there's only literally those couple minutes of action and the rest is basically a very weird rendition of Fahrenheit 451
Yeah, exactly.
The specific movies brought up were Get Out and Alien, both of which have some significant twists to them so I could see where some of the idea comes from.
But the acting and cinematography in Get Out is incredible, even if you already know the basics of the story - it's so well shot and acted that it doesn't matter if you know the twists, you get to experience the character going through them. And likewise the production design on Alien, a movie that tells a thousand stories with every background shot, a movie that managed to translate Giger's obscene abstractions into something palpable and terrifying.
(also probably more qualities for both, just highlighting a few parts)
The idea of dismissing those movies because you already know what happens was mind boggling to me, because those movies (and all movies, but especially those movies) are about so much more than what happens in them. I mean I made the comparisons I did for a reason - it felt like dismissing the Mona Lisa because you knew it was a portrait of a woman.
common Greg braincell
I hadn't thought of Fahrenheit 451 but yeah you're right. I was thinking 1984 mixed with Blade Runner made by people who reeeeally liked The Matrix.