Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
Well if nolan is a dummy who writes fake intellectual scripts for stupid people and they eat it up then I do have to ask why @TheGodling isn't doing the same. Imagine the money you would make.
Everything was unreliable because of Cobb... we don't even know if the other characters were actual projections of Cobb, hence that was said could be legitimate. The entire film is a mislead.
Nope. You can say that for Cobb sure but again all of the dialogue is expository. Unreliable or not that’s a fact. If you look at that movie every single line is someone explaining the movie to you. Is the ending spoon fed? No. But even that’s obvious if you’re paying attention. But that doesn’t change the fact every single line of dialogue in the movie is someone explaining something to you.
What part did you miss that every bit of the film is UNRELIABLE? The movie is purposely ambiguous to suggest some of it is a dream or all of it is a dream. So that means that even the other characters could of been projections of Cobb's dream.... even the fact that the movie runtime is 10 times the length of the song implies that all of it maybe a complete DREAM... so none of what in the movie is RELIABLE. Not even the exposition put in it. Especially the so-called "rules" because they contradicts.
Homie you’re missing the point. If you really feel like the dialogue isn’t all exposition, cool. It clearly is. But we’re going around in circles right now so believe what you want and how you want to believe it.
But just because something is exposition heavy does not mean you are being spoonfed. And with Inception, the exposition was purposely written to be misleading. So, if the movie was really SPOON FEEDING YOU people wouldn't have endless debates over what is or isn't a dream.
And I said the ending isn’t spoon fed. That doesn’t mean the point of the movie and the construct of the movie isn’t. Two things can be true at once. This is my point. It’s not all one or the other. Exposition dialogue by its nature is spoon feeding. It’s telling the audience what’s happening and why it’s happening. The ending of the movie isn’t spoon fed, yes, but that doesn’t mean parts of the movie aren’t. Doesn’t have to be all or nothing
You have to have exposition or you'll be watching a silent film. So, no exposition by nature is NOT spoon feed. And spoon feeding isn't movies that are exposition heavy. They are films that try to hold your hand and show you scenes that aren't necessary but the director feels the audience is so dumb that they must have that scene in it. Sometimes it doesn't even NEED any dialogue.
A prime example of would be a scene if you thought someone gets killed, but in the next scene you see that person alive, and one person simply asked "how you are not killed" and the character opens his shirt to show a bulletproof vest. That's spoon feeding the audience... showing or telling things that are OBVIOUS that doesn't need explanation.
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
I have artistic integrity.
Complain characters have dialogue in an intentionally dense, complex, confusing narrative, brehs
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
So you are saying that all dialogue in all written things is equal to each other and there are no differences in how much information you present or the how the presentation of this information is done?
Because that would explain the limitations of your comprehension skills that makes you easily impressed by Nolan's hand-holding.
Nominated best director at the Oscars for Raging Bull, The Last Temptation of Christ, Goodfellas, Gangs of New York, The Departed, Hugo, The Aviator, The Wolf of Wall Street.
The majority of these are not, in fact, mob movies.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
These guys probably didn't know Scorsese did all that. They talk just to be talking
Wargames
One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
I honestly wish they had shown how he got his god damn back fixed by meeting a chiropractor cause that shyt was jump the shark levels of nonsense.