That was pointlessly cruel, offensive, nasty, childish, and flatulent. May unpleasant things occur to your favorite wildebeest.
Who gnu?
Pan’s Labyrinth does an excellent job of juggling the question of real or imagination, such that for most of the movie, you can make a case either way… but by the end of the movie, it’s committed. An imaginative young girl could see an ordinary insect as a fairy, or a root hollow under a tree as a vast cavern… but she can’t get out of a locked room. If she didn’t have magic chalk, then how did she get out?
Has he ever said anything different? In interviews I’ve read, he won’t say explicitly what happened, but points out clues that make it pretty obvious that Tony got whacked. Once you know what to look for, and put a couple things together, there’s no other conclusion you can come to.
That was the argument my friends made, and I can’t (as yet) refute it. I need to watch it and think about it again. How else did she get out of the room???
So, right now, I remain convinced of my pessimistic viewpoint regarding Pan’s Labyrinth, I just can’t prove it. 
I’ll allow you guys your more positive viewpoints though, and I wish I could share them.
Nice quote from Clive Barker: The extraordinary event is this: that the moment you make a story or create an image that finds favour with an audience, you’ve effectively lost it. It toddles off, the little bastard; it becomes the property of the fans.
I think Henry Bean is wrong about a scene in his film The Believer. He says that, in the cafe scene, Danny is actually bragging about Jewish intellect, but throughout the film, it seems like Danny is embarrassed about being considered intelligent and wants more to be seen as a tough guy. He despises the stereotype that Jews are smart but weak.
I also think that George Lucas was wrong to think that continuing the tradition of references and homages in Star Wars would work for his prequel films. Because Hammer’s Van Helsing was in the old one, he put Hammer’s Dracula in the new ones, and even gave him the name title “Count.” Things like that were kind of jarring and worked against the film in my opinion. Also, the story is not about the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Luke Skywalker is the hero of the series.
Ridley Scott is wrong, in a way about Blade Runner. The director’s cut film ending carries more significance if Deckard is human. That he’s willing to throw his life away to love something that’s a humanoid machine, and one that will only last for four years is a real fitting way to end the film and says a lot about the future society of that world. If Deckard is a replicant as well, than his going on the run is still self serving but in a less complex way.
The very first corollary of suspension of disbelief is that actors are just actors playing roles. I see nothing wrong with this and I didn’t notice it. What I did notice was that “Count Dooku” was a stupid name for a villain that sounded like a two-year-old made up.
Good point. However, I don’t think Christopher Lee was a very good choice as the main villain of Attack of the Clones and seems like his casting was only meant to parallel the casting in the original film.
:eek: Not me!
On Blade Runner, I think that saying that Deckard is human or saying that Deckard is a replicant are both mistakes. The point of the question is that it doesn’t matter which he is.
I have heard that Chuck Lorre insists that Sheldon Cooper does not have OCD ("… my mother had me tested …"), to me it looks like he is just trying to CHA.
Exactly, I think the question in Blade Runner is “What makes us human?”, not “Which of these is human?”. No answer to the Deckard question is really satisfactory anyway.
But then again, I’m someone who thinks that the audience makes their own interpretation. If it’s informed by the creator, or even if they reject the creator’s explanation (hey, I’ve done it), so be it. Art is what you make of it. Sometimes the results seem weird and perverted to the creator. That’s just an occupational hazard to the creative set.
I think when the possibility of a Sopranos movie was being bandied around he wanted to leave the door open. I don’t know what he’s said since Gandolfini passed.
I’m late to this thread, but this is one of my favorite subjects to debate.
Bottom line: reading is a very different process from writing, and each individual involved brings his or her own context and experience.
Add the fact that an artist is not likely to be any more in control of–or even aware of–their subconscious mind than anyone else, and the inescapable conclusion is that an artist is NOT the final arbiter of the meaning of their work.
If a work means something different to its creator and its audience, each perspective is equally valid.
A college student once wrote Flannery O’Connor a letter and asked what the the black hat worn by the murderer in “A Good Man Is Hard to Find” symbolized. O’Connor replied (paraphrasing from memory): “It symbolizes that his head was cold.”
bleib ruhig
He’s supposed to have Asperger’s Syndrome (basically, a very mild form of autism where the person has trouble dealing with social interactions). Of course it’s comically exaggerated.
The most common “wrong” thing creators say about their works that I run into nowadays is that they “have no canon.” I’ll cover two examples. The first it what Douglas Adams says about the Hitchiker series. It most certainly does have a canon, and one that is adhered to completely. It’s just that there are, like with most works, a different canon for the different media it appears in. The radio and book universes both have to have some changes to work properly, but this happens in-universe and thus is an example of the past being changed.
Similarly, Doctor Who has a canon. Yes, there was at one point less of an intent to follow it, but there clearly is now an idea of things that have happened and things that have not. Things that are changed from what we’ve seen on screen in the revived series are explicitly changed in-universe. If there were no canon, that would not be the case.
You want a British work without canon? Try Monty Python’s Flying Circus. If, on the other hand, your work makes any pretense at having a continuity, it also has a canon.
Well, then, you believe the creators are wrong.
I do agree with you that he has Asperger’s, but I also see no reason to believe they are lying when they say they didn’t use that as their basis for his character. I do like the out they gave that his mother never had him diagnosed. So it’s undiagnosed Asperger’s.
Um, hey there Lissener. Did everyone know Lissener is back but me?