|
@TPReview Personally like Solaris, I could buy that better, if not for the final act. I just went on the whole "created the two for a reason" as people kept mentioning it here in reference to the book, so figured that was something key from the book. I just compare it to Solaris, and in that sense, I don't think it clearly frames the purpose/lack of purpose the shimmer, quite like Solaris does, of which it's great trick is to make you think there is a greater purpose even though the movie clearly spells it out at key moments that there is no purpose, it just....does. I think a lot of that confusion comes simply from the final act. |
Annihilation
•
Page 5
-
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years ago -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agoQotSAfan wrote:
This basically. Even if it isn't trying to say anything and is just a big clusterf*ck, it should at least give the possibility that this could all also just be a massive clusterf*ck of your mind, and not trying to look too deeply is the answer, like how Solaris did.
Interesting movie, though I do feel it could have done with being a bit more deliberate in saying something about what it was trying to convey. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoNo, I neither need nor want movies like this to be explicitly telling me what they're about. Others may differ (and that's ok), but I like it when movies keep themselves open to interpret. -
Watched this earlier. Was ok. Portman had her moments. I've not said this since 2006 but: meh. -
JamesUK 910 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 9 years agoThe-Bodybuilder wrote:
but if those scenes are removed then their motivations become kind of boring and no longer fit with the theme of self destruction. I'm sure it's mentioned in the film that everyone who goes into the shimmer has volunteered, Kane hasn't been ordered to go in. Lena asks Ventress why he'd volunteer for a suicide mission, the reply is something along the lines of "people aren't suicidal, they're just self destructive". Then at some point it's revealed that Kane knew about Lena's affair.
Frogofdoom wrote:
Can't say I buy that at all.
The affair also covers his reasons for going in because he knew about it. There were a few chats about why people would go on what was labelled a suicide mission essentially.
Remove those scenes and the motivation (like I thought it was before the scene) is that she's his wife and is doing it for love, as a wife would. And he went in because he was a soldier and was ordered to go in, as all soldiers do.
Imo that reveal did nothing to change the motives of either individual. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoOf course it changes their motivation. He went in out of despair and she went in out of guilt.
Which ties in with the fact that the area seems pyschoreactive and they keep sending damaged people in there. -
cov 2,524 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 18 years agoAnd it ties in with several of the core themes of the film.... key line is how the body replaces all of its cells every 7 years - literally annihilated - be coming different people - motivations being very different than they appear (may also refer to the shimmer itself) and depending from what angle (refraxrion) you view something from. So it may appear like a clone invasion from one perspective bit from the perspective of the nature/annihilation perspective and how the shimmer renews everything at a DNA level it looks like something less very different - less purpose and more mechanistic. Hell it could be a terraforming artifact that she turns off by being the only person who didn't want to be annihilated.
Edited by cov at 06:59:12 16-03-2018 -
Scimarad 9,964 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoThe-Bodybuilder wrote:
Nah. The book is not big on explanation or even specific questions. There's never any sense that anything is happening for a reason or particularly any clarity about what is happening. It's very, very different. The 'false' version of her husband doesn't live long after returning and there's only a vague suggestion of what might have happened to him based on not very much evidence. She doesn't ever come out of Area X but a version of her does in book 2. You don't really find out what happened to her until book 3 and, again, it's pretty vague.
I just went on the whole "created the two for a reason" as people kept mentioning it here in reference to the book, so figured that was something key from the book. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoI wouldn't call what eventually happens to the biologist (in the books) "vague". But yes, in general they're not very forthcoming with answers to the questions you might have about what's going on. But the books prepare you for this right from the beginning, in that the characters are as in the dark as the readers are, and eventually realise that the "answers" don't actually matter all that much.
It is possible that the reader might not be satisfied with this. Personally, though, I didn't mind it at all. There's more than one reason why the last book is called "Acceptance". -
Scimarad 9,964 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoI don't think it's a bad thing at all. One of the reasons I struggled a bit with the film is that it's all a bit too clear, defined and conventional in comparison. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoI agree. Unfortunately, I don't think there was any way this was getting made without at least a few concessions to linearity and convention. Not unless they went independent or something. -
Scimarad 9,964 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoWell I think the reaction show that it more than succeeds at being an interesting thing in it's own right. I just wish they hadn't Given 'The Shimmer' a magic self destruct button! -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point, I even made it clear by referencing Solaris (both versions) that did the whole "not trying to tell me what it's trying to do" thing better.
No, I neither need nor want movies like this to be explicitly telling me what they're about. Others may differ (and that's ok), but I like it when movies keep themselves open to interpret. -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agoJamesUK wrote:
I may have missed it, but I can't say it was explicit that all who entered volunteered. I imagine all in that group did, but I didn't expect or imagine all that did previously would've. Soldiers seldom get the choice, so it's my fault, but I never considered Kane, who'd clearly been on many missions previously where he wasn't allowed to say what his mission was, volunteered. Particularly as he was clearly called for the operation before even knowing about the shimmer.
The-Bodybuilder wrote:
but if those scenes are removed then their motivations become kind of boring and no longer fit with the theme of self destruction. I'm sure it's mentioned in the film that everyone who goes into the shimmer has volunteered, Kane hasn't been ordered to go in. Lena asks Ventress why he'd volunteer for a suicide mission, the reply is something along the lines of "people aren't suicidal, they're just self destructive". Then at some point it's revealed that Kane knew about Lena's affair.
Frogofdoom wrote:
Can't say I buy that at all.
The affair also covers his reasons for going in because he knew about it. There were a few chats about why people would go on what was labelled a suicide mission essentially.
Remove those scenes and the motivation (like I thought it was before the scene) is that she's his wife and is doing it for love, as a wife would. And he went in because he was a soldier and was ordered to go in, as all soldiers do.
Imo that reveal did nothing to change the motives of either individual.
Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but without those scenes, I would've never been left with "why did Kane go?" as he was a soldier and I would never understand why soldiers are given the choice to volunteer (though I can imagine why the final group did), and I would never question why a wife would go into a mystery shimmer after her missing husband for a year suspected MIA suddenly shows up back home then is taken ill with the only potential answer of why he's sick lies in said mystery shimmer, of which his wife, who'd obviously want to save him, also happened to be a former soldier and biologist. I mean, without the cheating seemed ample enough motivation to me.
I do wonder I the fact so many here I've read the book give them that perspective to make sense of that, but as a relative dummy to the context of the book, I'm just making my observations purely on the movie with no prior knowledge of anything. -
Frogofdoom 17,973 posts
Seen 22 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoNot read the book, but it was made very clear. You might have just missed it, its easily enough to do with a check of the phone or something. -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years ago@Scimarad I guess my confusion is probably coming more from the speculation from the book readers, giving my the impression more is fleshed out in the book than in the movies. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoThe-Bodybuilder wrote:
If I did, then I apologise! I just find that far too many movies these days (even sci-fi movies) try to beat you over the head with their messages, and it's nice to see something that respects its viewers enough to let them work it out on their own.
Mola_Ram wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point, I even made it clear by referencing Solaris (both versions) that did the whole "not trying to tell me what it's trying to do" thing better.
No, I neither need nor want movies like this to be explicitly telling me what they're about. Others may differ (and that's ok), but I like it when movies keep themselves open to interpret. -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agoScimarad wrote:
I think this is pretty much bang on the money.
I don't think it's a bad thing at all. One of the reasons I struggled a bit with the film is that it's all a bit too clear, defined and conventional in comparison.
The way everyone described it, I was expecting something more Scolaris-like. The movie felt way too defined and clear that I wasn't sure if that was the mystery.
Quite simply, it didn't feel enough of a mind-fuck for me. It started off that way, but then kinda felt like the director lost his nerve and somewhat tried to clear it up a bit. -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
It's fine and I totally agree.
The-Bodybuilder wrote:
If I did, then I apologise! I just find that far too many movies these days (even sci-fi movies) try to beat you over the head with their messages, and it's nice to see something that respects its viewers enough to let them work it out on their own.
Mola_Ram wrote:
I think you kinda missed the point, I even made it clear by referencing Solaris (both versions) that did the whole "not trying to tell me what it's trying to do" thing better.
No, I neither need nor want movies like this to be explicitly telling me what they're about. Others may differ (and that's ok), but I like it when movies keep themselves open to interpret.
I think my last comment made myself clear, as I maybe wasn't making my point clear enough (or maybe that's part of my mystery?)
Essentially, the movie just didn't seem like the it fully wanted to let go and just leave it to us to make sense of things. My confusion isn't particularly in the script, but if it's trying to leave me to figure it out by myself, or trying to hold my hand. -
David_Richardson 1,332 posts
Seen 7 days ago
Registered 18 years agoThose of you that have read the books, can you explain the reason for leaving the protagonists nameless? Is it part of the larger theme of identity being linked to biology, or is it done for a specific narrative purpose like a reveal or twist? -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoDavid_Richardson wrote:
Specifically, it's to discourage the exhibition members from forming attachments with each other. It's not that they don't have names, or don't know each other's names, but that they're not encouraged to use them. You eventually get to know some of their names, but it's not meant to be a huge reveal or anything.
Those of you that have read the books, can you explain the reason for leaving the protagonists nameless? Is it part of the larger theme of identity being linked to biology, or is it done for a specific narrative purpose like a reveal or twist?
And it's possible that the biologist (you never learn her name in the books) has a different trajectory to other members of expeditions, because her profession is basically the whole of her self-identity.
Edited by Mola_Ram at 01:11:25 17-03-2018 -
mothercruncher 19,474 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoCame to this cold, but having read largely rave reviews.
Some nice ideas in there but it always felt like it lacked something, a little extra push to move it from average sci-fi to great. Fairly underwhelmed, nice to stare at Natalie Portman for a while though so, y’know. -
Bambot 2,076 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoOne man's underwhelming is another man's perfectly pitched I guess. At least nobody seems to hate it! .gif)
-
Zeffi 1,070 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 7 years agoShit -
Stickman 29,986 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 17 years agoCome back beastmaster, all is forgiven. -
millerlfc 669 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years agoOne thing I was wondering about, what was the significance of Lena complaining about a bruise on her arm? (When they were canoeing down the river). -
The-Bodybuilder 17,871 posts
Seen 2 months ago
Registered 17 years agomillerlfc wrote:
Seemed like a narrative plot to make us aware that there was no tattoo on her arm at that moment in time, which of course she later had.
One thing I was wondering about, what was the significance of Lena complaining about a bruise on her arm? (When they were canoeing down the river). -
Mark1412 2,336 posts
Seen 21 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoI loved this - thought it captured the tone of the book perfectly and had such an impressive unsettling/surreal sense throughout. That scene in the middle was brilliant. Wish I'd seen it on the big screen. I thought it looked and sounded sensational. -
I was talking about this with someone who compared it to 2001
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
