Don't Look Up

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I saw it as well and to be honest, this must be one of the worst films I ever saw... There were maybe 2 or 3 mildly funny things in the whole thing... And it was pure in-your-face anti-Trump, pro-Global Warming blabla propaganda. Message: unite now to fight climate change until it's too late! Listen to Tha Science(TM)! And should a catastrophe happen, it's on the right-wingers!

OK, there were a (very) few subtleties about all that. And the irony that the creators chose a real threat (and one that is NOT man-made!) as their metaphor for climate change. And they depicted some aspects of the insanity in the media and the division in society somewhat accurately. And I think part of the message was that it's too late anyway, we didn't act when we could have, and now it's just a sh*tshow till the end... Which is fair enough :)

Maybe it's just personal taste, but I really thought this one was a waste of time and a prime example of why propaganda can never be funny.
 

Yas

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I watched it too and I think it was sort of funny and interesting... and also sad.

It's true you can see the intention of it as pure propaganda all over, with too many hints here and there that the pro-trumpers are all idiots and those leaning more to be lefties are for the real thing. Yet, the depiction of how people may act when facing something that is truly threatening and when the media and politicians couldn't care less about it unless they find some personal benefit in doing something about it was interesting.

What I thought is that, maybe, because the creators who wanted to make fun of the 'other side' of the spectrum need to project so much of their own deficiencies when criticizing others, they ended up creating a caricature of themselves that is actually quite accurate if you don't pay too much attention to the forced and not-so-subtle hints here and there telling you about their propaganda.

It is ironic that it shows that when the threat is actually real, they'll probably act similarly to what they showed in the movie. But, in the real world, when the threat is unrealistic and the media is putting it in your face as the most threatening thing human kind has ever faced, people believe it and become terrified. It seems that the creators couldn't see that they are the ones acting like the propaganda media in the movie, promoting a narrative that far from truth with their 'analogy' of global warming/covid which is beneficial to those in power. From that lack of awareness they created a scenario that is kind of realistic, although it might be themselves who would be in the position they depict as the 'bad guys' in the movie, because they're projecting.

Unfortunately, I also think that those who do believe in all the COVID/Global Warming propaganda will see the movie in the way it was intentioned: as a 'profound' metaphor about all the 'idiots' who deny these threats and so against 'the science'. And we see that happening already, it seems.
 

United Gnosis

Jedi Council Member
I saw it as well and to be honest, this must be one of the worst films I ever saw... There were maybe 2 or 3 mildly funny things in the whole thing... And it was pure in-your-face anti-Trump, pro-Global Warming blabla propaganda. Message: unite now to fight climate change until it's too late! Listen to Tha Science(TM)! And should a catastrophe happen, it's on the right-wingers!

OK, there were a (very) few subtleties about all that. And the irony that the creators chose a real threat (and one that is NOT man-made!) as their metaphor for climate change. And they depicted some aspects of the insanity in the media and the division in society somewhat accurately. And I think part of the message was that it's too late anyway, we didn't act when we could have, and now it's just a sh*tshow till the end... Which is fair enough :)

Maybe it's just personal taste, but I really thought this one was a waste of time and a prime example of why propaganda can never be funny.

Honestly, if feels like you watched a different movie than I did, or at least, that you brought a lot of baggage to your interpretation. Personally, I knew nothing about the movie, except that Critical Drinker liked it and Luke of We Are Change mentioned in passing on Timcast that he found it surprisingly decent. So I watched it pretty much without context.

For instance, you say it was pure in-your-face anti-Trump propaganda. Ok, where? To me that makes as much sense as saying president Carmacho in Idiocracy was an indictment of one party over the other. That's not the point. In Don't Look Up, I never saw a single symbol that implied one side was being criticized vs another, and there was no indication of the party of the president. There was one scene where the president wore a cap, sure you could come in with the bias that only republicans wear caps, but then that's really your bias, the movie made sure to make the cap neutral, red and blue on a white background...

To be honest the bumbling incompetence of the president's administration made me feel it was a reference to the democrats, especially the degeneracy of her chief-of-staff son felt like an omen of what Hunter Biden could also achieve. I thought it was hilariious. Then there is also a 15 second scene in which the president is making a pretty gung-ho speech on a podium, is being gung-ho something unniquely republican now? Is it really enough to say it's in-your-face anti-Trump? What? But these considerations are not something the movie brings. Everything I saw in the movie was a-partisan. It was, politics suck, it's corrupt, lost its priorities, led by randos with terrible character. But the rest is left to the listener.

What about 'pro-climate warming propaganda'? There was not a single mention either of climate or weather in the movie. Even as the comet grew closer, weather was never used as some ominous sign, and Earth remained stable until the last moment. The movie was not about that. There was no mention of that. It was not pro- or anti-covid either. It was a movie about a comet threat being realized late-game and TPTB/human nature being unable to respond. That's all.

I think you went in and spent the entire movie reviewing external baggage. The politics around the movie. The ideological intentions of the producers. So what if they thought it was for the benefit of their camp. It's like Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. He came in with the specific intent to make a movie insulting the book, yet all his criticisms ended up being wet petards while his creation ended up being a fan classic action satire that only invites people to find out what the book was about. Don't Look Up was kind of the same. I don't care if the intent was this or that - the movie contains none of it. And I can't say you judge it by its own merits.
 

tykes

Jedi Master
I just saw this movie and I agree with those who consider it bad.I really thought it was an awful movie, with a star cast that was poorly used. It's supposed to be a sort of comedy but I really didn't find it funny at all ( I mean, the intended comedic tone).

I found the anti-Trump propaganda blatant (the president played by Meryl Streep and her supporters wear baseball caps with slogans and in a speech the president's son says in public that she is sexy or something like that and if she wasn't his mother...etc).
The only redeemable thing for my taste is that it shows how the media operates to censor any kind of dissent and how easy it is to manipulate people with irrelevant showbiz stories.

Very little to rescue from this rather long (it lasts more than 2 hours) and poorly made film for my taste. Personally I consider it a waste of time and honestly would not recommend it.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Honestly, if feels like you watched a different movie than I did, or at least, that you brought a lot of baggage to your interpretation. Personally, I knew nothing about the movie, except that Critical Drinker liked it and Luke of We Are Change mentioned in passing on Timcast that he found it surprisingly decent. So I watched it pretty much without context.

For instance, you say it was pure in-your-face anti-Trump propaganda. Ok, where? To me that makes as much sense as saying president Carmacho in Idiocracy was an indictment of one party over the other. That's not the point. In Don't Look Up, I never saw a single symbol that implied one side was being criticized vs another, and there was no indication of the party of the president. There was one scene where the president wore a cap, sure you could come in with the bias that only republicans wear caps, but then that's really your bias, the movie made sure to make the cap neutral, red and blue on a white background...

To be honest the bumbling incompetence of the president's administration made me feel it was a reference to the democrats, especially the degeneracy of her chief-of-staff son felt like an omen of what Hunter Biden could also achieve. I thought it was hilariious. Then there is also a 15 second scene in which the president is making a pretty gung-ho speech on a podium, is being gung-ho something unniquely republican now? Is it really enough to say it's in-your-face anti-Trump? What? But these considerations are not something the movie brings. Everything I saw in the movie was a-partisan. It was, politics suck, it's corrupt, lost its priorities, led by randos with terrible character. But the rest is left to the listener.

What about 'pro-climate warming propaganda'? There was not a single mention either of climate or weather in the movie. Even as the comet grew closer, weather was never used as some ominous sign, and Earth remained stable until the last moment. The movie was not about that. There was no mention of that. It was not pro- or anti-covid either. It was a movie about a comet threat being realized late-game and TPTB/human nature being unable to respond. That's all.

I think you went in and spent the entire movie reviewing external baggage. The politics around the movie. The ideological intentions of the producers. So what if they thought it was for the benefit of their camp. It's like Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. He came in with the specific intent to make a movie insulting the book, yet all his criticisms ended up being wet petards while his creation ended up being a fan classic action satire that only invites people to find out what the book was about. Don't Look Up was kind of the same. I don't care if the intent was this or that - the movie contains none of it. And I can't say you judge it by its own merits.

Right, I was triggered! I just couldn't watch it in a sort of detached way, taking the things as universal when they were so blatantly partisan (IMO). Come on, the president was pure Trump as seen by the libtards: sex scandals, obsessed with appearances, dumb and grandiose, an incompetent slimy son (in law...) in the White House... Pompous rallies with tons of "deplorables" wearing MAGA hats... As for climate change: they literally put a freaking polar bear on melting ice in there, just in case we don't get it! And some of the "good" protestors were holding signs saying "Fossil Fools"! The "good" Ariadne Grande sang "Trust The Science". The "Don't look up" shtick was Trump telling his followers to ignore Climate Change and the Covid Pandemic. The conspiracy theorists who doubted the existence of the comet were the "conspiracy theorists" who doubt Climate Change and the Panedemic... The only subtlety about that was that the "good side" was a bit crazy and pompous too, but well...

Again, you are right: I was triggered and felt insulted by the whole thing, and that's why I couldn't watch it and abstract from all that and apply it to "the other side". But even then, if I want that kind of partisan stuff, I can go on Twitter or watch Tim Pool. Not my idea of an entertaining or deep or uplifting or surprising movie.

It's interesting though how different the reactions to this one seem to be, both here and also among commentators from both "sides".
 

Alana

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
As movies go, it was quite bad. Not as bad as Matrix no 4, in my opinion (which was vastly disappointing and should have never been made, at least in respect to the memory of the first Matrix movie✝️). But despite the bad acting, at least I could follow the plot in Don't Look Up, and I had a few laughs and a few tears in the end too. If I hadn't read ahead of time about some of the "politics" behind the movie, I wouldn't have seen them. Not the global warming scare, nor the jabs against the republicans (Are we sure about that? There was a picture of president Orlean in the arms of Bill Clinton in her office. I thought she was being Killary as POTUS :lol:) And as a mirror to humanity currently, pretty accurate.

This movie should be renamed to "Idiocracy vs Comet".

Yeap.

If I had to redo my Xmas this year, which was otherwise excellent except for these two movies, I would watch a movie I've watched before that I am sure will entertain me. I can't think of many great movies that came out the last decade (except, of course, for Guardians of the Galaxy and Avatar :love: ) and what I see is that stupidity, insanity, immorality and a materialist worldview- all of which seem to saturate life on earth currently - do not make great movies. It's like there is no creativity or vision to tell a worthy cathartic story anymore. Or very little, and very rarely. So I wouldn't recommend it either, and would advise for (re)watching instead: It's a Wonderful Life, the original Marry Poppins, The Sound of Music, Joyeux Noël, etc. I rewatched all these during Xmas with my stepson back when he was 17 y.o. It was the first time he watched any of them and he loooved them.
 

brandon

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I watched this in the background while doing other stuff and found it just very average.. probably wouldn't have stuck through the whole thing if I'd been solely focusing on it. Figured the president was a Trump reference when I saw the hats, but I missed the Bill Clinton bit.. It kinda seemed to me like one of those things where they've made it able to be interpreted in different ways, from either "side"'s point of view, somewhat.. Intentionally? Maybe not.... But more than a particular political side, it seemed to be about mainstream media, and corporate control of governments..

I liked how near the end,
the normal people main characters all got together and said a prayer and had a nice dinner together and talked.. Only one of them knew how to say grace - the skater kid - and the rest were pleased he did.. It was like a nice, tiny moment of antidote to the materialist rest of the culture in the film.. (oh Tauriel already mentioned this)
.. but yeah, nothing deep or particularly interesting IMO...
 

Onetrickponystar

Padawan Learner
Unfortunately, I also think that those who do believe in all the COVID/Global Warming propaganda will see the movie in the way it was intentioned: as a 'profound' metaphor about all the 'idiots' who deny these threats and so against 'the science'. And we see that happening already, it seems.
I came here to say this as well. Entertaining movie, really liked Meryl Streep in here role as POTUS, but I just couldn't look beyond the blatant global warming-narrative that is being pushed here. The song from Arianna Grande says it all.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Honestly, if feels like you watched a different movie than I did, or at least, that you brought a lot of baggage to your interpretation.

I find it interesting how very different the movie was interpreted and received when you look at the various comments about it here on the forum. It looks like "you watched a different movie than I did" summarizes quite well the stark contrast in how people here evaluated what they saw. I think that has at least partly to do with everyone's own biases being brought in before watching it. I think there are a number of reasons for all of this confusion and different interpretations. See below.

I found the anti-Trump propaganda blatant (the president played by Meryl Streep and her supporters wear baseball caps with slogans and in a speech the president's son says in public that she is sexy or something like that and if she wasn't his mother...etc).

I know what you mean, and I certainly noticed that as well:

- The woman president and her son and the movement they created, which is called the "don't look up" movement, seems to me to be a parody of Trump and his son(-s) and the Trump rally movement. There are several places in the movie in which this becomes rather clear IMO.

But have you noticed the following too?:

- Interestingly that crazy woman president is shown in one picture to be hugging Bill Clinton so IMO it could also partly be a depiction of Killary as president...

That woman president hugging Bill Clinton on the photo doesn't quite describe what you see IMO, since it is extremer than that. What it looked like to me is that she rather flung her arms around Bill's neck in a similar fashion that a woman would do who admires Bill and/or is in love with Bill, or more accurately, from the context of her being an evil witch in the movie, parasitically pretending to admire Bill and/or love Bill for her own nefarious reasons. So how exactly does this square with the idea of her representing Trump in a metaphorical way?

Or the fact that the president is a woman? Well, if that President is primarily meant to depict Trump metaphorically, one could ask why the writers would be so very extremely "metaphorical" to let a woman play that role? Here is what Meryl Streep said about here character as president. Apparently the primary reason Meryl decided to do that movie was because she liked Adam McKay's comedic streak and apparently not because she wanted to play "a Trump character".

Or have you noticed the following?:

- That certifiably crazy/autistic/libtard billionaire that is depicted to direct/control and advice "the president", his administration and society seems to me to be meant as a mixture of Elon Musk (head of Tesla), Tim Cook (Head of Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook). I think the sheer insanity and libtard craziness that is depicted in that character is just brilliant and to the point.

Again, how does that square with the idea of that president representing Trump in a metaphorical way? And how about the fact that that Billionaire seems to be the real power behind the throne, at least at the end? It seems to me quite clear that large portions of that Billionaire character is modelled on Tim Cook (Head of Apple), or rather, Apple itself, which is by all intents and purposes clearly one of the most lefty/libtard companies in the world that is pushing all those "democrat" lefty/libtard ideas hard onto society. Another big part of the Billionaire Character IMO is modelled around Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), which again, by all intents and purposes is as lefty/democrat/libtard as you can get. Same for Bill Gates (Microsoft) and maybe to a lesser degree Elon Musk (head of Tesla), who are both, for all intents and purposes, pretty lefty/democrat/libtard. As for Musk being partly a model for the character: we have another contradiction there since Musk was at least in the beginning pretty outspoken against the Corona Craziness.

So again, how does that square with the idea of that president representing Trump metaphorically? Also, how does that square with the fact that the son of that woman president is clearly exhibiting very libtard/snowflakey behavior toward the scientist and others? And the Billionaire himself is clearly depicted very libtard/snowflakey himself with a lot of autism/pathology on top of that. And he is "best buddies" with the president. Would Trump be best buddies with people like Zuckerberg/Facebook or any other of those billionairs on which the charcter seems to be based? We know that Trump is pretty much anti Zuckerberg/Facebook etc. for good reasons in reality. And everybody knows that. How does that square?

In fact, almost all in the movie (not matter which "side") is depicted to be very libtard/snowflakey/superficial/crazy IMO, just like in an idiocracy:

Basically the entire civilization is depicted as hopelessly lost in trivialities, libtard thinking etc, with the fitting end for such a civilization in the form of comet.

So how does that square with the idea of the movie being primarily a propaganda piece against the "right-wingers"? If for some reasons the "left" side in the movie was really seriously meant to be portrait as the "sane ones" by the scriptwriters, that would make all of it even more ironic, since they come across so very deranged and libtard to me as well, that it would be hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that the writers/creators really thought what they showed there is sane "on the left side".

Which all brings me to the following points:

- How would we here in the forum have interpreted the movie if we wouldn't have been told by the media, the writers, the actors and the producers that it is meant to be "a metaphorical satire for the real threat of climate change/global warming caused by humans"? Think about it. How would you have reacted? How likely would you have interpreted the movie in that intended way? I think the likelihood of interpreting the movie in that "intended" way would have been very, very low for everyone here on this forum. Pretty much 0 I think.

- Now, in contrast to that, how would you think people in the public would have interpreted the movie if they wouldn't have been told by the media, the writers, the actors and the producers that it is meant to be "a metaphorical satire for the real threat of climate change/global warming caused by humans"? Think about it. How would they have reacted? How likely would you think it is that the movie would have been interpreted in that "intended" way? I think the likelihood that the general-public would have interpreted the movie in that "intended" way would have been also quite low.

- So obviously, the primary thing that makes this a "propaganda piece" for global warming for some of us here, and for still others here "a propaganda piece against Trump and/or the right/conservatives", and a "great satirical depiction of the climate threat" and maybe "a great depiction of the crazy/inhuman Trumpers/conservatives" for the general-public on the other hand, is not the content of the movie itself, but what we have been told about it and how we should interpret it, in combination with our own worldview and biases we bring to the table individually.

- The primary scriptwriter (Adam McKay) is a comedian, and comedians of that sort are often very sarcastic and make fun off all sides, even if they are "lefty". It's their job. He apparenly said that when the pandemic hit in the middle of filming this movie, that (paraphasing) obviously, he had to make it more extreme/crazy. Which means, one would assume, that he felt the comedic urge to make it even more satirical/crazy/hilarious/ridiculous while being confronted by "the pandemic" in order to bring the point across. So what we see is partly an even more extreme version of the "original script" because the "pandemic" agitated/fueled the comedic/satirical streak element in Adam McKay, the actors etc., to make it more extreme. I'm sure everyone there also believed the pandemic nonsense, similarly to the Trump and global warming propaganda, but underlying or fueling that whole thing was probably also in big parts the human element, that is feeling that something is indeed terribly wrong but attributing it to the wrong causes. Like feeling that something crazy/big is indeed happening and needing to vent that feeling in some way. And a comedian being a comedian does that exactly in such ways by making fun of all sides. It reminds me of what the C's once said:

Q: (Joe) 16% of voters said they'd rather have a giant comet than Hillary or Trump. What if we actually get one and then all those people get blamed? {laughter}

A: Interesting what mass consciousness conceives, yes? And asks for?

Q: (Pierre) Well, it's close to what we've been saying for a long time. It's getting so bad...

(L) ...that people would rather have a giant comet than to go on. And I don't think the suffering is over yet...

A: Not by a mile!

So I would propose that exactly that kind of mass consciousness described by the C's has fueled the writers/producers and actors to deliver what they did. With that absolutely hilarious result of actually depicting reality more or less accurately, while they themselves overtly believe that they indeed created a "metaphor for climate change".

- I think another big reason why there is so much confusion/controversy here on the forum (and to a lesser degree, in the public) about that movie is the factor of not really taking into account how creative pieces (such as satirical movies, or a painting or music etc.) are created, or come into being. We see here people who watched the same movie but came away with very different feelings and interpretations. While we also argue about "the real meaning" or "the real intent" of the whole movie and/or specific parts of it because of our own personal understanding of things. I think many satires are made in a way that could apply/resonate to many preconceived notions. In a sort of open way that can be interpreted on a number of different levels and orientations. That is partly in order to reach as many people as possible and make it as attractive for as many and varied people as possible (to make as much money as possible for example) but also in order to stay true to the comedic philosophy of making fun of all and everything that feels funny not matter which camp.

- Which brings me to the main point: We usually think that a creative/comedic act such as this movie is created by a very strict script which is in large parts set in stone clearly and specifically in advance, in pretty much every important detail. But in reality, that is very seldom what happens! Take music (as just one example of a creative outlet) for example, and specifically, the creation of a song: In most cases a song is created in some of the following ways:

  • A musician plays a short lick on his instrument more or less accidentally without having thought about it in advance. It just somehow "comes to him". Sort of a short free flow. Then he thinks "oh, that sounds good actually!". Then he starts to build on top of that "initial inspiration" and searches for additional line licks, either by himself or together with fellow musicians in order to "make a song out of it". Little by little, a whole tune comes into being, sometimes informed by conscious effort and sometimes by things "that just come to him" or to other musicians at that moment in time. Often the musician gets stuck for days/weeks or even years and just doesn't know how he could put together or finish the song. He is searching and searching for "the right elements/parts" which can take years, and often it is never finished. Finally, the melodies and the harmonics are all done, and the tune is finished, but wait, there are no lyrics yet, to make it an actual song! So again, the same process starts: he thinks hard about a fitting phrase/sentence/word or sometimes "they just come without efforts". Again it can take years to finish the lyrics while in other times it just is done very quickly, while in still other times sometimes just a word is missing and he just kind of finds the right one by accident that "feels" right in the musical and lyric context but doesn't have to make much sense otherwise. Sometimes by just goofing around with his fellow musicians (or in a totally nonmusical context as well) the "right words" just pop out. If you have watched the new Beatles documentary/movie, you can see such processes in action a lot.

    For example, a musiaian has almost all of a song finished and somebody says "oh, that word, phrase or lick doesn't sound right, how about using this phrase instead" and then they play it together with the new phrase/word/lick and sometimes it fits sometimes it doesn't and sometimes that little change of phrasing/wording/melody/harmonics chances the whole overall script/context and so on. Then somebody says "how about using this word?" and then the script is changed again accordingly. In other words; it is a script/song that is not very much set in stone until it is finished at all. Nobody really knows what will come out at the end. There are a myriad of other variations and ways a song can come into being too. For example, a sentence or word is created "or just comes to you" at first and all the other elements (such as melody and harmonics) are added in such a long or short process as described above later on. Or sometimes a whole song/script with all its parts "comes finished to you" but that is very seldom. Usually, processes like the above create a "song" (or movie of that kind for that matter!). And especially in this movie, that was so loose/free from the get-go: Many influences/contributions create and change it in the moment they are created/produced/filmed. See below.

Which brings me to the way the movie seems to have been made. The actors stated on several occasions that the script was very loose to begin with and they were given much freedom on what to do and say. Case in point is the following part in which one actor says that Adam McKay just lead him loose on purpose and encouraged him to just goove around and say and act in whatever way came to his mind at at that moment for a whole day. So it seems like much of the movie is created in processes like the ones described above where they did it "as they went along" in the moment. That also explains why we are so confused and try to put meaning behind this or that, where there probably wasn't much meaning intended to begin with in the moment it was filmed other than that it "felt right" or "funny" or "it just came in the moment" and they felt it should be in the movie "because it is so great". Of course such free minded processes lead much room for "channeled" material to be inserted here and there as well, from whatever source. But often we ascribe "meaning" and "intend" on something were there was little meaning or intend other than that it "felt right" or "funny" to those who created it at that moment. Our own interpretations and world views often inform what that supposed "intend" must have been. My guess is that large portions of what we see are things that were created in the moment that they were performed by the actors in such prozesses as decribed above and not really following a fixed and always meaningful/intentful script.

- And a final point that might explain some of the different interpretataions and take aways is that I for example watched it in the german version. And german dubbing actors are often praised (IMO rightfully, LOL!) to be the best in the world. So depending which dubbing actors and which language is used, can add another layer that makes dubbed versions distorted/different from the original english one. I don't know if you noticed, but most often what dubbing actors say doesn't really deliver what the original is saying. Sometimes (and I would say often!) what the dubbing actor is saying is very different from the original text, both in content and speech pattern! You can easily notice that when you turn on subtitles. You will be amazed how different the original can be! Some of the reasons for this are that the translating process can be very much favoured towards "what sounds good in the language" rather than delivering the exact content of the original speech in the original language.
 
Last edited:

Goemon_

Jedi Council Member
You can easily notice that when you turn on subtitles. You will be amazed how different the original can be! Some of the reasons for this are that the translating process can be very much favoured towards "what sounds good in the language" rather than delivering the exact content of the original speech in the original language.
That brings back to me a memory from twenty years ago or so:

I rented a DVD to watch with a friend. I am pretty sure it was Time And Tide.
My friend wanted to watch it in French. It was advided on the DVD that if you watch it dubbed you should activate the subtitles (also in French) because some passages where in a foreign language, and not dubbed. So we did, and we laught during the whole thing because we would hear something in French and read something "quite" different on the subtitles.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I rented a DVD to watch with a friend. I am pretty sure it was Time And Tide.
My friend wanted to watch it in French. It was advided on the DVD that if you watch it dubbed you should activate the subtitles (also in French) because some passages where in a foreign language, and not dubbed. So we did, and we laught during the whole thing because we would hear something in French and read something "quite" different on the subtitles.

Indeed, that happens quite a lot and in some movies it is so extreme that whole sentences, the context or even the story line of the whole original script/acting get twisted very significantly. Sometimes it is quite astounding to see what the original is actually saying and then comparing it to the dubbed version. Not seldomly I saw complete sentences being totally different from the original, both in words and meaning, and I mean TOTALLY different!
 
Movie was interesting to watch. IMO the main thread of the movie is not a threat of comet/asteroid hitting the Earth. It is human behavior while facing that threat.
Compare President and her administration who are so much psychopathic; Techno guru immersed in glorifying himself; shallowness of TV presenters; two skeptics on TV show who are desperately trying to convince Kate Dibiasky that there is no comet; former Dibiasky's boyfriend who decides to write about her after hearing and believing in truth; people in the bar; the creator of the both ways movement who in fact tries to benefit from pleasing everyone.
I also like the fact that none of the main characters is perfect. Note also the shift in values when they decide to spend last ours before disaster with their loved ones.

I didn't notice any reference to the problem of climate change to be fare. As in regards to Trump. There is a general reference to pathology in politics but not strictly to Trump.

Indeed, that makes it even more ironic! It really looks like everyone involved including the writer believed to film a metaphor for global warming not realizing what a great and pretty accurate description of the actual situation they created by that metaphor
@Cosmos already elaborated on that in post #40 of this thread. Big thank you for that.

I will just add.

While trying to think about this inconsistency I came to two different conclusions. In one case author (McKay and his team) is aware of original message and just saying the right words in public to get their movie to cinemas. On the other hand artistic creation is not strictly a rational process where artist is not fully aware of the end result. That makes me think of Muses who give inspiration in Ancient Greek mythology.
 

Yupo

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Review: We get a seriously top tier cast giving a great performance in a dark comedy about the worst imaginable of natural disasters sans the usual heroic Hollywood ending. In every interview I watched about the film it was said to be made to wake humanity up to the danger of global warming. I'm not so sure. There are pot shots at corporate greed, 'never let a crisis go to waste' political mentality, Kardashian type nonsense, an actual idiocracy, media whores and a billionaire nutcase thrown in for good measure. Long story short, it seemed rather true to life in terms of typical intellectual capacities, behaviors and responses to information, interests in reality, truth and potentially useful actions. So, while a dark comedy, I found a lot in there. Would any of my family or friends (outside of this forum) get any of that? I think not. B+
Released on and apparently created for/by Netflix. Does this mean that the days of the big screen are toast?
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
I saw it as well and to be honest, this must be one of the worst films I ever saw... There were maybe 2 or 3 mildly funny things in the whole thing... And it was pure in-your-face anti-Trump, pro-Global Warming blabla propaganda. Message: unite now to fight climate change until it's too late! Listen to Tha Science(TM)! And should a catastrophe happen, it's on the right-wingers!

OK, there were a (very) few subtleties about all that. And the irony that the creators chose a real threat (and one that is NOT man-made!) as their metaphor for climate change. And they depicted some aspects of the insanity in the media and the division in society somewhat accurately. And I think part of the message was that it's too late anyway, we didn't act when we could have, and now it's just a sh*tshow till the end... Which is fair enough :)

Maybe it's just personal taste, but I really thought this one was a waste of time and a prime example of why propaganda can never be funny.
I agree - I thought I was losing brain cells whilst watching the idiocy being portrayed within the movie. Didn't find it funny, was quite pleased with the ending - everyone put out of their misery. It can be interpreted in many ways and perhaps has some useful insights. Either way it didn't really provide anything useful that we didn't know except that the writers weren't scared to go with the ending where everyone dies even those who supposedly thought they escaped i.e. the elites. In a way it's kind of true if we really think about our predicament - we're kind of screwed.
 
Top Bottom