It came across as a bit rude I thought also. But no biggie eh.I was trying to reconcile an inconsistency. I'm sorry if you perceive it as rude, I perceived it as matter-of-fact. You made a statement about the objective nature of the movie, which is not supported by the objective movie. I sought to underline the nuance. You insisted DeCaprio must know what he's talking about. I replied his opinion of what the team allegedly might have been intending, has no relevance on the actual content of the movie. Now there is no inconsistency anymore. It is resolved.
I stated what the movie contains, what anybody not involved in the process of making it (any of us) can objectively see in the movie. Meanwhile, you are talking about the intent of those involved in the movie. Thanks for recognizing it; that is exactly the point, the sole point of contention I sought to press. That is, the intent of the team, their mindspaces and opinions, do not constitute "the whole point" of the movie. Quite to the contrary, in my opinion, it has at most a minor effect in the audience's reception of the final product.
The proof resides in all of the different interpretations - if the intent of the crew defined the reception of the movie, you wouldn't have such a wide range of responses, especially inside a small and relatively ideologically-coherent group such as ours.
Well yes, that's exactly what I was saying, the movie's explicit content is a comet, and as such the movie is not explicitly about any ideological agenda. But then you notice that the film is being touted as a "reasons to trust the science" and then you realize that you've heard that elsewhere and as such, the implicit content becomes visible.And I'm saying it's absolutely fine to think the movie was bad, but to say "the entire point of the movie" is about climate change doesn't make sense, when that is literally impossible to know without considering context external to the movie. You mention movies that were warped in their direction by the cast's ideology. You could feel it even by looking at a few clips, I mean, I don't think I've seen over a minute of batwoman footage and I get what you mean.
But Don't Look Up? There's a huge comet coming, and that can obviously be a metaphor for a global black swan, but the movie doesn't hint beyond the metaphor. That's left to the watcher.
If you were to look at hints that the movie suggests by its own content, the unforeseen black swan might seem to be the corruption of TPTB and their dysfunctional responses towards reality, as illustrated by the depraved character of the Chief-of-Staff over and over, illustrated by everybody in power, really. The content of the movie was straightforward if not crude, in the spirit of This Is The End (2013, also with Jonah Hill), so it didn't feel like there was a heavy message, an ideological burden. There wasn't even room for one, really. It was all about comet facing humanity and the failure of the response.
If you want to say that the crew carried an intent, hoped for a specific message, of course, I'll acknowledge what you/they're saying. All I'm saying is the content of the movie doesn't suggest it. The comet reveals the critical dysfunction of TPTB, and the movie hints that corruption of character is the ultimate cause of that dysfunction. If you want to look beyond that, you are free to make your own associations, they are as valid as the external opinions of the crew, in that they do not alter the content of the movie, only interpret it.
Also, even not knowing the intentions of the crew before watching the movie, I'd think anybody slightly aware of the zeitgeist could assume the crew might have intended a straight metaphor for climate change, but because a large majority of people have been gaslit into anthropocentric climate alarmism, and even more of them in Hollywood. Sure. That'd be a possible meaning.
But if you argue the comet portrayed as a comet for the entire movie is actually climate change, then saying that the comet is the Wave or a magnetic flip or the next virus or whatever is just as valid. That's the point I was trying to drive. The climate change angle is just another external interpretation. It's not in the movie.
- Humanity's fate always rests on the hands of the few - the average man on the street really has no power to determine his destiny when it comes to such grandiose matters. Esoterically speaking, is this true? Are we subservient to decision makers in such grandiose existential matters?
GRADES
5 - 8
SUBJECTS
Astronomy, Earth Science, Social Studies, U.S. History
The African-American women computers played a vital role in advancing NASA projects, a story popularized by the movie Hidden Figures, based on the book of the same name by Margot Lee Shetterly. Mary Jackson, Katherine Johnson, and Dorothy Vaughan were especially prominent computers. Their work helped one of the first American astronauts, John Glenn, orbit Earth in 1962 and ensured the safety of the mission.
Once NASA acquired electronic computers from IBM, computer programming became women’s work. The men distrusted computers and believed their own human calculations were superior, which ended up giving women early experience in the new skill of computer programming.