Don't Look Up

gottathink

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
It’s absolutely fascinating; the large spread in the range of responses to this movie. It makes me smile, it’s good to laugh at ourselves. I think it’s great that I and others thought the movie was good to awesome yet others were bored to tears or found it terrible. We have proof that we here are not engaged in group think. Congratulations everyone we are independent thinkers! That’s actually good for me to realise, that this forum is not an echo chamber. It makes this a safe place to be.

It is absolutely desirable for us to be different to each other in some ways but oriented and aligned in our intentions. So for me I’m now going to think about the difference between these two points.
 

gottathink

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
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.
It came across as a bit rude I thought also. But no biggie eh.
 

Bojan71

Jedi
Just finished watching the movie. Great and at times fascinating, does the universe send us a message? Wonderful, something like that comes right? I'll open a liter of wine, light a cigar, goodbye!

Na srpskom
Upravo završo sa gledanjem filma. Odlično i na momente fascinantno, el nam to univerzun šalje poruku? Divno, tako nešto dolazi zar ne? Otvoriću litar vina, zapaliti cigaru, adio!
 
I wasn't able to get past the scene in the White House when they were talking to the president. I've enjoyed the comments here more than what I saw of the movie. Here is an interview with Timothee Chalamet who played Yule. He's talking about what he thinks the film is about.

 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
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.
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.

Like I said before, I am not denigrating the art, or saying that their comet was climate change, and that's what they intended. More like, what they're presenting is something more like "Science has been trying to warn us about impending doom, and everyone is ignoring it"

Then when you take that and add the context and the team of individuals where such a message is coming from, you then start to see how insincere that message is, even if it comes with a kernel of truth at its core. Because one could make the case that, yes there is indeed scientific knowledge that has warned us about cyclical catastrophes, and cometary bombardments, ice ages, food scarcity and even pathocracy, and that knowledge is ignored and as such we're always left with our comeuppance.

But that's not what the movie is saying, the movie isn't talking about ignorance being pushed down by the media and the governments aided by big tech, in order to push another agenda to control people with fear. No, the movie talks about everyone being indifferent to "the science" and as such, it sounds a lot more like what Greta Thunberg would say, than what actual science would warn us about the reality of our situation.

Does that make sense?

Put another way, one could describe this movie as a movie that is about an extinction level comet, and that's true. But one could also say that it was made by people who see man made global warming as an extinction level event, and as such, it's clear where their narratives came from to write the movie, which is also true.
 

whitecoast

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was worth seeing.

I mean, yeah it is obviously meant to be construed by the liberal audience as an allegory for climate change. But the thing is, I do see some other admissions sneak through on an unconscious level which points to the Covid hoax, which is why I thought it was so interesting.

One of these points was how the New York Times dismissed the scientific findings of the main characters purely on the basis of "the head of NASA" disagreeing with it, which is seen as a very respectable institution to many people. But she isn't even an astronomer; she's an anesthesiologist. An anesthesiologist dispenses medicine that makes you insensitive to reality. Many people who are public health officers themselves are not even experts on the science, but mass media uses the clout of their positions as a cudgel against scientists who actually do the science and who disagree with the political line.

The second place I noticed the above was when the White House was firing scientists left and right for speaking out against the non-peer reviewed plan to generate profit by letting the comet get closer to earth.

When it comes to Climate Change Inc, the notion of highly reputable institutions being dominated by mediocre or bought experts isn't really a cultural trope on the left; they tend to have a lot of respect for those types of big brain institutions. And liberals are used to the idea that scientists are being ignored, but the notion of scientists getting fired for opposing the mainstream line the media perpetuates also is not really part of that mainstream liberal narrative. These are both phenomena associated more strongly with the Covid situation than the Global Warming narrative.

So in spite of the superficial allegory about how "republicans and billionaires are going to kill us all," I think they do "accidentally tell the truth" on a deeper level. I think the more brainwashed people can only consciously acknowledge the first level of allegory, while people who are better at seeing the unseen can recognize the second level of allegory deeper down. This in one way I think explains the surprising large appeal this movie has had. The writers, actors, and producers of the movie may not even be aware of it themselves, but that's how the unconscious shadow works OSIT.
 

iamthatis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
  • 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?

Man is asleep. But at the same time, the fate of our Souls are in our hands - and our hands alone.
 

Konstantin

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I watched the movie last week and it was a torture. The movie actually represents our reality today. You can apply this to almost anything.
From fake pandemin to comet impact.
People are not living and not perceiving the reality as it is.They are programmed by the media and government to live in a artificial reality which is designed by them so they can have more control.
The whole time I had a heavy and unpleasant feeling in my guts and I had a strong urge to stop the movie but I made it through the end.
It was like a condensed and shortened view of our society and reality. Programmed masses and psychopathic elites. People and media doing what is expected from them, what they are programmed for , not what is right and normal.
 

Ulysses

The Force is Strong With This One
I’m struck by the wide difference of opinion/interpretation here, with thought-provoking views on all sides. This is not a particularly refined or artful film, though perhaps the slapdash quality and chaotic juxtapositions were fully intentional. To me, it was (primarily) a brilliant and rather pessimistic commentary on the character of our political/elite leadership, and how far gone they are in a sea of illusion, mendacity, and plain ol’ mindless greed. The final scene with the powers-that-be was hilarious, and represented the epitome of stupidity and wishful thinking.

I could argue either side of the question as to whether or not the film was a climate change commentary, but the broader point about the “elites” holds, I think. And I appreciated the message that however crazy our situation, we all can choose how we face these disasters and challenges, and that our response inevitably goes to what’s inside of us.

Or that was my take, anyway. To say more would involve spoilers, so I’ll stop there. But I’d recommend the movie as commentary, if not as art or high entertainment - tho it has its moments.
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Quick update, I finally made some time to watch this movie and well... I hate to say that I was right.

Great photography and CGI, the scene of them simply spending some time in family was well made.

But it was a rather transparent piece of propaganda, and allow me to qualify that statement as I don't make it lightly, the movie was created by a group that clearly is aligned politically with democrats, to try to raise awareness about an issue that they feel republicans don't care about and are thus making it worse. And as such, being a politically charged message, it becomes propaganda.

Without spoilers, there were very, terribly clear jabs at, Trump and his daughter, FoxNews, Trump voters, people who read and talk about "conspiracy theories" online, people who doubt "The science", online conservative personalities and so many more.

And so no, it wasn't worth the time in my humble opinion, as with many other movies coming out of Hollywood these days, their agenda is so poorly thrown in the mix, that it ruins the movie experience, not so much because I may agree or disagree, but becase it's poorly added to the story, it makes one suspend the disbelief way too many times to think about something in the real world, it's a poor strategy and it makes for a bad movie, in my estimation.

It's ok if you enjoyed it, there's nothing wrong with that, I personally did not.
 
Top Bottom