Anonymous #2 1d

I dont think you understand what media literacy is. This movie has a thin plot. Characters generally dont make decisions that reveal their characters. There's a fleshed out setting (the backrooms)and theme (true natures, is perception reality?), but there's nothing in the writing that is interesting outside of that.

0

Anonymous OP 1d

hahahahahahahaha

1

Anonymous OP 1d

imagine thinking a movie’s setting + theme dont count as part of the writing. the entire point of the narrative structure here is atmospheric and psychological, not plot mechanical. forcing a character to make big, active “character defining choices” in an infinite, indifferent liminal maze defeats the entire thematic purpose of human helplessness and trying to understand oneself. reducing all cinematic writing to just “plot and choices” is exactly the lack of media literacy I was talking about

6

Anonymous OP 1d

god humanity really has no hope does it

3

Anonymous #2 23h

I literally never said the setting and theme arent writing??? I said those are the only two good things about the writing. How about we start READING and COMPREHENDING next time before we speak...

1

Anonymous #2 23h

SPOILERS: The narrative structure doesnt fully commit to being either atmospheric and psychological, or plot mechanical. If it's meant to be psycological, why does it completely skip Clark's decent into madness? Why does the therapist's story end without her interacting with her trauma mentally or physically in the backrooms? There's a distinct lack of an Act III, which makes the movie feel unfinished, not open ended.

1

Anonymous OP 23h

saying “the writing is bad, except for the massive, central themes and the entire environmental framework” is just hysterical. if the setting and the existential themes are incredible and drive the whole movie, then the writing is doing exactly what it's supposed to do for an experiential film. you can’t call the writing terrible while admitting the two biggest pillars of the script are well fleshed out

4

Anonymous OP 23h

i could see this being a communication issue, but the poor communication kinda falls on your syntax and wording was just poor

3

Anonymous OP 23h

i just think you don't understand experiential movies. you’re complaining about a missing act III and a lack of character trauma payoffs because you're expecting a traditional, paint by numbers narrative. experiential horror doesn't care about satisfying script checklists. it's about sitting in an unresolved, oppressive atmosphere. the fact that it feels unfinished to you means the movie achieved exactly what it set out to do.

5

Anonymous OP 23h

it’s fine to not be a fan of it, but it feels like you lack understanding due to lack of exposure to different kinds of media, and just want movies to hold your hand

3

Anonymous #2 23h

My perspective: Good: Setting+Theme; Bad: Plot+Character Development+Pacing+Conclusion/Arc. Movie fails to commit to being psych/atmo or plot/mech, therefore I will judge all writing aspects. Your perspective: Good: Setting+Theme. Movie is psych/atmo therefore the plot is not essential to writing.

-1

Anonymous OP 23h

completely strawmanning my point. you continue to display your lack of media literacy. you just don’t understand the writing choices AT ALL. the minimalist, unconventional plot is a choice and a very fitting one. your stance is essentially just not liking unconventional story telling because it doesn’t fit into a checklist you created

3

Anonymous #2 23h

If you compare the Backrooms to an actual experimental liminal movie like Skinamarink, it really exposes how Backrooms is not intended to be some experimental thing. I think Backrooms is best compared to I Saw the TV Glow, which is an good representation of an experimental psych/atmo movie that develops theme and is a god example of ending on a note of unresolved trauma without the movie being unresolved.

-1

Anonymous OP 22h

To say there’s no character development is wild to me because that’s virtually the whole movie. It’s literally a deep dive into two characters’ psychologies. If you really think there was no plot or conclusion I just don’t know what to tell you. There’s a logical beginning, middle, and end to Clark’s descent into madness and isolation, as well as Mary’s journey following him into it. Not every movie has a huge final battle with characters aura farming and the bad guy exploding in the end.

7

Anonymous #1 22h

thank you. i need to stop arguing with doo doo brains

9

Anonymous OP 22h

Also, throughout this whole thread you haven’t brought up a single scene or story beat or anything that you specifically didn’t like. You just say “bad writing bad writing” but you can’t articulate why you think that.

5

Anonymous OP 22h

+ backrooms really isn’t comparable to anything. there’s just nothing like it (to my knowledge). it’s nothing like i saw the tv glow. it’s like trying to describe a dog to someone who’s never seen one before

5

Anonymous #1 22h

Literally how. There's very little character interaction and dialogue, and there's no plot mechanisms to "show dont tell". Again, comparing Backrooms to its 5⭐️ peers like Skinamarink and I Saw the TV Glow, it really exposes that this movie is missing something.

-1

Anonymous #1 22h

I specifically didn't like the dinner scene because I felt that Clark was too unhinged. I thought we missed a very large chunk of time where he goes from obsessed and scared to unhinged and best friends with the monsters...We understand WHY Clark's loneliness and unwillingness to take accountability causes him to become crazy, but we dont understand the HOW. It's just like he magically decides "I guess i like it here." It literally feels like we skipped a few scenes.

0

Anonymous OP 22h

I mean that’s literally just wrong. I’m curious as to how you interpret the movie as a whole. What is this movie about? What do Clark and Mary have in common? How are they different? What message did you take away from it? I’d like to hear your thoughts on those points specifically.

8

Anonymous OP 22h

I mean, it’s not clear how much time had passed, and maybe time works differently in the backrooms. I don’t think we really needed to see what exactly drove him crazy because it’s the logical conclusion to his character based on everything we saw before. He is a classic example of a person who can’t be helped because he doesn’t want to be helped. He seeks validation for his past actions rather than plans to change the future

8

Anonymous OP 22h

you are actually doing what the movie is reflecting on: trying to logically explain something that is just irrational. you are asking for spelled out answers to something that is told in a abstract, borderline spiritual manner

1

Anonymous #1 22h

I'll take a stab at it. The Backrooms is a physical manifestation of its inhabitants memories, except it refracts and distorts those memories. Therefore Clark experiences the Backrooms as an escape from reality and as a place where he can avoid confronting his real life and feelings, and the Backrooms physically represent that by "misremembering" reality. Mary's trauma is that she feels trapped: physically "behind the glass/window (motif)" during her childhood & emotionally to her abusive mom.

1

Anonymous OP 21h

Mary wants to "break the glass" (escape the trauma (represented by the backrooms)) but a copy of her is still left trapped in the windowless Backrooms, representing how she will emotionally always feel trapped. (In my opinion that's where the movie fails to explore how she never truly escapes. So, what?). Clark wants to avoid breaking the glass and confronting his trauma.

1

Anonymous OP 21h

Like I said, while the movie this thematically strong, the movie fails to build a strong story around theme. If the point you're trying to make has no payoff, is it a point worth making?

1

Anonymous OP 9h

This movie is not supposed to be the end of the backrooms. Kane is planning to do either a limited series or a second movie to fully finish his story of the backrooms

2