Anonymous #3 20h

Why?

1

Anonymous #2 20h

Dm seems you like my vibes

1

Anonymous #1 20h

Why do you think so

1

Anonymous #2 20h

What are your thoughts?

1

Anonymous OP 20h

not a single significantly original aspect to it. tale as old as time with no nuance. every horror aspect has been done before. looks like shit, like exactly like his garbage skits, just darker. DOG SHIT dialogue. acting performances varying from dog shit to mediocre. extremely heavy handed in the worst way possible. you can just tell it came from a brain that stopped developing at 16 years old

1

Anonymous #1 19h

I didn’t like the reliance on loud music as a jump scare but I did like the man actress’s performance it was truly disturbing. I do not think a story has to be subversive to be good and to some extent nearly all media is an imitation of something else. Nothing is truly original (or rarely so) so I did enjoy the straightforward story. I feel like Hollywood focuses on trying to write complex nuance stories but in doing so lose the plot in favor of appearing intellectual or interesting.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

i really don’t think inde acted that well. not saying a movie needs to be entirely subversive, but this movie was entirely unoriginal in its plot, themes, cinematography, and horror gags. it’s just uninspired. yes no story is purely original in the sense that every story is influenced by earlier stories. being influenced is not the same thing as lacking originality tho. this movie isn’t just influenced, it borderline copies several things and just pastes them together.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

but to say there are no original stories is just incorrect. shit backrooms is very original. list of other very original movies: cabinet of dr caligari, eraserhead, meshes of the afternoon, tetsuo the ironman, stalker, the matrix, persona, inland empire, citizen kane, do the right thing, the list goes on.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

you don’t need to be complex to be original. examples: ikiru, a ton of iranian movies, the truman show, playtime, texas chainsaw massacre, run lola run

1

Anonymous #1 19h

I thought her facial expressions were disturbing. While unoriginal it does not make it less effective. Personally I liked the use of chiaroscuro to highlight the internal conflict of Nikki as well as certain shots cropping her face to communicate Bear’s perception of her as a trophy to attain rather a person with agency and flaws. Like I said one of the few things I don’t like is the loud music as a jumpscare but overall the movie was clear and somewhat knew the story it wanted to tell

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Yeah you’re right dear

1

Anonymous #1 19h

I’m not saying original stories don’t exist but to what extent is it truly original? Themes, plots, archetypes etc have existed since the here of storytelling itself. The way it is told is different but the skeleton is somewhat the same

1

Anonymous OP 19h

reaching

1

Anonymous #1 19h

How so?

1

Anonymous OP 19h

that’s statement is practically meaningless when looking at the bigger picture. if originality means inventing completely new human emotions, themes, or narrative functions, then almost nothing is original. if originality means creating a work that feels unlike what came before it, then originality absolutely exists.

1

Anonymous OP 19h

i can’t remember the exact scenes you’re talking about but how does cropping a characters face communicate that she is seen as a trophy and not a person

1

Anonymous #1 19h

So feelings make a work original? That’s subjective from person to person. Nobody will react to a work the same way

1

Anonymous #1 19h

That’s what I mean it’s impossible to come up with something new. By your logic if a person saw this movie and felt like it was nothing they haven’t seen it’s becomes original?

1

Anonymous OP 19h

i didn’t say feelings make a work original. i said originality can be judged by more than just themes and archetypes. whether someone personally finds a work original is subjective, sure. but that doesn’t mean originality itself is purely subjective. we can still talk about how unusual a work’s structure, style, ideas, or combination of influences are compared to what came before it.

1

Anonymous #1 19h

I never said you did and I think that’s the problem with Hollywood: some writers try to create a bigger than life, earth-changing story with complex storytelling but there’s a reason why stories in the past worked and resonanted with an audience. By trying to write something complex you not only forget to make a story that makes sense but it’s even more clear that’s it’s been done before

1

Anonymous #1 19h

But it is still somewhat subjective if it’s not purely correct? That’s why I said to some extent something isn’t original

1

Anonymous OP 19h

you’re turning this into two separate discussions. i agree complexity doesn’t mean quality. i already established that originality doesn’t mean complexity. i agree originality is subjective to some extent. my only point is that “not purely objective” doesn’t mean “doesn’t exist.” you can still reasonably say some works are more original than others, even if people disagree on where exactly the line is.

1

Anonymous #1 19h

Because this is the scene where he calls her “freaky Nikki” and through his pov we cannot register her reaction though we know based on what she said and what was told she didn’t like to be called that. To me it echoes the themes of neglecting one’s personhood in favor of personal desire. The face communicates intent, personality etc yet in that frame we only see her body showing his tunnel vision fantasy of having her not knowing her

1

Anonymous #1 19h

I didn’t say it didn’t exist. Just to some extent works will not be original

1

Anonymous OP 18h

honestly not as much of a reach as i originally thought, buts still like whatever to me. i also dont think curry barker has the mental capacity to do that purposefully

1

Anonymous OP 18h

i mean of course, nothing is 100% unique. your initial framing of the argument essentially was that essentially nothing is truly original. and if you argue that, it only logically follows that discussing originality of movies is meaningless

1

Anonymous #1 18h

I don’t think it was. I didn’t say that hence why I prefaced it with “to some extent”. Originality is difficult but not impossible, however we must accept that’s its relative. You’re initial definition of what originality was confusing but I can see what you mean

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Hey it’s your opinion I just wanted discourse. I don’t think this is the best movie of all time but it had a story and it told it clearly. Compared to the other horror movies as of late this felt like a breath of fresh air.

1

Anonymous OP 18h

fair. i would call it heavy handed, not clear, but fair. do you watch many horror movies? i watch a ton and it felt nothing like a breath of fresh air

1

Anonymous #1 18h

I do like horror but do I watch a lot? Not really just the ones I’ve seen are generic or the advertising was just unappealing cause the plot was predictable

1

Anonymous #1 16h

And I liked the symbolism of the movie. The blocking and lighting was good too

1