"I think now you are arguing just for the sake of doing it." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Well you're wrong.
"The director was very clear about his intentions in the quote RinaLou posted. The fact that that particular scene was deleted is completely irrelevant, since the director's intention is very clear when he says things like: "at first, the film seemed to be a psycho-drama, of this girl with mental problems. BUT THE GHOST REVEALS ITSELF TO EUN-JU, LATER ON. Then, it becomes a story about a family's tragic accident. AND ABOUT A GHOST"." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Yes, the director was clear in that quote, however, when people watch the film they neither know nor care what the director says in the special features. They care what the director actually manages to get into the story and onto the screen. All films must stand on their own feet, without any support from outside sources ie Director's commentary.
This is why the irrelevancy is the deleted scenes themselves, not the fact that they were deleted. When scenes are deleted from a film they can change the intended course of the film. A case in point is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Joel was supposed to be cheating on Naomi at the time that he started a relationship with Clementine. The scene containing this information was deleted from the film in order to make Joel a more likeable character from the beginning. I don't hear anyone claiming that Joel is a dick because he cheated on his girlfriend. Why? Because the scene is not relevant any more due to it being deleted. Now that was a deliberate deletion in order to create a definite change, but even when a change isn't deliberate (as in A Tale of Two Sisters) it is still a change to the final story, caused by deleting scenes.
It's like telling a ghost story and wondering why people don't react the way you want them to, and then realising that you deleted the scene where the woman got killed at the beginning of the story, and so couldn't have been a ghost.
"You just don't want to accept that you were wrong when you said that your scenario was the one with the least assumptions. You can interpret it the way you want, but don't act as if your interpretation is more "logical", when it is not even what the director actually did with the movie, as proven by his own quotes." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Please, I have no problem accepting when I am wrong.
So what do you think is logical in a film that tells us that the main character is unstable, and doesn't tell us that ghosts exist? Is it not logical to use the information presented in the film? Now, had Jee-woon Kim included the scene where Su-Yeon's 'ghost' makes the unplugged fan rotate then I would accept that she had been a ghost the whole time, but he didn't, and so there is nothing to tell us that Su-Yeon is indeed a 'ghost'.
"This logic makes absolutely no sense. We can apply your faulty logic to any movie. I could just randomly say things like "everything in The Exorcist was just in the characters' heads, because that's only ONE assumption, but if we accept that the girl was actually possessed, then we must assume that an afterlife exists, that God exists, that the Devil exists, bla bla, therefore my random interpretation makes more sense because it is based only on ONE assumption rather than many". What an absolutely pointless way of interpreting horror movies." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Look, I'm talking about
assumptions verses
information contained within a film. In your example of The Exorcist you are talking about interpretations, not assumptions. Everything being in the characters' heads would be an interpretation based on assumptions. Also, that is a pretty weak example, as the girl being possessed is actually the main part of the story and the audience is told a few times that she is possessed and so it isn't even an assumption, rather it is information presented in the film itself. This is the world that that film exists in; there are priests, exorcisms, god and the devil, etc, etc. No-one even questions how Regan could know what the young priest is torturing himself over ... because she's possessed by the devil. That truth is part of the narrative of that film. All of that exists within the realm of the film, as was laid out by the film itself. Not assumptions.
You can't have "random interpretations", interpretations must be based on information contained within a film, and therefore are not "random". Making sh!t up is "random".
"Also, there's not much sense in using the "religion and afterlife are nonsense" card when it comes to horror movies, especially when there are ghosts in it." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
I didn't say "religion and afterlife are nonsense", I said that within the world as presented by the film, ghosts are not a given. Do you expect ghosts to appear in every horror you watch? With there being only
one scene that has, what looks like, a ghost in it, that scene is open to interpetation. Had there been several 'ghosts' in the story, witnessed by people whose sanity wasn't in question, then there would have been a theme involving the supernatural ... but there wasn't.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that every time we see Su-Yeon (apart from the time before her death), she is in fact a ghost, and not a delusional projection from Su-Mi? A ghost that Su-Mi can touch? A ghost that shares scenes with, and interacts with, Eun-Joo, (who is a delusional projection from Su-Mi's mind)?
"...especially when there are ghosts in it." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
You do realise that you can't use the point in contention as evidence to back up your argument, right? That's like saying "My god exists, because it says so in the bible".
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
Tales-from-the-Goondocks
12 years ago
No, I'm sorry, but I'm not showing any kind of circular reasoning here. The ghosts are seen in the movie, whether you believe that people imagined them or not, objectively they are seen there and that's what the director himself intended. You can interpret the movie anyway you want, but as I said, that obviously isn't the more logical interpretation and it isn't what the director intended, so please stop telling other users that their interpretation isn't the most logical and yours is, because clearly that's not the case. If ghosts are seen in the movie and the director himself said they are ghosts, then THEY ARE GHOSTS. It's THAT simple. Other interpretations such as "it was all in her head" are unnecessary at this point.
And my exorcist example is perfectly applied here. It follows your logic that "less assumptions is better".
"I think now you are arguing just for the sake of doing it." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks"
Well you're wrong.
Apparently I'm not.
Please, I have no problem accepting when I am wrong.
Apparently you do.
reply
share
Jameron
12 years ago
"The ghosts are seen in the movie, whether you believe that people imagined them or not..." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
If they're imagined, they're not ghosts, they're figments of someone's imagination.
"what the director himself intended" - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
What the director intends, and what makes it into the film, aren't always the same thing.
"You can interpret the movie anyway you want, but as I said, that obviously isn't the more logical interpretation" - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Why not? Because you said so? Prove it, or at least discuss it, don't just repeat your opinion as if it is fact.
"And my exorcist example is perfectly applied here. It follows your logic that "less assumptions is better"." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Apart from just coming up with "It's all in their heads" seemingly from nowhere, as it is never even hinted at in the film itself.
Coupled with, completely ignoring the world that the film itself creates. 'The Exorcist' creates a world where the supernatural is part of the fabric of life, and the film. This means that 'the supernatural' is not an assumption, it is part of the film.
A Tale of Two Sisters? ... not so much.
Also, it's not
my logic, it is Occam's Razor.
.
I notice you didn't offer a response to these points...
"This is why the irrelevancy is the deleted scenes themselves, not the fact that they were deleted. When scenes are deleted from a film they can change the intended course of the film. A case in point is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Joel was supposed to be cheating on Naomi at the time that he started a relationship with Clementine. The scene containing this information was deleted from the film in order to make Joel a more likeable character from the beginning. I don't hear anyone claiming that Joel is a dick because he cheated on his girlfriend. Why? Because the scene is not relevant any more due to it being deleted. Now that was a deliberate deletion in order to create a definite change, but even when a change isn't deliberate (as in A Tale of Two Sisters) it is still a change to the final story, caused by deleting scenes."
"So what do you think is logical in a film that tells us that the main character is unstable, and doesn't tell us that ghosts exist? Is it not logical to use the information presented in the film? Now, had Jee-woon Kim included the scene where Su-Yeon's 'ghost' makes the unplugged fan rotate then I would accept that she had been a ghost the whole time, but he didn't, and so there is nothing to tell us that Su-Yeon is indeed a 'ghost'."
"You can't have "random interpretations", interpretations must be based on information contained within a film, and therefore are not "random". Making sh!t up is "random"."
"Let me get this straight, are you saying that every time we see Su-Yeon (apart from the time before her death), she is in fact a ghost, and not a delusional projection from Su-Mi? A ghost that Su-Mi can touch? A ghost that shares scenes with, and interacts with, Eun-Joo, (who is a delusional projection from Su-Mi's mind)?"
.
Come on, are you even trying? Don't just belligerently stand your ground by repeating your initial stance, debate me.
Prove me wrong.
If your response contains words to the effect of "that's what the Director intended", or "as I have already said", or "you just like to argue", then I'll simply put you on ignore, as I have better things to do that to engage in playground arguments.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
Tales-from-the-Goondocks
12 years ago
If they're imagined, they're not ghosts, they're figments of someone's imagination.
But they aren't imagined as the director clearly stated, so they are ghosts.
What the director intends, and what makes it into the film, aren't always the same thing.
What the director intended is actually in the film. The ghosts that are seen there, that you interpreted to be something else, are NOT something else. They are GHOSTS. In this case, what the director intended did actually make it into the film. PERIOD. "You are smarter than the director and the director doesn't know what he's talking about" - said no one EVER. You are just arguing because you don't want to accept that you are wrong.
Why not? Because you said so? Prove it, or at least discuss it, don't just repeat your opinion as if it is fact.
Not because
I said so, but because the director said so. The director clearly said that the ghosts that are seen in the movie are in fact ghosts, so there's no need for other far-fetched interpretations, i.e. yours. Your interpretations about what the ghosts may or may not be are completely irrelevant, because the director has already said that they are ghosts.
Coupled with, completely ignoring the world that the film itself creates. 'The Exorcist' creates a world where the supernatural is part of the fabric of life, and the film. This means that 'the supernatural' is not an assumption, it is part of the film.
A Tale of Two Sisters? ... not so much.
A Tale of Two Sisters creates a world where the supernatural is part of the fabric of life, as it you can see in the film (you know, when you see the actual ghosts) and as you can read in the director's quote.
I notice you didn't offer a response to these points...
That's because I don't need to. The director himself said that the ghosts that you claim are no ghosts are actually that: GHOSTS. There's nothing more to discuss. My own interpretation and rebuttal of your interpretation is completely irrelevant, because we have the director's own quote to settle this argument.
Again: you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. You are arguing because you don't want to accept that you are wrong. What the director intended IS in the film, don't act as if NO ONE ever thought that the ghosts in the movie were actually ghosts. Most people got that from the movie because that's what the director put in the movie. You were wrong and that's it. You can cry and try to rationalize everything in the movie but you are WRONG. You are telling us that the good director of this movie didn't know what he was doing, that he is wrong about his own work, and that we should pay attention to your random and dumb interpretations. I'm sorry but NO. Can't you accept this? NO, no one here will say "you are right and the director is wrong". Get that into your head.
reply
share
Jameron
12 years ago
*sigh*
"The ghosts are seen in the movie, whether you believe that people imagined them or not..." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks"If they're imagined, they're not ghosts, they're figments of someone's imagination." - Me"But they aren't imagined as the director clearly stated, so they are ghosts." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Way to miss the point completely.
"What the director intended is actually in the film. The ghosts that are seen there, that you interpreted to be something else, are NOT something else. They are GHOSTS. In this case, what the director intended did actually make it into the film. PERIOD. "You are smarter than the director and the director doesn't know what he's talking about" - said no one EVER. You are just arguing because you don't want to accept that you are wrong." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Really? You think pointing to 'ghosts' under contention is proof that the 'ghosts' exist? smh
"Not because I said so, but because the director said so. The director clearly said that the ghosts that are seen in the movie are in fact ghosts, so there's no need for other far-fetched interpretations, i.e. yours. Your interpretations about what the ghosts may or may not be are completely irrelevant, because the director has already said that they are ghosts." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Oh right, so you're just going to repeat your opinion as if it's fact, well done.
"A Tale of Two Sisters creates a world where the supernatural is part of the fabric of life, as it you can see in the film (you know, when you see the actual ghosts) and as you can read in the director's quote." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
That has got to be the most laughable and ridiculous response I have ever read. You're just gamesaying what I said and then pointing at the 'ghosts'. You can't use the alleged 'ghosts' as evidence of their own existence. You really don't understand this point, do you?
"That's because I don't need to." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
Yes you do. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to destroy all my supportive arguments with logic and facts from the film itself. Otherwise you're just stamping your feet and repeating your mantra that "the director intended this", "the director intended that". Directors are not infallible. Jee-woon Kim made an excellent film about a girl losing her mind due to guilt, and the tragic consequences of one's actions. If he intended to have ghosts in there as well he forgot to put the information in there to stop people seeing other possibilities. Deal with it.
Quick, reach for your security blanket of "what the director intended".
Having the ability to
enbolden and ALLCAP words, doesn't make you right. Neither does simply repeating the same thing over and over and over. Also, resorting to ad hominem is the usual tactic for someone with no idea how to argue their case.
As promised ... Welcome to ignore, good day.
.
PS. feel free to respond by claiming you won the discussion. I know you will, even though all you did was prove how closed minded, and how incapable of discussing and thinking for yourself, you are.
.
PPS. You are a fine one to accuse others of arguing for the sake of it. You jumped into a thread on The Host board just to argue with the OP when he was attacking something that you didn't even like...
"I don't enjoy these books or the Twilight books, I just wanted to tell you how much of an idiot you are." - Tales-from-the-Goondocks
-- Well done.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
Tales-from-the-Goondocks
12 years ago
Your argument is: I'm right, the director is wrong. No, just....no. Shut up already. You are wrong. The director himself is telling you that you are wrong. There's nothing else to argue about. Stop trying to rationalize your own stupid perception of the film. You are factually wrong and the director's quote prove it. You just can't accept that you are wrong. The director put ghosts in the movie, you thought they weren't ghosts, but as it turns out, THEY ARE. The director said it himself. You are wrong and that's a fact (as it was proved by the director himself), not a matter of opinion. PERIOD. Accept you are wrong and shut the fück up already.
reply
share
12 years ago
[deleted]
ToHelenBackAgain
12 years ago
If Su-Mi, whom we know to live largely in her imagination, were the only person in the film to see a ghost, "the director is wrong about what he showed" would be arguable.
But she isn't.
The film is quite clear that some actual haunting is also happening.
"You said you'd met more interesting artichokes." "Well, he was alive then."
reply
share
Jameron
12 years ago
"If Su-Mi, whom we know to live largely in her imagination, were the only person in the film to see a ghost, "the director is wrong about what he showed" would be arguable.
But she isn't.
The film is quite clear that some actual haunting is also happening." - ToHelenBackAgain
Would you like to point out where the 'haunting' occurs, please?
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
ToHelenBackAgain
12 years ago
As you know perfectly well - heck, no one even had to watch the movie for this, it's right here in this topic - the ghost of Soo-yeon is also seen by Mi-hee and Eun-joo.
It's a little silly to assume that hallucinations are occurring in all cases, as if they're contagious or something. Soo-mi is the only delusional personality here. (It ISN'T catching, I promise.)
"You said you'd met more interesting artichokes." "Well, he was alive then."
reply
share
Jameron
12 years ago
"As you know perfectly well" - ToHelenBackAgain
Well, I could
assume that I know, or you could tell me precisely. It's not good to assume one knows what another is thinking.
"...the ghost of Soo-yeon is also seen by Mi-hee and Eun-joo." - ToHelenBackAgain
Mi-Hee was clearly unstable, she carried medication around with her, which shows that she often has these attacks when stressed. She was present in the house when Su-Yeon and the mother died, she heard the noise of the wardrobe falling and did nothing, she carries the guilt of her inaction around with her. At the time of this attack she is in the house where Su-Yeon died, she is having a stress induced attack, is it any wonder she hallucinates Su-Yeon at that time? Did you not understand the meaning of the director showing everyone's inaction when the wardrobe fell over? Did you not understand that everyone there carries guilt around with them because of their inaction? Did you not understand the meaning of...
"Do you know what's really scary? You want to forget something. Totally wipe it off your mind. But you never can. It can't go away, you see. And... and it follows you around like a ghost."
That quote doesn't only apply to Su-Mi, it applies to everyone that was there when Su-Yeon died.
What happens to Eun-Joo is a classic revenge fantasy. Are you telling me that Su-Yeon's ghost put the blood under the floorboards to tie in with Su-Mi's insane imaginings of what happened earlier? Didn't you find it more than convenient that Bae Moo-hyeon just disappears when he and Eun-Joo arrive at his house? Don't you find it strange that even with the creepy whistling, and the door slamming, he doesn't come to find out what's going on? Are you just ignoring the hints given by Eun-Joo's slippers?
"It's a little silly to assume that hallucinations are occurring in all cases, as if they're contagious or something." - ToHelenBackAgain
I'm not
assuming hallucinations are occurring in all cases, I'm
interpreting the film. I could easily say to you that it is silly to assume that because this is a Korean film with death and girls with long black hair that "ghosts did it", couldn't I? Stop being a dick.
"Soo-mi is the only delusional personality here." - ToHelenBackAgain
Su-Mi isn't delusional, she has a dissociative identity disorder. Delusional people willingly believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary, people with dissociative identity disorder can't control what they believe.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfEhttp://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
reply
share
RinaLou
11 years ago
Your patience is seriously admirable.
It's just that some cases, are hopeless...
reply
share
Tales-from-the-Goondocks
11 years ago
I had forgotten about this conversation. After re-reading it, I only feel the need to say the exact same thing to my past self: "Your patience is seriously admirable". Just a few months later and, after more discussions like this with other people like him, my patience has run out.
reply
share