OK...I just wasted about 15 minutes of my life watching a cartoon of a bunch of people discussing whether a bike was stolen and how many gears it had.
What the heck is this???? Am I missing something? Does anyone REALLY like this? WHY the animation??
I'd rather watch SpongeBob. This is stupid.
"What's that? Bag o' tricks?" Glory
"No. Bag o' knives." Willow
More importantly, they were discussing whether some of the gears were stolen.
share
It was actually closer to 3:15 in length.
They couldn't grasp the concept of 6 * 3 = 18
Instead they see 6 + 3 = 9 and think they were grifted. The drugs rotted their brains.
[deleted]
Yep, that's hilarious.
Please...I'm married to an engineer. If I thought stuff like that was funny, I'd spend all our time together squirting milk out of my nose.
I still say the movie was a loser, and I don't regret not finishing it a bit. I think it's a stoner movie; you have to be high to find it interesting or entertaining. Of course, that's JMHO.
I will not be beaten; you have yet to see me shining!
Although I can see why you'd think this is a "stoner movie" it has a lot more to it than that. Personally, I think for something to be a "stoner movie" it has to portray drugs in a positive light, and drugs are very much shown negatively -- without spoiling too much, the film is about one character's destruction by drugs but his ultimate redemption as a human being after his horrific crash and burn.
The bike scene is an early context set-up for how Substance D is scrambling their brains (and if you pay close attention you'll notice that each person in the scene is scrambled differently, hinting at what's to come.) Perhaps too subtle for your tastes -- especially on a first viewing with you apparently having a very negative reaction to the whole thing. That's fine; the movie's not for everyone.
And btw, I know a number of non-stoners who love this film.
Anyway, (and my apologies if this sounds elitist) but either you "get" this movie or you don't... and you have to watch it all the way through to "get" it. There is a lot going on under the surface that comes out on a second or even third viewing, but if you couldn't even make it 15 minutes into the film, then it's probably safe to say this film isn't your cup of tea.
Al: "What do people do for fun in this town?"
Max: "They eat the dinner."
[deleted]
This hasn't been mentioned yet: the bike scene is a lot more relevant to the plot in the novel. I hate for this to have to be a "you had to read the book to get it" point, but it is.
In the book, the doctors reveal that the reason they're examining Fred for substance D side effects is because of the bike incident: Fred mentioned the "missing gears" to Hank in passing because he thought it was funny, and the doctors listen to recorded sessions of Hank and Fred's talks. The doctors were concerned that literally no one in that house (in the novel, Freck is also present during the bike incident) noticed that you were supposed to multiply the gears, not add them. They figured Fred's perception of reality was being affected negatively by substance D because of this, and they were right.
Fred then argues that his cognition was impaired, not his perception, because although he did not calculate the correct amount of speeds, he saw the correct amount of gears. The doctors then explain to him that his perception is indeed impaired because he failed to _perceive_ how the gears interact with each other. Not to mention, this seems like it should be child's play for 3 guys who can practically dismantle and reassemble a car, compared to the young uneducated kid who sold them the bike and was able to explain how the gears interact with each other perfectly.
OMG THERE'S A BOOK?????? Somebody read this BOOK and thought it would make a good movie???? *shudder*
J/K Both of the above replies are really helpful; it's very true that it wouldn't make sense (this scene, I mean) if it's just a random scene, but if it is foreshadowing something that happens later, and I don't see that, then I've taken the scene completely out of context. So it's understandable that it seems like jibberish to me. Maybe one day I'll watch the whole thing. I am capable of following nuances and understanding subtleties (sp??). But I think you are right; I think that this movie is just not my cup of tea. And that's ok...These boards would be pretty boring if we all thought the same thing about every movie.
I will not be beaten; you have yet to see me shining!
The book's pretty decent; the guy who wrote it also wrote the books that inspired the films Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, etc. This film's pretty faithful to the book, though it has some minor changes (such as how the bike scene is handled as noted above by a different replier.) It was a very personal book for the author: he had been an amphetamine addict for about 15 years and finally had a "speed psychosis" breakdown... he wrote this when he got out of rehab. I gather writing it was a cathartic experience: his wife would find him at the typewriter, crying.
Personally, I find the bike scene hilarious, though in a schadenfreude sort of way, and there are some similar scenes later on where they are having ridiculous cognitive-impaired arguments that underscore that their minds are becoming drug-disintegrated. By then it's shifted from dark comedy to tragedy. I guess it takes a slightly warped sense of humor to laugh at the bike dialogue etc. so no harm/no foul if this sort of thing isn't your style.
The movie does hold up very well to repeated viewings: once you have an idea of what the plot is and know how to filter events, lots of things take on new meanings in this new light, and you start noticing lots of little touches that help bring things full circle. Obviously, you have to be able to make it all the way through, and I have known people who couldn't get more than half way before giving up on it. So don't feel bad if it didn't click with you...
Al: "What do people do for fun in this town?"
Max: "They eat the dinner."
Troll.
share2 people having an intelligent discussion are trolls? Are we just trading insults now? OK...I'll play.
Just when I was so sure I would never find a reason to question my adamant pro-life stance, along comes someone so nasty, it makes me think that retroactive abortions might not be a bad idea.
Are we even now, helderuto, or can we stop?
_________________
If history does repeat itself, I am SO getting a dinosaur!
That was excessive.
shareI agree, spongebob is more your cup of tea. It seems the animation already served a purpose here.
share