"Make the end of the world.... Great Again!" - Bird Box (2018) Discussion

[–] Nanook (1951) 6 years ago

Yeah, that felt really clumsy, not to mention a third of the other characters' dialogue was just virtue signaling. There was a little to like here and there, but you can't do much with a dumb script.

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 6 years ago

About an hour in I realized the entire movie was just an anti-Trump allegory, with fear of “dangerous outsiders” standing in for racist deplorables against illegal immigrants. Damn near turned it off.

That lame line probably seemed right clever to a twenty-something Hollywood hipster hanging out with unemployed screenwriters all day at Starbucks.

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

Yup, pretty much how I took it as well. And yet, *SPOILER* the guy who they took in ended up being crazy and dangerous after all. Hmmmm.

reply

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 6 years ago

ironically though, the racist white guy afraid of outsiders ended up being right about them.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 6 years ago

Touche! He was correct about everything!

😎

reply

[–] PussyMonster (294) 6 years ago

This is based on a book that came out back in 2014.

reply

[–] phifty2 (141) 6 years ago

Unfuckingbelievable. I read the book a about a year ago and while it wasn't perfect it was a pretty interesting horror scenario with some interesting scenes and characters.

About 25 minutes into the film I got the "Oh, he we go again" feeling and came to these boards to hopefully prove my gut wrong. Nope.

Can't we just tell a horror story without trying to attach it to the political agenda du jour?

As far as I can remember the book was not an allegory but a straight up horror tale. Fuck that though.

Turned it off. And that's a shame because if they didn't insert all their bullshit political agenda it would have made a good film.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

Maybe I was so engrossed in the story to realize it, but I didn't detect any political agenda. Do you mind explaining?

Past the quote in the thread title. But I didn't tie the "great again" reference as any favorable/unfavorable commentary, to me any character could've said this in the movie, as it was passed off as a joke (and ironically even though Malkovich's character was a jerk, he was one of the few heros, and was 100% right about the outsider...so what politics does that favor about outsiders?). Perhaps I interpret jokes differently, but to me making a joke doesn't necessarily mean you're in agreement or disagreement towards the subject of the joke.

Even though the reference was political, I saw it as neutral, as that phrase has ingrained itself in mainstream culture so much it extends past politics. It would be no different if this movie was made in 2010, and a "yes we can" joke was made...it wouldn't necessarily mean the writers were anti-Obama.

reply

[–] phifty2 (141) 6 years ago

Again, I detected no allegory in the book but did in the film. Maybe I'll give it another shot.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong and there could've been allegory, I could've missed something in the movie too.

reply

[–] Bigt (114) 6 years ago

What a suzie....grow a pair and stop reading into things so much and then getting hurt feelings from them...good talk.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 6 years ago

I don't get the complaints about John Malcolvich's character. He's a surrogate for the audience. He was the smartest one and despite being an "asshole" as he said himself he was almost "always right". I wanted to smack that naive cow for jeopardizing everyone's lives by letting in a stranger (at which point they have ample reason not to allow in random strangers) without conferring with or alerting anyone beforehand. He was the only one who had a sensible reaction.

reply

[–] replicant4 (219) 6 years ago

SPOILERS...
Threadkiller....I completely agree. I think people are looking for political implications and reading them into these kinds of movies. Malcolvich's character....while abrasive and blunt, proved to be 100% correct with regards to letting strangers in. And, he was heroic...in confronting (and getting a shot off) against the crazy guy. So, if his character was supposedly representative of Trump (abrasive and blunt, but ultimately...he was right), I suppose anyone can read things into the movie (based on their own leanings).

As a whole, it was a good movie, with lots of good, TENSE scenes. Some missed opportunities. But some nicely done scenes as well. The scene with the crazy affected guy in the river was nice and creepy. I just wish they would have better explained how the crazy guys were "immune" to the self-destruction component.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 6 years ago

I mostly agree with your general impression of the film. One of the gripes I had though was Gary who turned out to be a psycho. What I didn't get was how he was able to present himself as "normal" for an extended period. He exhibited none of the weird drone-like psycho behavior or creepy eyes to give him away, then suddenly he turns on the "obvious psycho" switch when everyone else is distracted and everything goes to heck. Unless I missed something I feel a little more explanation was needed there.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

That's what I'm saying.

These MAGA weirdos try to make everything an attack on Trump. Malkovich's character was RIGHT.

If anything, you could argue the movie was pro-Trump because it showed how dangerous letting strangers in was.

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

For those of you arguing that this could be perceived as pro Trump, you're missing the point of my original post. Please note where I stated,

"I don't even care about the politics of it, I'm just sick of it being in movies. I dislike anything that snaps me back to reality when I'm trying to simply lose myself in the story."

Again, to be clear: Pro Trump, Anti Trump, I don't care and arguing that point is meaningless to me. What I'm sick of is movies inserting real life political jabs or motives or whatever else into movies. There's no possible way you could argue that the line, "Make the end of the world.... great again!" was anything other than based on real life politics. I watch movies to lose myself in the film and escape for 2 hours. Stuff like this pulls me out of the movie and completely ruins the experience. That's what I take issue with.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

But art always has politics interjected into it. Some is just more subtle than others.

Movies like "Ironman" had people from the Pentagon injecting their agenda in it.

The Pentagon itself has had it's hands in 1,000s of Hollywood movies from "Top Gun" to "Transformers".

Maybe a less hamfisted approach is what you mean, but virtually every piece of art is political, whether you know it or not

reply

[–] SoZi (103) 6 years ago

YES, thank you! That's the answer I wanted to write. Art always have to reflect the views of the artist! No matter what they are, you can disagree with it, but art is a channel of the problems of society! It has to be! If it's not, the world is f*cked! Because it starts conversations... This is also the main reason why oppressing governments restricting arts as a first act...
Movies are just another art form. As you mentioned, even entertaining movies have these "agendas". They're still art!

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

This is a horror/thriller movie about phantom creatures going around causing people to kill themselves. It doesn't need politics. It certainly doesn't need ham fisted politics. They made it far too obvious and it detracted from the movie. That's all. I don't need to get some sort of deeper meaning anti-Trump (or pro Trump, if you're really silly enough to think that's what they were going for) message from a movie like this. We're already bombarded by it in our lives.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

Again, you're revealing your bias here because you're seeing it as anti-Trump.

Objectively (as somebody who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton), I saw it as the character being one of the heroes of the story.

He was at first seen as an asshole with his grumpy demeanor, but eventually was proven right by his stances and even tried to save everybody at great risk to himself.

If we were going by your premise that he was the Trump character, he would've been wrong and definitely not tried to save everyone at risk to himself.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3075) 6 years ago

^ Totally this. You really have to go out of you way to be triggered over John Malkovich's character.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

100% agree with this.

Not only that he was revealed to have deeply loved his 3rd wife and while he was drunk spoke of how much she affected him and made him a better man. Her loss obviously tragically affected him.

As someone that finds almost no redeeming qualities in Trump I never would drawn that comparison to Malkovich's character. He was actually highly intelligent and met a heroic and selfless end, qualities I don't see in Trump AT ALL.

The only similarity I could see is that they're both cantankerous. So what? Other than that they couldn't be more different. Trump doesn't have a gun obsession in real life.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

Exactly, these MAGA people are insane. They literally see Trump slander in everything.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

No, both extreme ends of the political spectrum are insane! That's what extremism does, it makes you completely unaware of bias and overly sensitive. Extremism = bias.

I'm sorry that you see the world as a simpleton would, in a black & white MAGA vs liberal view.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Except no one was talking about that snowflake.

We were talking about the extremism on the MAGA end before your radical centrist SJW self took offense that lip service wasn't being paid to liberal extremism.

Get over yourself.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

Lol! Keep on throwing out those labels without applying them to any argument, whatsoever. Your label projecting makes 0 sense to any point I made, or the views I hold, haha. Simpleton.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

lolz. Kind of like your go-to label 'simpleton' when you're too simple to understand the point? luuulz!

I was addressing the irony of your snowflake sensitivity in a discussion about MAGA extremism. You got all uppity that lip service wasn't being paid to liberal extremism when no one was talking about that. By doing so, you outed yourself as a right wing SJW that exemplifies exactly what we were talking about. You deserve the derision you get.

I think it's hilarious that you're too stupid to even see the irony of your own posts.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 6 years ago

What's a "right wing SJW"?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Exactly what it sounds like. A social justice warrior that loves to play PC morality police by getting offended at everything, except instead of on the extreme left they're ideological aligned with magatards on the right and melt down when they imagine getting breathed on.

This guy above who just flipped out because liberal extremists weren't being equally criticized when no one was even talking about liberal extremists serves as perfect canon fodder.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

I never said there weren't crazies on the left.

But that's not what this thread is about or the people who have been spamming this board.

I don't see people claiming Bernie Sanders slander in every movie or Hillary Clinton slander. It's always the Trump obsessives who think every single movie that comes out is attacking them.

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 6 years ago

“If anything, you could argue the movie was pro-Trump because it showed how dangerous letting strangers in was.“

Not ultimately.
In the end the blind school folk “take the high road” and let the unknown woman and her kids in despite the danger. Because it’s the right thing to do. Of course.

For those not seeing the allegory:

- central theme is whether to show compassion for outsiders or stay safe by shutting them out

- the more paranoid characters like Malkovich are shown to be a-holes , even if later proven right

- death is caused by malevolent belief — seeing horrors that are not real

- crazy people see beauty and harmony in the deadly belief instead of the truth that it’s deadly

It’s an allegory for sure, and a none-too-subtle one.
Probably pitched to Netflix as just that.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

"crazy people see beauty and harmony in the deadly belief instead of the truth that it’s deadly"

IMO this isn't quite accurate. The crazy people are trying to get everyone to take their blindfolds off to see the beauty yes, but they're also homicidal maniacs like the guy the pregnant woman let in.

reply

[–] President4Life (282) 6 years ago

But Malkovich's character wasn't just right. He was redeemed by trying to save everyone else, even when it put him at risk. Plus, he was made sympathetic when it was revealed that his wife was the only thing that he had that made life worth living to him. An anti-Trump movie wouldn't make that character sympathetic at all. He would've just been an asshole because he was a bigot or deficient in some way.

And death is not caused by horrors that aren't real. The monsters were very real, that's why you couldn't look at them. If it wasnt real, then wearing a blindfold wouldn't have really mattered as the danger would've been psychosomatic and not literal.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Great points.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

I just wish they would have better explained how the crazy guys were "immune" to the self-destruction component.

Jeez, I'm going to start a thread about this. I thought it was obvious, but on reflection it was a subtle hint. It came from the guy in the loading dock in the supermarket, he said they "made a deal with him", or something along those lines. The demons or whatever were obviously sparing the weak or the wicked so they could lure more of the innocent out.

I don't know why so many people missed this.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

Shut the fuck up Republitard. Go cry to your framed picture of Trump

Only a retard snowflake would get offended by such a throwaway line

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

Too stupid to understand what I was even saying. Sounds about right for your kind.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

"For your kind"

And then pretends to "not care about the politics"

LOL just admit that you're a butt hurt Trumptard. Sorry that you have to be constantly reminded of how stupid your beliefs are and how much everyone hates you for them

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

I haven't voted for a Republican president for the past 4 election cycles. I have many liberal beliefs and some conservative, and I don't fall into party lines of any main party on all issues.

Dorks like you are the reason that a guy like Trump is president in the first place though. Judgemental fucks who would rather label people as horrible and slam them for their beliefs than understand why they think the way they do. It's people pushing back against assholes like you, not their "stupid beliefs". Feel free to crawl back under your rock now.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

Could give a fuck if racists and fascists want to push back. Yall are still nutjobs and no matter how many elections you win or how many people are on your side, nothing will change that. Artists from film and music will continue to shit on you on a regular basis, and that's a good thing

Trump is a piece of shit. If you don't believe that then you're a piece of shit yourself. I'm glad that Hollywood takes jabs at him, and even gladder that kekistan retards like yourself get butt hurt over it

Only the dumbest of centrists would take your supposed stance. Most likely you are a fascist who is too much of a degenerate to realistically call themselves a conservative. That's what Trump is, an adulterer, a conman, an opportunist. Conservatism in the US is basically equivalent to protestant Christianity. Trump is clearly an agnostic or an atheist, not that there is anything inherently wrong with being that, but he has co-opted the hateful aspects of the Right while not practicing any of their few decent beliefs

reply

[–] Portlis (18) 6 years ago

Lol, I can't help but laugh. Trump derangement syndrome is real, folks.

The irony isn't lost on me. On a message board for a movie about entities making people go crazy, we've got a person who has gone foaming at the mouth crazy because of an outside entity. Thanks for the chuckle.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 6 years ago

Nice comeback, where did you get it, at the retard store?

reply

[–] hamchuck (3) 6 years ago

Portlis, I just read all of your complaints about this film and agree 100% and more. Plus as usual this Artist is way too comfortable running around blind. Hollyweird has become so obnoxious these days that they just cannot make a movie without turning it into an anti-right film.

I knew when they introduced the characters how it would go down.
Old white man - Gun crazy racist
Young white man - Neo Nazi drug addict
Black Man - Level Headed Hero
White Woman - Level Headed Hero

The story had holes you could drive a Luxury Ship through. Entertaining, yes it could have been. Libtards are ruining Movies and TV. Not even liberals are watching their crap anymore.

reply

[–] ManToTrust (1660) 6 years ago

Touche to that!

I think what Portlis is saying is that they're not ok with Hollywood passively injecting political undertones into movies, regardless of the political side of the spectrum.

And yeah, label conscious simpletons like cyberbob can't comprehend that.

reply

[–] zeesha (1826) 6 years ago

Here are some facts:
In 2015, 44,193 Americans died by suicide.
In 2016, 44,965 Americans died by suicide.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans died by suicide.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/11/29/18118601/suicide-rate-highest-decades-life-expectancy
Which pointed out that the suicide rate is at a 50-year peak.

So if there are some politics in it then I think it is more about health care than others.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 6 years ago

That irritated me a bit also, but I did enjoy the film nevertheless. I give it a 7.5/10.

😎

reply

[–] Thaisticks (3036) 5 years ago

You Retardicans are such snowflakes. Stick to watching movies made for your niche (Stallone, Willis, Van Damme, Seagal and on and on and on). You'll be much happier.

reply