Furik
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by Furik on May 12, 2004 10:07:50 GMT -5
I found this image on a community that I belong to. clickI am not sure if it's official or not but it does look pretty interesting.
|
|
IIVII
Full Member
Posts: 106
|
Post by IIVII on May 19, 2004 0:32:57 GMT -5
How long ago was this posted on your community board? If it was recently, i doubt it's authetic. It lacks too much text. While it's a cool poster, it certainly doesn't live up to the other two originals. It's more of a step backward. If it was an orignal concept for the poster I might belive it. If they do create new artwork for the director's cut I hope it surpasses the old artwork.
|
|
|
Post by Sparkle Motion on May 21, 2004 7:58:32 GMT -5
I hope the director's cut won't include the frank/god discusssion. I think it was wise that Kelly left that out. Having more options for us to unravel the plot and theme makes it a stronger movie for me. I completely agree with you... i feel that part of the movie gives too much away... i can see why Kelly filmed that section - but it definitely needs to be left out!
|
|
Furik
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Post by Furik on May 30, 2004 23:53:07 GMT -5
The movie poster that was above seems to be on IMDB.
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 1, 2004 23:41:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Fibonacci on Jun 2, 2004 16:31:58 GMT -5
|
|
guest
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by guest on Jun 2, 2004 21:03:56 GMT -5
I hope the director's cut won't include the frank/god discusssion. I think it was wise that Kelly left that out. Having more options for us to unravel the plot and theme makes it a stronger movie for me. Not to be rude or anything, but although the movie is meant for the audience to enjoy, it is not meant to make you happy. The director/writers of a book/movie intend (most of the time, except in vacous movies) for the movie to have a specific meaning, not an interpretation. While it is easy to interpret a movie/book in many ways, there are true intentions. I have read some interviews from the director and he said that he wanted every scene to be in the original, but due to time and money constraints they had to cut it. If he wanted to include everything, then obviously those were parts of the plot that were important to his intended meaning, wether the viewers like that aspect of the movie or not. I would have originally agreed w/ you, that a movie should be left for the viewers enjoyment. However, after taking AP English w/ my specific teacher, I have learned that authors do write things, everything, for a specific purpose, and not everyine will like what is said. I respect your opinion, but I would hope that you would keep your mind open to whatever the director wishes for his audience to see.
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 2, 2004 21:10:57 GMT -5
I really dont think thats true "guest" it may be in this case or it may be just to get the audience thinking perhaps about the school systems perhaps about religion or perhaps about the nature of insanity but I dont think there really needs to be one answer and I dont think that Richard Kelly was neccessarily trying to create one.....I think that the directors cut is going to explore his interpretation of the movie but that doesnt mean its the only "right" one
|
|
|
Post by ontologyofdarko on Jun 2, 2004 21:17:40 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that there was only one right one, but there was, or may have been, an intended one. And it should not upset anyone if Richard Kelly includes a scene that doesn't fit that person's interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 2, 2004 21:22:17 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that there was only one right one, but there was, or may have been, an intended one. And it should not upset anyone if Richard Kelly includes a scene that doesn't fit that person's interpretation. Of course not...its called directors cut for a reason because its what the movie means to him....if everybody on this forum could have the actors back in for filming and was able to shoot new scenes that they wanted youd probably end up with 100 different interpretation.....of course I wont get mad at his interpretation as it is just as good as mine or anyone elses and is obviously well thought out if you look at the Philosophy of Time Travel.
|
|
|
Post by ontologyofdarko on Jun 2, 2004 21:24:34 GMT -5
Yep...I would have to agree...Just wanted to insert my 2 cents...
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 2, 2004 21:30:08 GMT -5
Yep...I would have to agree...Just wanted to insert my 2 cents... 15% of your contribution goes to providing new clothes and warm meals for Richard Kelly....
|
|
IIVII
Full Member
Posts: 106
|
Post by IIVII on Jun 7, 2004 7:10:41 GMT -5
see now if this conversation was between me and darko fan it would probably have spanned across 3 pages. Glad you guys were able to end it on such a good note ;D. Well gtg, i sense DF lingering in the shadows.
|
|
|
Post by DarkoFan on Jun 7, 2004 8:06:57 GMT -5
(comes out of the shadows) "BOO!"
|
|
IIVII
Full Member
Posts: 106
|
Post by IIVII on Jun 7, 2004 19:19:59 GMT -5
DF arnt you ever gonna register? you rebel.
|
|