|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 27, 2005 7:31:23 GMT -5
WELL, I just finished watching Donnie Darko the directors cut for the second time this evening. First, to just take in the new scenes and effects, and THEN to listen to the commentary from Richard Kelly and Kevin Smith.
And this commentary has probably raised more questions that it answered.
I wont go into the whole "where did the engine come from" debate...I understand that part of the movie fine and why Donnie had to send it back to the Primary Universe so that the Tangent Universe could be closed off.
HOWEVER...
Now I am a little confused as too whom was behind it all. After first viewing the movie about a year and a half ago, I figured that GOD or some higher power was manipulating Donnie and the other inhabitants of Middlesex, Virginia in an effort to repair the timeline.
But Richard Kelly says that his original theory was that people from the future were trying to view the past and accidentally pierced the space time continuum causing the creation of the tangent universe and that these same said people were manipulating everything, NOT GOD. This theory is further bolstered by the addition of new effects which seem to indicate the presence of some kind of technology infuencing Donnie.
Now, I was just wondering what opinion the rest of you had on this...WHO DO YOU THINK WAS BEHIND IT ALL.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Feb 27, 2005 10:34:13 GMT -5
Why not both.
It's a widly held belief that while God is omnipotent and omniscient, He has given us free will and will not interfere directly.
So how about this : It is the future scientists who cause the corruprion and TU, and theya are manipulating the Living and Dead etc. But it is God who sets the parameters for thier influence
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 28, 2005 6:24:40 GMT -5
After watching the move THREE times this weekend I have to say that I now attribute everything simply to a "higher power"
Be it God, Future Scientists, maybe beings from another dimension...it could be anything.
Kind of like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. In that movie events are being manipulated by a higher power, like in Donnie Darko and you never really know WHAT is doing it all. It may be God, it may be aliens, it may be both. And I think this ambiguity is good. It lets us form our own opinions and doesnt restrict everthing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Feb 28, 2005 9:16:31 GMT -5
After watching the move THREE times this weekend I have to say that I now attribute everything simply to a "higher power" Be it God, Future Scientists, maybe beings from another dimension...it could be anything. Couple comments. To the above: this seems a strange lumping of things, since it appears to put the idea of God on the same level of influence and ability as the idea of scientists from the future. I also find it difficult to make an all-inclusive "higher power" category for use in determining who's behind the LR cycle, because I believe the movie's theme and message changes significantly based on the manipulator behind the scenes. If it's the divine, we have a story about fate, love and the rewards of subjugating oneself to the value of the "greater than thou." If it's humans from the future, we have parts of that same message, but with a less humanistic, baser tone. As to the question of "who we think is behind it" as fans, I'd refer you to the "is Kelly's opinion trump?" thread elsewhere on this forum ... because he does, after all, come right out and say scientists from the future are behind it all. And why would God need GUI overlays with matrices and calculations and words like "purge" as part of his work? |
|
|
|
Post by MoonageDaydream on Mar 8, 2005 11:22:13 GMT -5
To me, I see the original cut as a movie about divine intervention, and I see the Director's Cut as a movie about... future people... intervention. They came across as two completely different movies, simply from little things inserted throughout. That's why when people ask me which one I like better, I say I like them both the same. They're different. Neither one is better or worse than the other. They have different themes, and different interperetations of the same event.
God, the director's cut was a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Mar 8, 2005 11:38:05 GMT -5
i say it's cloanded version of clinton like in 2001 a space travesty
|
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Mar 8, 2005 13:18:34 GMT -5
i say it's cloanded version of clinton like in 2001 a space travesty It makes me laugh (well, and makes me sad, too) that an 18-year-old would purport to be a Republican. If before you've begun working for a living and worrying about taxes you're already calloused to social issues and looking back to "how it used to be" ... well, that's scary. |
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Mar 8, 2005 15:10:09 GMT -5
it makes me sad you think i'm a regular 18 year old having already run for mayor of my home town held down two jobs for over a year went to school full time and spent a week and a half in whasington dc run a simulation for the politically gifted at the national youth leadership fourum i have study my politics very much but the afore refernce to clinto was a joke from to movie 2001 a space travesty
|
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Mar 8, 2005 15:13:09 GMT -5
as well as i am joing the marine corps already singed the contract and am ready to go
|
|
|
|
Post by Bigboy on Mar 8, 2005 15:42:56 GMT -5
It raises the question, Greedy, Are you joining the Marines for some future political credibility? ;D Why not? I know it seems a childish retort, but if we can't come to any solid conclusion over the existence of God (beyond faith), then how can we draw any conclusions about His nature or practices? Also, what you see needn't be taken absolutely literally - if, as a director, you were tying to show God's reaction how would you do it? You could go the 'white glowy' path, but it seems pretty cliché to me. Since you can't know the nature of God, the bank of VDUs with 'PURGE' and fireworks seems as valid a representation as anything else. That said, I support the Future Scientist theory.  |
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Mar 8, 2005 16:16:54 GMT -5
if we can't come to any solid conclusion over the existence of God (beyond faith), then how can we draw any conclusions about His nature or practices? Fair enough. That takes us into a realm of possibilities that makes it tough to argue any perspective, though. But yours is a point well taken. There's nothing to say God as we understand It/Him/Her isn't the Wizard of Oz on some uber-evolved PC. |
|
|
|
Post by gretchen on Mar 8, 2005 17:10:29 GMT -5
To me, I see the original cut as a movie about divine intervention, and I see the Director's Cut as a movie about... future people... intervention. They came across as two completely different movies, simply from little things inserted throughout. That's why when people ask me which one I like better, I say I like them both the same. They're different. Neither one is better or worse than the other. They have different themes, and different interperetations of the same event. God, the director's cut was a great idea. thank you! what we have to do is look at the DC and the original as seperate films. i see them as completely different, individual. and i appreciate them seperately. i think if everyone took this approach then they'd enjoy the dc more. |
|
|
|
Post by josh on Mar 9, 2005 2:35:48 GMT -5
Like Gretchen, and others, I see the DC and the original films as being different enough to be two separate viewpoints.
In reference to the choice between either "future people" or God I am reminded of historical examples in which mankind has progressed from one viewpoint to the other. To heal people of serious illnesses or injuries in the medieval times would have been god-like where today an identical performance would be considered a matter-of-fact demonstration of acquired knowledge. Pay the doctor, get healed, fight with the insurance company. The mind-bending twist is that the ability to heal always existed but could not be utilized.
With respect to DD the ability to end a TU always existed but wasn't realized until technology achieved the ability to make use of that fact. Technological advances actually improve sublime wonderment of how the universe is arranged, which religious people attribute to a creator/god. Francis Crick and Stephen Hawkings made reference to this idea with Mr. Hawkings making a statement (I can't remember the wording or quote exactly, help me out if you can to confirm or correct my recollection) relating scientific understanding of the order of the universe to seeing the face?/hand? of God.
Anyway, that is how I escape the choices offered between "future men" or god question.
The end result is that I like the Donnie Darko movie because it is Donnie Darko after all. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by greedy on Mar 9, 2005 13:02:44 GMT -5
i think of it as looking through two differnt windows into the same room each window provides a differnt and in it's own right interesting perspectiv on the world beheld by your eyes
|
|
|
|
Post by Omnipotent on Mar 11, 2005 5:52:26 GMT -5
it makes me sad you think i'm a regular 18 year old having already run for mayor of my home town held down two jobs for over a year went to school full time and spent a week and a half in whasington dc run a simulation for the politically gifted at the national youth leadership fourum i have study my politics very much but the afore refernce to clinto was a joke from to movie 2001 a space travesty Yet you can't spell for shit or write a sentence without grammatical error. I'm sorry I've got nothing against you but you come across like FinalWhiteStar did, somebody living a fantasy life in cyberspace. |
|
