Профиль

crazy fear clown is one of my favorite Trek episodes period. I'm always like half and half witch/jester

and then Tuvix is the next episode

Protein is a scam by big muscle to give you more gains

That said the very clear subtheme of "the social norms are what civilization is, and breaking them destroys civilizations from within" was also maybe the strongest theme of the movie even if it felt half baked and inconsistently applied

Mulling over how there absolutely is a story you can tell about the Illiad and the sacking of Troy being a catalyst for the ruin of every man's house who participated in it, and Odyssey is not it but it was the most intriguing idea it had to me. That's a retelling I'd love to see

You're being very kind to a movie that does not extend the same courtesy to its material but that's your prerogative

well, no, it absolutely is framed that way in the movie. it is bizarre.

he doesn't go to the islands of the blessed. He goes to the west to an unexplored land to offer sacrifice as penance for his crimes.

I don't think Nolan thought that deeply about it.

Hesiod's bronze age is characterized by *no* stories surviving it: everything that *has* a story comes after Hesiod's bronze age, in his Heroic age. That includes the entire Illiad and the Odyssey.

I think you'll find the trojan war was under his Heroic age, not his Bronze age. Hesiod's bronze age is not the bronze age the movie is referring to, either.

if you think critique is a matter of being factually correct vs not factually correct you're not going to survive literature 101 without a gas mask

I'm rapidly learning that "having a critical point of view" is a concept lost on most people

So, that's about where I'm at, and I can't see this being a productive conversation.

And after hearing your reasoning I simply can't agree with it. Bringing up the pseudoscientific reasoning behind the movie's core thematic premise and thus calling the big narrative twist into question is a fantastic bit of critique that does talk about a topic the movie is invested in.

This is going in circles. I can't for the life of me understand how, and in what world, bringing up an idea the movie itself bases its entire thematic crux on and explaining the context in which that idea exists, is a bad thing or undermines any point made. It's literally the conversation.

I one hundred percent vehemently disagree.

I don't know how to say this except bluntly: she's not required to meet the movie where it is perfectly to critique it. No one is. That's a crazy thing to require of someone.

Sure. That doesn't make it a bad review, or "giving context" a bad idea. I completely reject that part.

She does, actually! I think you're mistaking "giving context for my argument later" for nitpicking or lecturing. It's perfectly normal rhetoric.