worst 2017 movie you've seen so far

File: john wick 2.jpg (125KB, 600x889px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 600x889px

calle cote

File: 1492376351890.jpg (97KB, 659x729px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 659x729px

>>85103915
I wonder what it tastes like

Baby driver
John wick 2

>>85104422
It's already smoked too.

>>85103915

all the capeshit movies

>>85104550
>all the capeshit movies
>still watches capeshit in 2017
How many times will you fall for it?

>>85104465
0/10

they have been all terrible so far

>>85104400
nice bait

>>85104550
Did you even watch Logan?

>>85104550
You don't like them and have seen them all?

>>85103915
lol thats my fav so far

I can't get over the fact this triggered so many people

>>85104579
My friends are marvelfags so ... its a tough decision.

File: when the ? kicks in.gif (458KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 256x256px

>>85104715
>he fell for the 'Logan is better than the rest of capeshit' meme

>>85104792
Oh fuck off. Now you are just being contrarian for the sake of obnoxious memes.

Too many to name
Okja
Kong Skull Island
The Mummy
Life
Get Out
Logan

>>85104715
Yeah, it was "meh"
>B-but my gore... and sad ending

>>85104717
Most of them, but come on.
Marvel movies are so generic, you don't have to watch them all too figured it out specially that fucking shit """"""""humor""""""""".

>>85103915
This movie was all over the place. For the first half I didn't even know if this was actually a political commentary or if it was advocating to not eat meat. It goes from le poop jokes to Pig Schindler's List. I am a vegetarian but I was extremely confused and did not like this movie very much at all.

the Circle desu

even big "turn off your brain bro" blockbuster trash was better than that

Beauty and the Beast
Emma Watson's hot, but that's about it.
She can't act or sing.

>>85103915
EASILY Transformers: The Last Knight.

I like Michael Bay, Pain And Gain and 13 Hours were some of the most pure popcorn cinema in years, but I genuinely believe he's completely given up on this franchise.

>>85105249
That's a shit tier meme she can sing and act better than stone. All this place does is meme like reddit.

Prettymuch everything but the Circle and the lost city of Z was terrible.

>>85103915
ive only seen one movie in theatres this year and it was power rangers, it wasnt badbut it wasnt great so i guess that is my answer

Batman V. Superman Dawn of Gayness

Everything /tv/ liked like Logan Wonder Woman and John Wick 2

>>85105079
Bong Joon Ho's movie's are always like that. If you've seen The Host, you'd be amazed at how quickly one scene goes from Three Stooges slapstick with a cheesy soundtrack, and then suddenly turning into a grim and brutal monster movie where people die horribly left and right.

The only movie he's done that tonally consistent throughout was probably Snowpiercer, and even that movie had it's weird Tim Burton-esque moments as well.

>>85105546
I didn't say anything about Stone, you beta waifu loser

>>85105079
This is a western thing you've been trained into thinking a movie needs a "tone" or some BS

Korean movies do this shift all the time, Sympathy for mr vengeance for example goes from cute to kidnapping to comedy to extreme violence

>>85106269
>This is a western thing you've been trained into thinking a movie needs a "tone" or some BS
Having a 'tone' is actually a cornerstone of decent storytelling, you stupid, slant-eyed insect.

I understand that you gooks have never created a major work of literature in thousands of years that is comparable to Don Quixote, Tale of Two Cities, or The Iliad, but at the very least you should know that storytelling isn't a joke where everything and anything can be whatever the hell it wants to be at the drop of a hat. There are some basic guidelines that are crucial to follow so that you don't alienate your audiences and wonder why your movies get criticism.

It is why Benicio del Toro didn't start smoking weed and cracking jokes with Seth Rogen after murdering an entire family in Sicario.

It is why the priests in The Exorcist didn't arbitrarily do a Disney-style musical number right after their failed attempt to exorcise the poor little girl possessed by a demon.

It is why Ghostbusters doesn't open up with a scene where a woman gets raped by a hobo and then kicked in the face repeatedly.

File: 960.jpg (56KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 960x540px

>>85106738
Never fucking watch Sonatine or your head might implode with autism

Beauty and the Beast was the only good film I saw this year tbhhwyf

A cure for wellness
Split

File: 1500x500.png (467KB, 659x300px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 659x300px

Easily this. But seeing other peoples posts led to believe you guys can really be some stuck up movie snobs some of the time.

>>85107159
>Easily this. But seeing other peoples posts led to believe you guys can really be some stuck up movie snobs some of the time.
Most people on /tv/ probably don't even think about watching garbage like Power Rangers in the first place.

>>85103915
Kong skull island. Terribly paced in both writing and editing. Weird shots are also sprinkled out that are given beats that cut down on scenes of the actors hindering their performance. Terrible direction really that is amateur.

>>85103915
Okja is the best movie of the year, are you retarded?

File: tumblr_inline_o87mzzXzMs1qbcsn2_540 (2016_12_08 01_52_40 UTC).jpg (78KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 540x540px

>>85105079
>Movie's need to be black & white

File: fist-fight.jpg (374KB, 838x1242px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 838x1242px

>>85103915
1. Fist Fight
2. Sleight
3. Kong: Skull Island
4. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (I did enjoy it though)

>>85107793
>Okja is the best movie of the year
Maybe if it's the only movie you've seen so far

Top 3 worst movies of the year so far:

1. Kong: Skull Island
2. Get Out
3. Logan

For all its preachy faults I didn't mind okja much the director did a great job establishing a warm connection between the pig and girl, would've been much better if the entire movie had something to do with Okja and girls exploits throughout the mountains

>>85103915
ah yes. the good ol "movie is good, movie is highly rated literally everywhere so I think it's the worst movie I've seen" shitpost

consider bettering your life.

Don't Fuck in the Woods
Resident Evil
The Bye Bye Man
Ghost in the Shell
The Ring reboot

>>85109255
Take your video game sensibilities somewhere else you weirdcunt

>>85109255
>movie is highly rated literally everywhere
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/okja/reviews/?sort=rotten

>>85104400
Same

>>85109378
>85 percent fresh

>>85106269
>This is a western thing
It's actually an everywhere but Korea thing.

>>85109507
>literally

>>85109551
I don't know what your argument is here, yes. It is literally 85 percent fresh according to how they aggregate scores. How is that worth a greentext? What is the joke, faggot?

File: 1424960701273.png (195KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 400x388px

>>85109512
Bollywood does it aswell with musicals and light hearted stuff mixed(krish) which is why i generalized to western cba listing can i, what is this a well formed discussion?

>>85109593
>I don't know what your argument is here
>highly rated literally everywhere
>except for the reviewers who didn't rate it highly

>>85109255
Ah yes. The good ol' "no one has an individual opinion and I base my taste on aggregate review scores" shitpost

I love this one

>>85103915
Kekked hard at the ridiculousness of the meat factory ending invoking the Holocaust. This movie is clearly making fun of vegans, it came from the gooks for christ sake they eat dogs

Transformers 5

Passengers

>>85109593
>highly rated literally everywhere
You're retarded

>>85109643
The majority of reviewers were positive you illiterate fucking faggot.
>>85109704
I'm not that anon but if you can't understand what an aggregation is, you are a moronic clod.

>>85103915
As a professional published writer, Okja made me angry, and the reviews made me ten times angrier.

The movie is a complete fuckup.
Lucy Mirando is shown as a morally ambiguous but weak character that got manipulated by her parents/sibling, she's the antagonist but she's not a bad person - get's dropped by the company and arrested - she is the only character that gets punished for her action (even if she wasn't as bad as her sister and Giancarlo Esposito's characters).

Okja gets raped by the huge alpha male superpig, presumably to breed amazing new pigs (after all she IS the best female pig, something invaluable) - this scene is completely useless as she doesn't get impregnated by it and there is no new attempt to breed.

Giancarlo Esposito and Nancy Mirando, instead, decide to -butcher- (BUTCHER FOR MEAT) the world famous, alpha female, amazing pig like she's any other pig.

It would even make sense if Nancy Mirando decided to kill the pig out of grudge, but SHE DIDN'T and it's completely okay with seeling it for a golden shitty pig (she sold the world's best female pig for nothin), so why the fuck would she butcher it instead of breeding it and using it as a fucking mascotte?

The ending is bad too, Nancy and Giancarlo characters get no punishment at all, the pigs are not free, except both Okja and a random cub that should remind the viewers that there are still a fucking billion pigs that the kid and the viewer don't give a fucking shit about.

And the critics didn't see any of this! No one mention how the plot is fucking pants-on-head retarded.

>>85109756
>The majority of reviewers were positive you illiterate fucking faggot.
If you don't know what the word literally means, that's ok, just don't use it.

>>85109643
>overwhelming majority opinion doesn't count
>because Armond White and a handful of autists didn't like it
That's how dumb you sound. You are really reaching with this, bud.

>>85109819
>because Armond White and a handful of autists didn't like it
15% is more than a handful, sorry bud.

>>85109756
>highly rated literally everywhere
If this were true it would have 100%. Don't you know how aggregation works, you moronic clod?

>>85109799
I'm not that anon but he didn't use "literally" incorrectly, as it IS highly rated almost everywhere, hence 85 percent as a score...which (in case you couldn't count) is literally almost a perfect score.

>>85109867
He did use literally incorrect. Do you know what the fucking word means?

>>85109853
Are you just bad with the English language or something? Saying "it it highly rated literally everywhere" is not incorrect when presented with an almost near positive perfect score...

File: questionmar2.png (129KB, 314x278px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 314x278px

>>85109867
>it IS highly rated almost everywhere
Even here?

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/07/wwii-era_boeing_b-17_takes_fli.html

>Grade: D

>>85109898
The majority of reviews are positive, so it is literally true that it is highly rated across the board. I think you may be retarded.

>>85109849
WOAH 15 PERCENT? WELL SHIT I JUST GOT BTFO!

File: 1498006778939.png (416KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 680x680px

>>85109906
>>85109942
>unironically being this retarded
It isn't highly rated literally everywhere, lads. We've already seen evidence of that.

>>85109939
>http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/07/wwii-era_boeing_b-17_takes_fli.html
woops link broke somehow
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/06/okja_has_an_identity_crisis-re.html

>>85104943
not him, but logan was seriously shit. typical capeshit "faceless goon battle" ending

>>85109977
>We've already seen evidence of that.
The majority of reviews when aggregated, are almost a near perfect score. Yet in your Asperger's-fueled brain, you think majority attitude doesn't properly fit the use of the word "literally" in talking about "everywhere", despite (again) a majority positive score.

I really think you are just baiting or retarded, matey.

File: dsc_6696.jpg (224KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 2000x1000px

>>85110066
How is 85% near perfect? If you got an 85% on your homework, you made a bunch of mistakes, that's nowhere near perfect.

>>85109997
>I don't know what the argument is
>LOOK someone didn't like it!
>checkmate!
That's not the point, friendo.

>>85110114
>I don't know what the argument is
>highly rated literally everywhere

File: 1468402355695.gif (704KB, 202x170px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 202x170px

>>85110104
>how is 85 percent out of 100 not almost a perfect score?
You are grasping at straws to avoid that the majority attitude on this film is more positive than not...

File: 1365829531311.png (327KB, 495x498px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 495x498px

>>85110066
>you think majority attitude doesn't properly fit the use of the word "literally" in talking about "everywhere"
Yeah, because is fucking doesn't. The word you're looking for is "virtually". You might actually be retarded, anon.

Is English literally not even /tv/'s first language anymore?

>>85110150
>You are grasping at straws to avoid that the majority attitude on this film is more positive than not...
When did I debate that? Feel free to point out the post.

I'll wait.

>>85110135
And again, since this seems hard for you, you'd have an argument if the overall score was less than half.

>>85110201
>And again, since this seems hard for you, you'd have an argument if the overall score was less than half.
>literally everywhere

>>85110160
So if 9 out of 10 doctors tell you that you have cancer, I can't say that "a majority of doctors literally agree you have cancer?" That makes you sperg out?

>>85110223
So you are splitting hairs then?
>85 percent fresh
>this doesn't constitute "everywhere"

>>85110251
>I can't say that "a majority of doctors literally agree you have cancer?"
False equivalency. Does not compare to
>movie is highly rated literally everywhere

>>85110251
You could say that. However you couldn't say "literally all of the doctors said I have cancer". You're a fucking dunce, anon.

>>85110280
>>this doesn't constitute "everywhere"
No, it obviously doesn't, are you retarded?
If I get 85% on my homework, I can't say I got everything right either.

>>85110294
That's not a false equivalency you fucking aspie.

>>85109767
>Post exposing flaws and plot inconsistencies
>autists keep arguing about 85% vs 15% vs 100%

>>85110310
>However you couldn't say "literally all of the doctors said I have cancer". You're a fucking dunce, anon.
Which is not the sentence structure the other anon was using...

>>85110280
How the fuck would less than 100% ever possibly constitute literally everywhere?

>>85110329
>That's not a false equivalency you fucking aspie.
It is, there's a distinct difference between the implications of
>a majority of doctors literally agree you have cancer?
and
>highly rated literally everywhere

The first implies >=50%, the second implies 100%.

>>85110323
>If I get 85% on my homework, I can't say I got everything right either.
Literally nobody was saying that, faggot.

>>85110418
>Literally nobody was saying that, faggot.
Then why was me pointing out that there's rotten reviews not a counterpoint to
>movie is highly rated literally everywhere
?

>>85110354
>I'll ignore general consensus on a film
>I have contrarian memes to spout
>for a film I probably didn't see

>>85110418
Do yourself a favour and Google the meaning of the word literally, anon.

>>85105874
I said she can sing and act unlike someone who can't, pleb. She was very good.

>>85110394
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

File: Capture.png (21KB, 580x426px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 580x426px

>>85110479
>Do yourself a favour and Google the meaning of the word literally, anon.
xD
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literally

>>85110479
Oh, fuck off retard. Everyone knows what the word means. Take your smelly fedora somewhere else, I was correct to say that "literally nobody said that" in this thread, since it's true.

get out.

>>85110524
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Yes, I agree.
If 9 out of 10 doctors tell you that you have cancer, it's ok to say "a majority of doctors literally agree you have cancer".
This is not at all equivalent to
>So 85% of reviews are fresh, therefore this movie is rated highly literally everywhere.
Since the movie is in fact not highly rated literally everywhere, in fact 15% of reviews are counterexamples.

>>85110467
>y-you're just a contrarian!
Stop being so assblasted about opinions please

>>85110616
>he's new here.

>>85110597
Would you settle down if he said "literally almost everywhere" then? Since 15 percent is a pitifully small percentage stacked against the majority aggregate score.

>>85110630
But it''s usually the newfags who cry contrarian whenever they hear something they don't like

>>85110666
>Would you settle down if he said "literally almost everywhere" then?
Yes, but it would still be irrelevant because why the fuck do I care about what some plebs who write for newspapers think?

The mummy

>>85110679
everybody hates contrarians, newfriend. Maybe you didn't summarize that much from r/4chan before lurking more.

>>85110687
>why the fuck do I care about what some plebs who write for newspapers think?
...what? Who in the fuck are you talking about?

>>85110747
>Who in the fuck are you talking about?
The critics that the comment "movie is highly rated literally everywhere" is about. Are you this confused?

>>85110679
>But it''s usually the newfags who cry contrarian whenever they hear something they don't like
Nice convenient delusion, kiddo.

>>85110713
>everyone hates contrarian
My point was that calling someone who lists legitimate criticisms of a movie a contrarian simply because their opinion differs from the general consensus is fucking retarded.

>>85110781
Most of those critics are from online opinion pieces, or online "news" sites. which fucking actual newspaper are you talking about?

File: 1471504694133.jpg (115KB, 524x524px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 524x524px

>>85110810
Please enlighten me on what you think a "legitimate" criticism is then, friend?

>>85110823
>Most of those critics are from online opinion pieces, or online "news" sites. which fucking actual newspaper are you talking about?
>unironically splitting hairs between newspapers, blogs, etc.
There's plenty of newspaper reviews:
> Toronto Sun
> New York Post
> Chicago Sun-Times
> Boston Globe
etc.
Anyway, are you really this petty? The movie was trash and just because some plebs who probably watch less movies than the average /tv/ user think otherwise doesn't mean that it's somehow unfair to not agree

>>85110888
See >>85109767
Do you have a 30 second memory or something?

File: 1487447410230.gif (980KB, 227x221px) Image search: [Google]

980KB, 227x221px

>>85110901
>The movie was trash despite being 85 percent fresh and if you liked it, well I'll just meme at you the usual "pleb" response I learned about on Sunday when I came over here from rebbit for the GoT premiere.
>obviously if you disagree, it's because you watch less movies than I, the average /tv/ user.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

immediately kill yourself.

>>85106738
Best post I've read in a while.

>>85110969
>As professional published writer...
Stopped reading after that, honestly.

>>85110982
>The movie was trash despite being 85 percent fresh
literally not an argument

>and if you liked it, well I'll just meme at you the usual "pleb" response
strawman

>I learned about on Sunday when I came over here from rebbit for the GoT premiere.
I assure you I've been here longer than you

>obviously if you disagree, it's because you watch less movies than I, the average /tv/ user.
strawman

next?

>>85110982
Not him but RT score isn't a valid argument. You can either argue the merits of a film or you can't. Pointing at a number contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation

>>85109767
>As a professional published writer

I would like to see some credentials, please.

File: 5qscBso.gif (2MB, 383x576px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x576px

>>85111022
>N-N-NOT AN ARGUMENT REEE! DON'T TELL ME A MOVIE HAS A MAJORITY POSITIVE RESPONSE!! IN MY WORLD, THAT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER
>S-S-S-STRAWMAN, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT THEY SAY HERE?
>NEXT ;)
>(((((TIPS))))

>>85111011
So you called him a contrarian without actually reading his post?

>>85111078
>>N-N-NOT AN ARGUMENT REEE! DON'T TELL ME A MOVIE HAS A MAJORITY POSITIVE RESPONSE!! IN MY WORLD, THAT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER
You're right.

It doesn't.

I see you just conform to the norms because the majority is always right. You must be painfully boring to talk to.

>>85111038
>Pointing at a number contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation
I don't think you really understand what I am saying, bud.

File: 1467872538099.jpg (27KB, 508x524px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 508x524px

>>85109767
>it's a "12 year old thinks pointing out plot holes is how you review a film" episode

>>85106269
Pretty sure ive seen Korean movies with tones too

>>85111103
What are you saying?

>>85111038
>Not him but RT score isn't a valid argument
It is when the conversation is literally about "do most people like this movie?" Well, according to most aggregates (which you faggots never bothered to figure out how those work), more people liked it than not...

So why keep responding the contrary?

>>85111051
>>85111105
I'm not american (english is obviously not my first language) and identifying myself on an anonymous imageboard would be dumb.
Ignore everything about me being a writer and discuss the points, i'd like to hear a counter argument, honestly.

>>85111140
>It is when the conversation is literally about "do most people like this movie?"
I thought we were talking about the movie, not whether most people liked the movies or not? The latter sounds like a boring topic

>>85111127
It makes someone look painfully autistic to just outright ignore what a general consensus on a film is. Not once have I said that an RT score determines quality, that was never the point. The point was how someone was straight up ignoring that aggregates matter in some capacity, to figure out the general attitudes of an audience by some degree.

>>85111178
A counter argument to...what? To why people liked it?

>>85111207
Why should an aggregate score have any effect on my opinion of a film?

>>85111246
Jesus Christ anon do you have brain problems?
Counter arguments to the points i listed in >>85109767

>>85104400
I really liked the first one but this one was just plain retarded

>>85111306
So again, you want an argument for why people liked it?

>>85111350
No, people like shit all the time, i want to know what YOU think of the movie.

>>85111276
It shouldn't...are you not following the conversation here? The extreme opposite of "no general opinion on film matters at all" is retarded to function under.

>>85111398
I haven't seen it yet.

>>85111178
>wants a counter argument to plot holes

no, buddy, good job; you pointed out plot holes. you feel better? you feel validated in not liking the movie?

the goal of the movie is to promote a greater understanding of all sides of the meat industry. it painted the good guys, bad guys, and everything in between in both negative / righteous lights, showing their ups and downs.

it was meant to show you that there's no easy solution to it. that's entirely it. the scenes that you call plot holes? just meant to invoke emotional connection between the viewer and the movie. if it didn't work on you, oh well dude! looks like you have to go back to being an award winning writer!

>>85111466
This is the worst counter-argument possible. "It's okay if it's full of inconsistencies and plot holes, it's just meant to invoke an emotional connection!".

It's a story and it's supposed to be coherent and to adhere to its own rules.

>>85111466
>no, buddy, good job; you pointed out plot holes. you feel better? you feel validated in not liking the movie?
>the goal of the movie is to promote a greater understanding of all sides of the meat industry. it painted the good guys, bad guys, and everything in between in both negative / righteous lights, showing their ups and downs.
>it was meant to show you that there's no easy solution to it. that's entirely it. the scenes that you call plot holes? just meant to invoke emotional connection between the viewer and the movie. if it didn't work on you, oh well dude! looks like you have to go back to being an award winning writer!
wow...

the absolute state of /tv/ in 2017, people this clueless actually browse this board

>>85103915
You start, OP

>>85103915
Probably Wonder Woman, but even that wasn't awful. I've seen some blockbuster trash, but I enjoyed all of it

>>85104400
it was indeed pretty shit friendo

>>85106738

>musashi doesnt exist in this mans world

no wonder u are rotting on an image board.

>>85111561
>A movie is never allowed to be figurative or break its own rules.
Jeez, do you watch three movies and that's it? You would hate Gilliam's work then...

>>85111582
>PSH I CAN'T EVEN!

>>85105712
Ironically, Snowpiercer is his worst movie

>>85111670
I hope you're trying to bait me, friendo, Gilliam never breaks his own rules, ever.

File: thehouse.jpg (115KB, 509x755px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 509x755px

>>85103915
The House. Easily.

File: 1500154857482.png (207KB, 439x302px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 439x302px

>>85111716
>Gilliam never breaks his own rules, ever.
You have to be baiting me, right? I also said that its okay for narratives to be figurative and less literalist in telling a story, hence the comparison.

You're retarded, mate.

>it's an if-you-didn't-like-it-why-would-you-see-it episode

>>85111561
>This is the worst counter-argument possible.

it's not a counter argument, you turbo autist

none of the plot holes are even that massive, though

the new blonde chick selling okja for a gold pig shows the viewer that even the big bad of the movie is just a suit obsessed with profit, and not suffering, like peta might tell them they are

the asian kid lying about what okja said to get the rescue operation underway shows that peta, as "kind hearted and for the animals" as it is will often do things morally reprehensible in the shadows to retain public moral high ground

>It's a story and it's supposed to be coherent and to adhere to its own rules.

it did adhere to its own rules; it didn't adhere to yours. get over it, faggottron

>>85111582
i want reddit to leave

>>85111799
being "figurative" and "less literalist" doesn't include leaving plot holes and fallacies in the plot, or having supposedly smart characters making absolutely retarded choices for no reason at all except shock value. Gilliam never does that and never did that. Also, Okja isn't "figurative" in any way.

>>85111863
>even the big bad of the movie is just a suit obsessed with profit,

Do you understand that someone "obsessed with profit" would never -butcher- the fucking best pig in the world, the alpha breeder female, just to make hotdogs out of it?

>>85111914
the pig never became the "best pig" under that person's rule, you understand? it was her twin sister. it's like you didn't even watch the movie you're bitching about

>>85111959
It became the best pig according to a worldwide fucking tv reality show and according to a squad of fucking scientists, you mongoloid.

>>85112011
that were under the employ of her twin sister's rule, not hers, you fucking retard. go suck a refugee's dick, you eurotrash chimpanzee

File: 1470522357814.gif (3MB, 294x238px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 294x238px

>>85111871
>being "figurative" and "less literalist" doesn't include leaving plot holes and fallacies in the plot
holy shit, yes...it can. You can have plot holes and still have a figurative narrative. Are you new to films? Do you think that all movies just suck if they have plot holes?
>Gilliam never does that and never did that.
I feel like you have literally never seen a single one of his films, this is beyond retarded, mate.
>Okja isn't "figurative" in any way.
Yes..it is. If you are going to pretend to be a "professional writer", you should at least pretend to know basic shit about films you are criticizing.

WEW LADDDDD

>>85111178
I think you have some valid points in your criticism. I just dislike it when people bring up their profession as though it somehow makes their statements more valid, especially in an imageboard.

>>85111871
>the "if it has a plot hole, it's bad" meme
I'm going to guess your age at between 16 and 18.

>President of company launches a reality show employing top level scientists to determine the best female pig in the world
>Okja wins, becomes famous both because it appears in the news as a girl is trying to stay with her and because it's declared as the winner of the incredibly popular reality show
New president of the company just wants profit, what would make more sense:
A) use the already famous and renowned pig as a company mascot and as a breeder or
B) make some hot dogs out of it.

>>85112202
again you're pointing out a minor logical plot hole that has no bearing on the message the director and writer(s) were trying to convey

is there possibility for a different ending via your idea of how the film should go? possibly. would it have the same emotional effect as the current ending? i can't say for certain!

what i do know is that as a film, okja set out to deliver important messages about the meat industry and the subcommunities surrounding it that people should be made aware of; the human side of them. it did that beautifully.

File: 1499153691902.gif (714KB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 320x256px

>>85111871
>a giant genetically enhanced pig that is a critique on the meat industry, is not figurative of anything.

>>85111914
>>85112011
The competition was a sham from the start. How do we know Okja wasn't chosen because she was the most photogenic/docile of the pigs? How do we know there was any real scientific rigour to the process?

I consider Moby Dick to be figurative, as the whale is not a whale, but the personal demons of Ahab catching up to him.
Okja is just an exaggeration, but it's not supposed to be "figurative" in the sense I interpret it, it isn't a metaphor but an exasperation.

>>85112594
But a lot of people interpret the pig as a metaphor...

>>85112559
Even if it was, it was famous already, it's like having Lassie in your possetion and using it to pull a fucking sled instead of selling her image.

>>85112559
>How do we know there was any real scientific rigour to the process?
Because they sent scientists to each pig to do tests and send data back

Unless those were all supposed to be scenes to throw you off...

>>85112623
A metaphor for what? Regular pigs? It's a shallow one at best then.

>>85112636
Yeah, true that

>>85112678
>what is a genetically altered massive friendly pig a metaphor for?
>if I didn't get this basic bitch metaphor, it's shallow.
Jesus Christ, you are an idiot.

File: 1498247667240.jpg (47KB, 558x564px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 558x564px

>>85112678
>Okja isn't a metaphor

>>85112781
It's not a "metaphor" for anything. It's a plot device to make an animal more adorable for the viewers, to make it even more necessary in the movie world (it's way more efficient than regular pigs).

>>85112891
Are there people in the world really this fucking dumb? Buddy, just stop...

>>85112891
Has to be bait.

>>85112559
I thought this point was clear: the whole contest was a farce to cover the genetic engeneering that would be frowned upon by the masses