The bear was something I completely missed the significance of. I can understand it, but I'm lost on how the house is supposed to make sense.
Hmmm... The makers of this "too intelligent film for the masses" must have felt that the book lacked action and monsters That's the only reason I can think of because the bear and the house scene are not in the books.
Not saying the books are that great either but still they're at least a step above the film.
The director also wrote the screenplay. It's the same guy who did Ex Machina, so we can't expect it to make too much sense. The house resembling her house was probably the most unexplained out of place aspect in the film, at least that I noticed.
I don't know who explained it in the bts, but the bear was from the tattoo and the house was their house. Now, I can believe the bear is spun off some fragment of ink(even though I don't think tattoos have much basis in dna), but the house being constructed?... They were suppose to represent a sad place and sad being, paraphrasing.
I don't know who explained it in the bts, but the bear was from the tattoo and the house was their house. Now, I can believe the bear is spun off some fragment of ink(even though I don't think tattoos have much basis in dna), but the house being constructed?... They were suppose to represent a sad place and sad being, paraphrasing.
When everything is based on cells and changing, this idea starts to break down. I thought the "sand trees" made sense, but (thanks to someone's previous post) then I realized they don't have dna. What is getting refracted and changed?
I thought it was a good movie and I try to avoid nitpicking. The only problem is when this stuff is so conceptual and the foundation seems to be cracking, I kinda lose hope in trying to figure any of it out. It just starts crumbling.
I can make sense of "my idea" that it was basically a mirror of ones destructive tendencies, that manifested into each person's outcome. Then I give up thinking about the clones and how Lena didn't become consumed by her's. I get its scifi, but I don't think it should be "just make up whatever you believe it was about."
When everything is based on cells and changing, this idea starts to break down. I thought the "sand trees" made sense, but (thanks to someone's previous post) then I realized they don't have dna. What is getting refracted and changed?
I thought it was a good movie and I try to avoid nitpicking. The only problem is when this stuff is so conceptual and the foundation seems to be cracking, I kinda lose hope in trying to figure any of it out. It just starts crumbling.
I can make sense of "my idea" that it was basically a mirror of ones destructive tendencies, that manifested into each person's outcome. Then I give up thinking about the clones and how Lena didn't become consumed by her's. I get its scifi, but I don't think it should be "just make up whatever you believe it was about."
Just started watching this..About 15 minutes and im dialed-in. Unless it does a complete 180 on me Im quite confident it will redeem my awful viewing of Civil War. I guess Garland is a hit or miss storyteller.