byronhadley
Full Member
Visit OfficePranks.net
Posts: 117
|
Se7en
May 20, 2008 17:03:40 GMT -5
Post by byronhadley on May 20, 2008 17:03:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 14, 2009 14:26:09 GMT -5
Post by kingdok on Apr 14, 2009 14:26:09 GMT -5
I guess I will post here instead of starting a new correction thread.
Your count for Se7en was wrong for two reasons:
1. It included Sloth 2. It did not include Tracy
While the rules do say that deaths only talked about with no bodies shown on screen should not count, Tracy's death is implied so explicitly that it's pretty ridiculous not count it. John Doe says he killed her, Somerset confirms this by not refuting Doe, and you see blood on a box that Doe says has her head inside of it. Plus she's an important character in the movie and her death has major consequences. I think it follows the same rule of "cutting away at the last second": while you don't actually see the death, it is implied so heavily that to not count it would make for an inaccurate count.
As for Sloth, they SPECIFICALLY SAY that he is not dead. They do say "If his brain weren't mush, which it is..." and "He'd die right now if you shined a bright light in his eyes", but these imply only that he is in a persistent vegetative state, not that he is dead. Unless the site has some rule about brain death that I'm not aware of, there is no way that this counts.
Edit: In retrospect, I guess I just have a problem with the rule concerning implied kills, as I think Greed should be counted as well. My point on Sloth still stands, though.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 14, 2009 21:15:55 GMT -5
Post by wyjebo on Apr 14, 2009 21:15:55 GMT -5
i agree. if a death isn't exactly SEEN but they bloody aftermath (minus the corpse) is shown, it should be counted, especially if its a pretty fucking important plot point.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 2:13:35 GMT -5
Post by davethejew on Apr 15, 2009 2:13:35 GMT -5
But that's the thing, it's heavily implied, but theres no actual indication of what is inside of the box. It's one of the biggest MacGuffin's in cinema history, like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction or the trunk in Repo Man. Fincher himself has never actually confirmed what is inside of the box in interviews and on many occasions has denied that it is her head. Other critics and such in the Hollywood scene have said that it's his unborn child or just a random body part. And because we do not actually see an end result, head or body part, no matter how bloody the box is, it is not counted as a kill.
Also it's noted that the Dr. said that 'death is imminent' for Sloth. I would count this as a death.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 2:53:41 GMT -5
Post by kingdok on Apr 15, 2009 2:53:41 GMT -5
Are you joking? What's next, are you going to say that Harry Lime actually DIDN'T dilute penicillin in The Third Man? Or, no, maybe that To Serve Man actually ISN'T cookbook? After all, we never see what's inside it. I wrote up a whole thing about why it doesn't matter if it was her head or some other part of her because she would still be dead, but I really don't feel the need to defend one of the most famous endings from the last fifteen years.
ANYWAYS, the issue isn't whether or not her head is in the box, it's whether or not her death is implied enough to be counted. I think that if cutting away at the last second is implication enough, then I feel the final scene in Se7en should count as well. HOWEVER, as I also said, this is a problem with the guidelines and unless this board has a history of changing rules, I'm not going to fight it on this one.
But while we're at it, I think Greed should count, too. I understand the board's position on not counting deaths only mentioned or shown in photographs, but when you see pools of the victim's blood and combine that with photographs, a vivid description of how he was forced to cut off parts of his body, and the fact that it (most likely) happened during the timeframe of the movie and that the death figures prominently in the story, it should be counted. I get that the rules are to make counts as concrete as possible, but there should really be exceptions. After all, when people come to sites like these, they aren't looking for how many bodies are shown, they want to know how many people are killed over the course of the movie.
Like I said before, though, I'm not going to fight the rules on a board I only recently joined on a site I rarely visit if long-standing members are telling to back off.
As for Sloth, while the doctor does imply that he will die from his wounds eventually, it's made clear that he's already survived a full year like this and there's no reason to think he wouldn't live a while longer. It would be like counting someone who is diagnosed with terminal cancer in the last scene of the movie.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 5:45:09 GMT -5
Post by davethejew on Apr 15, 2009 5:45:09 GMT -5
God i hate new users. Just the shut the fuck up and go count the new Jet Li movie. Let the thinking on this site go to the big boys.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 14:53:21 GMT -5
Post by kingdok on Apr 15, 2009 14:53:21 GMT -5
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/03/david-fincher-interview-transcriptDavid Fincher: "So I read it, and got to the end, with the head in the box, and .... I talked about the whole head-in-the-box thing," Maybe you should do some research before you claim that one of the most famous movie endings in recent history didn't happen. Anyways, I've made my case.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 15:39:21 GMT -5
Post by davethejew on Apr 15, 2009 15:39:21 GMT -5
Still. No head. No death count. Greed shouldn't count either. No body, no body parts, just photos and blood stains. Maybe you should start your own body counting website. Other former users have... like these idiots: www.bodycounters.com/
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 15:44:35 GMT -5
Post by davethejew on Apr 15, 2009 15:44:35 GMT -5
www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/03/david-fincher-interview-transcriptDavid Fincher: "So I read it, and got to the end, with the head in the box, and .... I talked about the whole head-in-the-box thing," Maybe you should do some research before you claim that one of the most famous movie endings in recent history didn't happen. Anyways, I've made my case. And he's not actually admitting it. He's talking about the original script which had many many rewrites, fuckface.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 15, 2009 16:30:39 GMT -5
Post by kingdok on Apr 15, 2009 16:30:39 GMT -5
Did you read the article? Andrew Walker was forced to rewrite the script something like thirteen times and David Fincher went to the studio and demanded that they go back to the first one. Quote: "So I said, 'OK, let's go do it. Put the head in a box.' And that's how the movie got made."
Plus, IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS. Yeah, Fincher didn't actually show you what's in the box. That's because he's a talented director and not some hack who doesn't know the meaning of subtlety. The reason they don't actually show you the head is because they don't NEED to. Both Fincher and the writer made it a point to keep the movie from being explicitly gory and focused on implying to severity of the crimes through other means because that's called GOOD FILMMAKING.
I really can't believe we're arguing over the one of the most memorable endings of any movie ever. You know, in Chinatown, Faye Dunaway says she was molested by her father, but I'm not gonna believe her unless Polanski cuts to her and John Huston getting it on. Also, I think Kubrick should have included some graphic sex scenes in Lolita, because how else am I supposed to know what Humbert Humbert is doing? Oh, wait I'm not a dumbass fucking New Jerseyite who needs everything spelled out in huge neon letters.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 16, 2009 0:33:19 GMT -5
Post by davethejew on Apr 16, 2009 0:33:19 GMT -5
Yea i'm a dumbass. That's why i got a 168 on my LSAT's and i'm attending Temple Law in the fall. Oh and i'm graduating with Magna Cum Laude honors in less than a month. I'm not a fucking pussy ass internet troll who hides my information so noone can fuck with me, like you obviously do. Cunt.
|
|
|
Se7en
Apr 16, 2009 0:56:11 GMT -5
Post by kingdok on Apr 16, 2009 0:56:11 GMT -5
Hide my information? I linked you to the damn article, it's not my fault if you didn't read it. As for being a troll, I didn't want to get into an argument over this, but I couldn't help myself when you claimed that David Fincher denied that it was Tracy's head in the box.
By the way, I'm really impressed with your academic accomplishments. They totally make up for the fact that you're apparently incapable of watching a movie without having the director explain to you every little detail.
Anyways, unless you want to post some more "evidence" that it's not her head in the box, I'm gonna go ahead and stop posting in this thread.
|
|