who said it did?

-Vader

Vader182 wrote:

Mr. Caine wrote:Oh well Donnie Darko is not for everyone Now Fight Club-how the fuck could someone dont like that masterpiece

Nah, it's cool,

shooting yoursel in the head totally cures any variety of psychotic disorders.

-Vader

Since when was the film about psychotic disorder?
That you focus on such a detail just makes me think that you didn't get any of it.

The film is about the materialistic hollow nature of our consumeristic society, about our conditioned process to gain more and more useless garbage in the world. It's a theme not too distant from that of The Social Network. The logistics of the film, however, make absolutely no sense.

Vader182 wrote:

It's not about one, it's entire narrative relies on the assumption the main character suffers from either multi-personality disorder or schizofrenia, and upon shooting himself in the head, he's somehow cured. That doesn't make sense.

The film is about the materialistic hollow nature of our consumeristic society, about our conditioned process to gain more and more useless garbage in the world. It's a theme not too distant from that of The Social Network. The logistics of the film, however, make absolutely no sense.

Its some boring film you watch if everything has to make 100% sense. Why don't you just go with the premise of the story and enjoy what it has to say.

Vader182 wrote:

The film? Heh. I mean, that's what happened.

-Vader

That was symbolism. Jack shot Tyler several times and that did nothing to him, because Jack hadn't reached that certain kind of revelation yet. The one where he found out that he had to believe that he had control over Tyler. That was the thing that actually made Tyler shut up and get interested, not the gun. The gun only induced shock on Jack, who was actually trying to kill himself, but practically just woke up and sobered up. But there's no real indication that that meant The End for Tyler.

I mean Tyler didn't exist in the first place so why take his dead but not existent body as an indication that it's over for him. Jack just snapped out of it like someone would snap out of a trance.

Though there are other angles. The movie's logic dictates that self destruction is the real key to perfection, not self improvement. Tyler's purpose was that different kind of perfection when one can define himself as a strong individual willing to hurt himself, not his opponent, so that he can prove that he's stronger.

Well that's exactly what Jack did at the end. He realized that he wasn't doing anything while shooting at Tyler. He realized that pointing the gun at himself was the real deal. That leaves us with two options for interpreting Tyler's reaction to the gun in Jack's hand. He was either feeling that his own existence as... a non-existent alter-ego-personality... was threatened... which leaves us with what I already said... OR he was bluffing in pretty much the same way he was bluffing in the minivan when Jack was trying to think about which wire to cut. Tyler could've been manipulating Jack into pointing the gun at himself. After Tyler saw what Jack was willing to do to himself (and what he eventually did) there was no more need for Tyler and he was left with no purpose. So that's why he left. And this second option is the less realistic one ofc, because it suggests that this really is the end for Tyler.

Neither of this is realistic, but it makes sense.

Vader182 wrote:

It's not about one, it's entire narrative relies on the assumption the main character suffers from either multi-personality disorder or schizofrenia, and upon shooting himself in the head, he's somehow cured. That doesn't make sense.

The film is about the materialistic hollow nature of our consumeristic society, about our conditioned process to gain more and more useless garbage in the world. It's a theme not too distant from that of The Social Network. The logistics of the film, however, make absolutely no sense.

He suffers from "both", but it's not the first movie where such disorders have been altered for artistic purposes, nor will it be the last.

Jonas Agersø wrote:

Vader182 wrote:

It's not about one, it's entire narrative relies on the assumption the main character suffers from either multi-personality disorder or schizofrenia, and upon shooting himself in the head, he's somehow cured. That doesn't make sense.

The film is about the materialistic hollow nature of our consumeristic society, about our conditioned process to gain more and more useless garbage in the world. It's a theme not too distant from that of The Social Network. The logistics of the film, however, make absolutely no sense.

Its some boring film you watch if everything has to make 100% sense. Why don't you just go with the premise of the story and enjoy what it has to say.

Anyway how is it not possible to be cured that way? What he is suffering from is an internal battle between him and his alterego. If shooting himself in the head is in his little world the finale solution towards his problem, then who says that his mind can suppress Tyler from that moment on.
Anyway to be honest I enjoy the book's ending more (where he doesn't shoot himself in the head in the end)
All in all I actually enjoy the book better, it also has a lot more themes than just consumerism. But It doesn't change the fact that I think the film brilliant in every aspect

I don't have time to respond to what you said in detail, but I study psychology. Trust me, it doesn't even begin to make sense.

As for your other comment, yeah, sure, I could sit back and take it for what it is. But it still has flaws. I enjoy Fight Club, it's like an 8.5 or 8.75, I'm just a harsh critic most of the time.

@Prince, I understand all that, but regardless, I prefer my films to at least make some kind of sense within their own logic, and I felt for a script that toyed this much with an actual psychological and sociological basis, I felt an ending that relied on it making sense thematically/on a character level but not in terms of real-world logic was an error on the screenwriters part. Felt inconsistant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe/kinda see what I'm saying?

-Vader

I already explained a few times why I dislike FIGHT CLUB

http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtop ... 0&start=30

Vader182 wrote:
I don't have time to respond to what you said in detail, but I study psychology. Trust me, it doesn't even begin to make sense.

As for your other comment, yeah, sure, I could sit back and take it for what it is. But it still has flaws. I enjoy Fight Club, it's like an 8.5 or 8.75, I'm just a harsh critic most of the time.

@Prince, I understand all that, but regardless, I prefer my films to at least make some kind of sense within their own logic, and I felt for a script that toyed this much with an actual psychological and sociological basis, I felt an ending that relied on it making sense thematically/on a character level but not in terms of real-world logic was an error on the screenwriters part. Felt inconsistant. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe/kinda see what I'm saying?

-Vader

It's just that there are places where real world relevance is needed and places where it isn't. It's just not right for some things to be portrayed some way, but it's right for them to be portrayed another way. I know it doesn't even scratch the surface on what psychology suggests as things being the case. My girlfriend is studying psychology in Humboldt-Berlin and I've heard enough of that, but there's stuff in movies that is not supposed to be documentary and you know that.

In addition - it doesn't make sense according to psychological understandings EXACTLY because it (not only tries but succeeds to) makes sense within the movie. All the dualisms and monisms in it serve their structural and narrative purpose of making the viewer understand what it has to say about society and each individual separately. This movie needed to break rules (in this case the rules of psychology) as a necessary evil, so that it could deliver the messages, pretty much like Tyler said that you gotta break some eggs if you want an omlette.

It's funny how cinema and psychology have been walking hand in hand together since the revolution of film-noir accumulated by the invasion of psychoanalysis in America in the 30s and 40s and STILL it's the cinema that's the reason for all those misconceptions about most disorders. Still, it wouldn't be art if this wasn't the case.

And you're complaining mainly about it not being true to psychology and say that this is enough of a reason for it not to make sense. It makes perfect sense. Is it possible? No. Does it need to be? No. If I phone my alter-ego will it call me back? No. Do these little things have a lot to say about modern times where we consciously or not feel the desperate need for a tragedy so that we could be liberated and drawn out of our miserable state of halt? Oh yeah.

By the way did you know that the author of the book didn't have the intention to make a book about schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder? He was more than half way through when he suddenly realized it would make perfect sense and add a lot to the book (and eventually movie's) brilliant way of expression. Then he changed few minor things, went back to put several things into place and then went on. Look how that spontane little event turned out.