The Tree of Life (2011)

[42041]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

Honestly, that's another thing that puts me off about Malick, he's got a cut with double the running time? Come on, no way any serious storyteller had a clear goal when half of what they shot could be cut out of the movie. You don't see Christopher Nolan with a six hour cut of Inception.

Who said he had a clear goal Malick is known for extensive use of improvisation, shooting the same scene many times in different ways, and creating his films in the editing room.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by iam1bearcat

Agreed. Talk about a waste of time. And if I was an actor, I'd turn down the roles for his films. Work god knows how long and 85% of what you film and put work into gets cut. How fun!

Yeah, if I were an actor I wouldn't want to work with a high profile director - and get paid for it! That would suck.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

We are discussing the blu ray version of Tree of Life in a blu ray forum thread titled Tree of Life-so if we are off topic please let me know. It seems you have this confused with the Tree of Life fan club forum.

Well, at least say something remotely sensible...your posts are borderline threadcrapping.

Firstly, the six hour cut is only rumoured at this stage; a 5 hour cut of The Thin Red Line has been rumoured for years and years and has never materialized. As someone else said, they probably stem from Malick being known to shoot a *lot* of film and editing it down.

Secondly, you don't even like the standard 139 minute cut...so crapping on a supposed 6 hour cut (before it even exists, or you've even seen it, mind you) *is* just trolling

Thirdly, what rule is there for how long a film should be? I refer you to Berlin Alexanderplatz, at 15 1/2 hours, with an IMDB rating similar to Inception.

[frightism]

A negative opinion about a film isn't "trolling" or "threadcrapping", it's just a different opinion than someone elses. If someone feels positively or negatively about a film, they shouldn't be bashed for stating their opinion. And quite honestly, I don't see anyone "trolling". All I see is people discussing the likeliness of a rumored cut of a film.

[vader4]

I watched the movie and didn't like it but it isn't because I am less intelligent. I like to watch movies that make you think long after the credits roll, but I find this one a little ridiculous. I read an Entertainment Weekly article that was recommended to me earlier in the thread but if anything the writer of the article, who by the way claimed to love the movie, had a harder time making sense of it than I did and ended most of his paragraphs with perhaps. I am just trying to make sense of it all please help!

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by frightism

A negative opinion about a film isn't "trolling" or "threadcrapping", it's just a different opinion than someone elses. If someone feels positively or negatively about a film, they shouldn't be bashed for stating their opinion. And quite honestly, I don't see anyone "trolling". All I see is people discussing the likeliness of a rumored cut of a film.

The person I was replying to wasn't discussing the likelihood of a 6 hour cut - he accepted a 6 hour cut as reality and then crapped on it asking how the director could have any clear story-telling goal if half the movie could be cut out. Which IMO is such a ridiculous statement, I can only assume he is trolling.

Firstly, there would be plenty of movies that are cut down from very large amounts of footage, and they're cut for reasons other than the director doesn't know what he is saying - it's mostly because the audience won't sit through a 6 hour movie. Secondly, the fractured, impressionistic nature of the narrative means you could easily have a 6 hour cut, in a way that you couldn't for a more conventional A-B narrative. Not saying that it would make a good (or even remotely interesting) film, but creating a 6 hour Tree of Life wouldn't be as problematic as, say, Inception. Thirdly, if the 6 hour cut doesn't exist, I don't see how you can judge it in any way. If one day it did exist, it's just as valid to predict it being more cohesive than the shorter cut - take Kingdom of Heaven as an example.

I don't mind if people post negative opinions about the movie, as long as you back it up with some sensible reasoning.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by vader4

I watched the movie and didn't like it but it isn't because I am less intelligent. I like to watch movies that make you think long after the credits roll, but I find this one a little ridiculous. I read an Entertainment Weekly article that was recommended to me earlier in the thread but if anything the writer of the article, who by the way claimed to love the movie, had a harder time making sense of it than I did and ended most of his paragraphs with perhaps. I am just trying to make sense of it all please help!

Sometimes you can't make sense of everything - which is why the writer of that article wasn't sure about a lot of things. Unless you could sit down with Malick and have him lead you through it scene by scene, you are never going to know every last detail. Which for some people I can imagine would be frustrating.

All I know is that I understand some of it, I've read articles with other people's ideas, some things I don't understand, and some things I just have no answer for. I like that it makes me think about the parts that I don't understand.

It's like 2001 - I don't get some of it, but I can appreciate that Kubrick put some thought into what he was showing on screen, and I don't mind that I don't know it all. Do I feel the need to dig up Kubrick and ask him what he meant by the ending? No, that's part of the magic of the film. If I did know, I might end up being disappointed in how banal it was

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

We are discussing the blu ray version of Tree of Life in a blu ray forum thread titled Tree of Life-so if we are off topic please let me know. It seems you have this confused with the Tree of Life fan club forum.

No, all you are doing is thread crapping. This thread is not in the movie section where everyone who saw the film talks about it. This is the BD thread for people who are interested in buying it. You already said that you hate this film and have shown no desire to understand it, yet you keep coming back here and posting the same garbage. You don't see me writing about what a giant piece of shit Sucker Punch is in that BD thread because I have enough respect to stay out of it since it will be full of posters who enjoyed it.

On top of that, you and the others *****ing and moaning about the six hour cut is hilarious. First of all, you haven't even seen it and you already hate it. And again, if you all hate the film why are you still here? You have already expressed your opinion and you keep coming back to shit on a movie that went way over your head.

I won't even bother with the poster who said the six hour cut would keep him from working with Malick. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a looooong time.

[vader4]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Sometimes you can't make sense of everything - which is why the writer of that article wasn't sure about a lot of things. Unless you could sit down with Malick and have him lead you through it scene by scene, you are never going to know every last detail. Which for some people I can imagine would be frustrating.

All I know is that I understand some of it, I've read articles with other people's ideas, some things I don't understand, and some things I just have no answer for. I like that it makes me think about the parts that I don't understand.

It's like 2001 - I don't get some of it, but I can appreciate that Kubrick put some thought into what he was showing on screen, and I don't mind that I don't know it all. Do I feel the need to dig up Kubrick and ask him what he meant by the ending? No, that's part of the magic of the film. If I did know, I might end up being disappointed in how banal it was

I guess I can appreciate that but then can anyone answer one more question Why is mother floating in the garden?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by lemonski

It's like 2001 - I don't get some of it, but I can appreciate that Kubrick put some thought into what he was showing on screen, and I don't mind that I don't know it all. Do I feel the need to dig up Kubrick and ask him what he meant by the ending? No, that's part of the magic of the film. If I did know, I might end up being disappointed in how banal it was

Interestingly, 2001 is fairly straightforward, even if its loaded with metaphors and such. Its essentially mankind reaching his pinnacle of evolution and then ultimately being reborn to start a new. Hence, the song played during monolith scenes.

The "banal" is all on purpose - the humans in this film are so teched-out and everything is so perfect that they've almost lost their humanity and have almost become machine-like. The astronauts and space bereaucrats are PHD-wielding nerds and they act accordingly. It really is all there.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Interestingly, 2001 is fairly straightforward, even if its loaded with metaphors and such. Its essentially mankind reaching his pinnacle of evolution and then ultimately being reborn to start a new. Hence, the song played during monolith scenes.

That's exactly how I find Tree Of Life...a lot of it is relatively straightforward. But like 2001 there are things in it I have no idea what the hell they mean. That's what I like about both movies. The thing is if I did know exactly what every little thing meant, I think the mystique and magic would disappear. Which is why it doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The "banal" is all on purpose - the humans in this film are so teched-out and everything is so perfect that they've almost lost their humanity and have almost become machine-like. The astronauts and space bereaucrats are PHD-wielding nerds and they act accordingly. It really is all there.

By banal I was referring to what it might be like if I knew exactly what everything in 2001 was about - the loss of the mystique around the film. But your interpretation is interesting, I never thought of 2001 that way

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by vader4

I guess I can appreciate that but then can anyone answer one more question Why is mother floating in the garden?

That one puzzles me too I think that if the mother represents grace, her floating in the garden shows it in its ethereal, spiritual form, neither bound to earth or her human state.

[Carl Elvis]

Originally Posted by Jinto

No, all you are doing is thread crapping. This thread is not in the movie section where everyone who saw the film talks about it. This is the BD thread for people who are interested in buying it. You already said that you hate this film and have shown no desire to understand it, yet you keep coming back here and posting the same garbage. You don't see me writing about what a giant piece of shit Sucker Punch is in that BD thread because I have enough respect to stay out of it since it will be full of posters who enjoyed it.

On top of that, you and the others *****ing and moaning about the six hour cut is hilarious. First of all, you haven't even seen it and you already hate it. And again, if you all hate the film why are you still here? You have already expressed your opinion and you keep coming back to shit on a movie that went way over your head.

I won't even bother with the poster who said the six hour cut would keep him from working with Malick. That has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a looooong time.

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision.

So you've discovered the one, true definition of 'Art'?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

what are some films you consider "true works of art"?

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

"True work of art", I don't even know how to respond to this,

Now your threadcraping btw.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

It is now crystal clear that you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Go back to your comic movies, philistine.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

So you've discovered the one, true definition of 'Art'?

Keep in mind that this definition of art is coming from the same person who compared The Tree of Life in a negative way to, "going to museums and trying to figure out meaning in abstract paintings". Talk about anti-intellectual, lol!

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

I was right all along - Transformers, Sucker Punch and Watchmen *are* your intellectual limit. Back to Zach Snyder and Michael Bay for you, trolling threadcrapper.

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by Carl Elvis

My simple point, is that any true work of art doesn't have DOUBLE the material that can be added or deleted while maintaining the artist's vision. Malick is a con man who shows pretty and strange images, the rest depends on the size of the viewer's ego.

Look, I actually like most of the films in your collection. I'm not going to criticize your taste like some. Watchmen is actually a bit underrated.
But...

You have no idea what you are talking about so shush. You keep making statements that imply that you know absolutely nothing about art or using one's mind to interpret ideas.