@Thespear said:

Ray,

Do you think reasonable arguments can be made for and against immigration? Do you think similar arguments can be made for and against say 'racism' or'the idea that the planet's climate is changing'? Disagreeing with someone or some idea is NOT the same as wilfully IGNORING. them! This movie is aimed at the latter.

NO. I don't think a reasonable argument can be made for unlimited immigration to America.

why are you assuming there was more to it than the plot contrivance we got? I dont think the writer even thought past it drives you crazy to look at it. the other aspects of it didnt make sense and clearly only were there for plot. It was a rip off of cthulu. Thats it. Its sharknado for millenials who think theyre too smart to enjoy sharknado.

Exhibit A of the 'willful ignorance' this movie is aimed at and the standard operating procedure of the Trump right today: Facts and reason be damned! My opinion or else! I never mentioned 'unlimited immigration'.

@Altaire. said:

why are you assuming there was more to it than the plot contrivance we got? I dont think the writer even thought past it drives you crazy to look at it. the other aspects of it didnt make sense and clearly only were there for plot.

My understanding is that it is based off a book. If so I was unaware/haven't read it. My modus operandi is to let each creative work stand on it's own, and my questions were rooted in that experience alone. I think it's far too easy to assume the worst of creators when it comes to intention. Sure, there are always "happy accidents" but artists usually recognize and celebrate those, few are crass about the craft in my experience. This film, in my experience, had some depth. As I posted after, I saw a model of the "monster" and the smartest thing they did was leave it out. Nothing quite as scary as our human imagination, and the opportunity to speculate/dialog after an experience only adds to the value of that experience. Hence TMDB boards.

@Altaire. said:

It was a rip off of cthulu. Thats it.

I was unaware of cthulu. I'll check it out.

*Edit: After posting this I researched cthulu and realized the myth seemed familiar...I quickly confirmed that I was recalling it from the video The Film Theorist put out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiTaYglOlnY). Based on their analysis cthulu is close, but not complete, nor does it fully meet all the requirements of this film's monster. They end up attributing it to "an original thought" (which, again on second viewing was captured in the book's author's question,"What would it be like if a monster was infinity?" in a 2015 interview.)

@Altaire. said:

Its sharknado for millenials who think theyre too smart to enjoy sharknado.

Lots of assumptions in this comment, but I have to be honest, I couldn't be bothered to watch Sharknado (nor the much acclaimed Rubber) as kitsch creations are on their surface annoying to me...like wearing clothes ironically. But hey, I'm not mad that others watch such dribble. Oh, and #notamillenial

@Thespear said:

I have not seen the movie only heard about it.

While I liked (literally 'liked') your contribution to this thread, in some ways your first line is disqualifying. That said, I did like it as it added to the conversation, so thanks for that!

@Thespear said:

Exhibit A of the 'willful ignorance' this movie is aimed at and the standard operating procedure of the Trump right today: Facts and reason be damned! My opinion or else! I never mentioned 'unlimited immigration'.

Since this thread (like nearly everything these days) has careened off into overt politics, I only wanted to add that it seems to me that much of our art/experience functions as a Rorschach Test for each viewer. We know that all of us bring our perspective to anything in life, but what is concerning is how little questioning there is of those assumptions. I think it is a fair critique to say that this film could be "aimed at" a bunch of stuff--not a specific set of stuff--that we are unwilling to acknowledge, and any assertion to the contrary only demonstrates our own bias (aka "insert your favorite monster here").

F@#K A NETFLIX....F@#K A BIRDBOX...WHO F@#KING CARES.

@VHS-VANDAL said:

F@#K A NETFLIX....F@#K A BIRDBOX...WHO F@#KING CARES.

Ummmm...you? :)

NEGATIVE.

@Daddie0 said:

While the film was enjoyable, I kept trying to work out the meta-narrative. What we know:

• when people see they kill themselves (I would say “want to” but everyone succeeds)
• obscuring your vision keeps you safe (aka hiding under blankets, seeing only shadows)
• the thing wanting to be seen appears as nature and uses historical audio misdirection from people’s past to deceive them
• crazy people are unaffected, think it’s beautiful and want everyone to see
• blind people are completely unaffected

So, what is the monster?

What is the monster, indeed.

A dog cannot comprehend general relativity. By that same logic there cloud be things, horrors or monsters that we cannot comprehend either. Their mere form would be maddening to us... they are called Eldritch Abominations.

Also Brown Note Being: One sight or sound from this creature turns you to stone, whitens your hair, ages you, leaves you paralyzed, blind, obsessed, insane, suicidal, or dead. Your eyeballs burst into flame, your eye color changes, or some other change to pupil or iris. Whatever the Brown Note effect is, it must be automatic, not a spell, device, or voluntary power.

Bird Box follows the same trope. Those beings are supposed to be incomprehensible and unbearable to the human mind.