What modern films do you think will be regarded as classics in the future?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Turnip Jedi**

Yodhrin wrote:
I always wonder; when folks slip into "kids today no taste or sophistication fnar fnar" mode, do they realise people of a certain age were saying literally the exact same things about their generation when watching loads of the things they now consider "classics"? Do they know literally every generation in history has considered subsequent generations to be weaker/less intelligent/less moral/lazier/lacking in taste etc etc by comparison?

And if they do, why do they think their griping is any more based in reality than that of their parents and grandparents etc all the way back to sodding Aristotle(that we know of)?

There's a question that someone should make a pretentious "arthouse" movie about eh

Fair point, I think the Internet has however massively accelerated that process

**A Town Called Malus**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I went in to Fury Road expecting action schlock, and it blew me away. The sheer amount of effective visual storytelling awed me. Anyone who wants to learn how to show and not tell needs to watch it. The film also trusted the audience in a way few movies ever do. It was a masterpiece.

This.

In other films there would have needed to be some "tension" filled discussion where Max and Furiosa told each other they didn't trust each other and then later another one where they say how they have to put aside their differences and work together, capped off by another one where they tell each other that they earned their trust..

In Fury Road, those conversations didn't happen because they are entirely unnecessary. We see that Max doesn't trust Furiosa when he collects all the guns in the cab of the rig and takes them with him when he goes to fix the issue at the rear of the rig. We see that that Furiosa doesn't trust Max when she reveals the knife hidden in the gear stick when he is gone, which he doesn't know about (this also serves to set up the gear stick knife for later in the film when Furiosa is stabbed herself). Then we see them working together to fight off the bikers and Furiosa telling Max the sequence to start the rig. The final part is when Max tells Furiosa his name and saves her life with his own blood and letting the air out of her chest (which is also set up earlier with Max being a universal donor and after Max is thrown from Nux's car and has an air bubble in his transfusion tube).

Then there is the visual cues of Max coming to trust Nux. At first Max takes back his jacket, knocks Nux out and steals one of his boots to replace the one Max lost. Later, after Nux has made himself useful in getting the Rig out of the bog, Max gives him a boot which he steals from one of the people on the Bullet Farmers vehicle, which signifies Max accepting him as part of their group. He never needs to tell Nux that he trusts him, the giving of the boot shows it.

Fury Road tells its story exceptionally well and nothing in the film is there for no reason. The attention to detail that went into making it is phenomenal.

**Xenomancers**

The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.

**Vaktathi**

Xenomancers wrote:
The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.

I mean, its not like the other Mad Max films have been about terribly sophisticated things.

Mad Max - cop in a decaying society fights a roaming gang, loses his wife and kid and kills the gang members.

The Road Warrior - cop who lost everything and has turned into a cynical and bitter survivalist in the now post apocalyptic wasteland fights a bigger gang over resources.

Beyond Thunderdome - cynical and bitter survivalist gets robbee, then hired to do a dirty deed, fails to do dirty deed, ends up going back and helping kids he found, all with a heavier dose of camp.

Not sure in what way the other Mad Max films were better, Fury Road pretty clearly blasts them all away in every conceivable manner.

**oldravenman3025**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I thought this might be a fun discussion to have, where we can throw out our picks for the films which have the staying power and artistic merit to endure past their contemporaries. So, as the title asks, what modern films does Dakka think will go down as classics when people look back decades from now?

My vote has to go to Mad Max: Fury Road. I can't think of a better action film that I've seen in the cinema. The fight choreography was phenomenal, the action never felt like it was repeating itself thanks to the plot serving to separate different elements of the force chasing the war rig, allowing each new sequence to feature different spectacles (first fight is a small number of small, fast cars vs each other and war rig in the open desert and then a sandstorm, second is bikes vs. war rig in a tight, enclosed canyon, next is Immortan's monster truck vs War Rig, then you have the final set piece where you have small cars, large rigs, the polemen and motorbikes all crashing into each other, first in open desert then in the canyon).

And despite all the craziness going on in these action sequences you never feel disoriented thanks to how the framing of the shots are chosen, where the action of the shot is always centre frame so the eye doesn't have to dart around the screen during multiple fast cuts.

All that is wrapped up in a film that knows not to bog you down with unnecessary dialogue, that trusts you to understand what is being shown without having to tell you in dialogue thanks to usage of foreshadowing and set up/payoff which allow for world details to be passed onto the viewer without disrupting the action with expositional dialogue. A perfect example of this is the setting up of the chrome spray paint and calling to be witnessed. We are shown someone doing this before suiciding to kill an enemy and so when Nux opens his fuel tanks, sprays his mouth and calls on Max to witness him we immediately know he is going to try a suicidal attack without any character needing to say that out loud. Everything we know about this world (except for the initial voice over during the opening credits) is told to us through the action and natural dialogue between characters. We never have an instance of a character asking what would be a stupid question in the film universe solely so another character can answer them and tell us about some detail that everybody should already know about in the films world but which the viewers might not know.

These videos explain what I'm trying to put across better than I probably can:

Spoiler:

So, what other nominations does Dakka have?

Truthfully? Very few to none.

There is a wide gulf between films that meet the criteria to become timeless classics, and films that are just more pop culture, mass consumption schlock. The last decade that produced anything even coming close to meeting the requirements was the early 90's. And that is being generous.

**Turnip Jedi**

the other Mad Max films don't have a sweaty Ms Theron in so are clearly inferior

oh and some clver bobbins about hope, redemption and belief

**JohnHwangDD**

Turnip Jedi wrote:
the other Mad Max films don't have a sweaty Ms Theron in so are clearly inferior1

The real Mad Max series has Tina Turner. Done.

**Xenomancers**

Vaktathi wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.
I mean, its not like the other Mad Max films have been about terribly sophisticated things.

Mad Max - cop in a decaying society fights a roaming gang, loses his wife and kid and kills the gang members.

The Road Warrior - cop who lost everything and has turned into a cynical and bitter survivalist in the now post apocalyptic wasteland fights a bigger gang over resources.

Beyond Thunderdome - cynical and bitter survivalist gets robbee, then hired to do a dirty deed, fails to do dirty deed, ends up going back and helping kids he found, all with a heavier dose of camp.

Not sure in what way the other Mad Max films were better, Fury Road pretty clearly blasts them all away in every conceivable manner.

They other mad max films I wouldn't consider very good ether. I would rate all of these films in the same category of Water World.

For the Post Apoc Genre - the best 2 I've seen in the past 10 years are "Oblivion" and "The Book of Eli" both worthy of Classic status IMO.

**Turnip Jedi**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:
the other Mad Max films don't have a sweaty Ms Theron in so are clearly inferior1

The real Mad Max series has Tina Turner. Done.

further proof of far too many coke based casting decisions of the 80's

**A Town Called Malus**

Xenomancers wrote:
The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.

Sure, if we ignore the reason they go back to where they started. And they do not go back to where they started as at the beginning the Citadel had Immortan Joe. His removal changes the Citadel.

They were running away to get to a place, they find out said place does not exist, they then realise that a place with what they need is the place they were running from and since it is now undefended, they can take it.

They didn't arbitrarily decide to just turn round. There was a logical reason for doing so.

**Xenomancers**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.

Sure, if we ignore the reason they go back to where they started. And they do not go back to where they started as at the beginning the Citadel had Immortan Joe. His removal changes the Citadel.

They were running away to get to a place, they find out said place does not exist, they then realise that a place with what they need is the place they were running from and since it is now undefended, they can take it.

They didn't arbitrarily decide to just turn round. There was a logical reason for doing so.

The logical thing to do would be to keep running. So what if happy land or whatever they were looking for doesn't exist. Anyways - we can just disagree on the movie - that is fine with me. I just think there are much better candidates for classical elevation than this - which is essentially just a high budget action flick and wasn't even trying to be anything more.

**Blackie**

Xenomancers wrote:
The story of running away only to return to exactly where you started? Just so you can have giant semis being chased by buggies with flame throwers?

The story is lame IMO. Visuals are good but that doesn't impress me anymore. If it didn't have Tom Hardy in it I don't think I would have even finished the movie.

Mad Max Fury Road is entirely about the emancipation of women, a strong matter that is basically never portrayed in cinema with the exception of some boring biopics, and I never understood while americans love biopics so much that every year tons of them are released in theatres.

Those women returned to the same oasis that they escaped from but not as slaves; they also realized that there were no other places to live since the prosimed land they seek dried years before. Also the hobbits come back to their land at the end, and they continue to live there exaclty as they did before their adventure. Does it mean that The Lord of the Rings has no point?

IMHO The Book of Eli and Oblivion were both at Waterworld's level, lol.

**JohnHwangDD**

Blackie wrote:
Does it mean that The Lord of the Rings has no point?

The LotR movies were simply made to showcase how nice it looks to walk around New Zealand. That was the point, right?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Xenomancers wrote:
For the Post Apoc Genre - the best 2 I've seen in the past 10 years are "Oblivion" and "The Book of Eli" both worthy of Classic status IMO.

You must be Christian then

.
The whole bible plot was stupid beyond belief.
There is a reason why The Book of Eli only worked in the land of the Christian Crazies while Fury Road worked abroad too.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_d%27Eli#Box-office
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max%3A_Fury_Road#Box-office
The difference is manifest. Fury Road box office in the US is 1,5 Book of Eli box office. Fury Road box office in France (a secular country with way fewer Christian Crazies) is almost 5 times the Book of Eli box office.

The Book of Eli will be forgotten, except from time to time as laughter fodder by B-movies/Z-movies fans from time to time. Mark my words.

**DarkTraveler777**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
For the Post Apoc Genre - the best 2 I've seen in the past 10 years are "Oblivion" and "The Book of Eli" both worthy of Classic status IMO.

You must be Christian then .
The whole bible plot was stupid beyond belief.
There is a reason why The Book of Eli only worked in the land of the Christian Crazies while Fury Road worked abroad too.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_d%27Eli#Box-office
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max%3A_Fury_Road#Box-office
The difference is manifest. Fury Road box office in the US is 1,5 Book of Eli box office. Fury Road box office in France (a secular country with way fewer Christian Crazies) is almost 5 times the Book of Eli box office.

The Book of Eli will be forgotten, except from time to time as laughter fodder by B-movies/Z-movies fans from time to time. Mark my words.

Atheist here. Loved Book of Eli. The bible plot was fine in my opinion.

I wonder, if Fury Road being part of a long standing franchise had anything to do with its box office take?

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

In case anyone accuses me of politicizing things, here a the first two user reviews when I look on imdb:

Spoiler:

“The movie is good because it's a Christian metaphor”
and

Spoiler:

The first thing that strikes you about this film is how horrid and beautiful it looks all at the same time. We are in a post-apocalyptic world of washed out colours, destroyed structures and dying people scrabbling to make sure they are not the next to die; and it is a world that is really well designed and really well filmed by Don Burgess. Everything looks convincing and it doesn't feel like they just shot it out in a desert location, it genuinely feels like a scorched earth. The only slight irritant about the look of the film is that it does feel very much like a great copy of the world of Fallout 3 as created by Bethseda – right down to the design of the "bandits" with their goggles and ragged clothing; this bugged me and those very familiar with this world via gaming may also feel the film is "borrowing" rather than creating.

I talk about the look and style of the film first because to me it is really one of the main reasons to watch this film and indeed for the first 20 minutes or so, it is all we are drifting on – this sense of the cool and the barren without much in the way of who's or why's. Unfortunately when the plot does start to come in, it does so with a terribly corny story and message that wouldn't be out of place in one of those overly-earnest low-budget films made by Christian companies. Indeed this is what this film is – an overly earnest religious film, it just happens to have cost millions and have massive Hollywood stars involved in it. Now, this is the point where you assume that I dislike the film because it is to do with God and the bible, but this wasn't it all at – it didn't help for sure, but this isn't the reason.

The main problem I have is that the film doesn't actually seem interested in making this message work and the plot just seems like a necessary evil to get the character walking in slow-mo around this cool landscape. There isn't much development beyond the basic dialogue about the power of this book and it is nothing but endless corn in the main; I may have respected it more if it had done something with the content, but it doesn't, indeed it seems almost embarrassed by it. The Hughes Brothers for sure aren't particularly interested in that and thus the performances and shots are all about the style, the atmosphere and the look of the film. Accordingly the cast do the same – which is fine because I wonder why they were all queuing up to be in this story. Washington is a great lead because he is all style and presence and he fits the landscape well. Kunis' character makes less sense as she goes on but she is stunning to look at and again fits the style aspect of the film. Oldman's villain is poor and as a result he is only OK.

What all this leaves then is a film that should be watched by fans of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, simply because it is a great film recreation of those worlds, from the colour of the sky down to the costumes it feels and looks like the games. Outside of this though, the casual viewer is left with very little of interest going on behind the style; the story is cloyingly religious and lacking any insight or intelligence – in terms of writing it feels like having two guys at your door trying to sell Jesus to you with platitudes and clichés. It all looks fantastic but unfortunately the script simply doesn't deserve the visuals.

The story sucks because it's corny, bad Christian propaganda.

The thing is so freaking in-your-face that it's just impossible to go past it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The bible plot was fine in my opinion.

Sure, that book is SOOOO special that holding it gives you manipulation super powers and everyone believes it

.

**DarkTraveler777**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The bible plot was fine in my opinion.

Sure, that book is SOOOO special that holding it gives you manipulation super powers and everyone believes it .

Your hate boner is showing.

But, if you actually would like to discuss the use of the bible in that movie I'd be happy to. The book was just a book, it was the message behind it and how the person used that message which made the book potent. That message could be used as weapon, like Carnegie (Gary Oldman) intended, or it could be used to bring about hope and renewal, as Eli and the residents of Alcatraz intended it. The book itself was useless, and held no real power as an artifact, further reinforced by the book being a braille copy that was unreadable by anyone other than Eli and Claudia (Jennifer Beals).

The book didn't give Eli any powers, and it likely wouldn't have given Carnegie the power of control he was looking for because he didn't understand the book's real value. Hope.

You could argue the movie is as much an argument against religion as it is in support of religion. The bible destroyed Carnegie and his town. The bible destroyed Eli as he carried it across the continent, and after all that death and destruction, after copies are made, the bible is simply put on the shelf of a library next to other religious texts seemingly showing how the texts themselves are beyond the squabbles of mankind. Nothing really changed after all the effort expended by Carnegie, Eli or Solana, except that a copy of the King James bible was added to the Alcatraz library.

I found the movie to be fantastic because god didn't save the day. Solara heads back out into the wastes, Carnegie's town self destructs, and the world keeps on turning without anyone giving a damn either way.

**greatbigtree**

I am Agnostic. I enjoyed The Book of Eli.

While I did think it was a little... off... that the Bible was so prominent in the film, there is something to be said about it, even from a non-religious standpoint.

In post-apocolyptia, these people have fallen back on superstition. They don't KNOW the contents of the book. They know it was important in the "before time" and that many copies were apparently destroyed. So that finding a living copy is like finding a "Magic Talisman" that could give power to the one that holds it. To me, it was a subtle irony. The book doesn't give the power, the faith it described that no longer exists (presumably) had the power. The power was in the way it was presented by (for example) Televangelists.

There is no power in the book, except for the belief in the power. It's the same as Kung Fu Panda. There's nothing on the scroll. There's nothing (understandable) in the Bible that is "won".

Maybe it's my own lack of belief that gave me this view, but I thought it was a marvelous twist. Again, there's a depth to the story beyond simple "Christianity is awesome!" It's part of the cultural heritage being recovered.

**Xenomancers**

I'm an athiest too. LOL.

It's just a good story. Well acted and it makes you think a little bit.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But, if you actually would like to discuss the use of the bible in that movie I'd be happy to. The book was just a book, it was the message behind it and how the person used that message which made the book potent.

The stupid villain who is already in charge of everything and is perfectly in control risks and lose all for a book he has no need of, because it's so special

.
He could literally write anything in any piece of paper and it would work just as well.
But we, the audience, are supposed to believe that the book is special.

**Vaktathi**

The book of Eli was a fun watch, but not anything that stuck with me.

Oblivion I couldnt take seriously because the rationale given for the alien invasion was beyond stupid. "We need hydrogen, so lets bypass the largest, easiest to collect, and uncontested sources of it to squeeze an comparably irrelevant amount of it from liquid water on the one place that will fight back". It's like the US spending a trillion dollars to recover a tiny amount of petroleum used in making a plastic widget and placed in the middle of a Taliban camp in Afghanistan.

**greatbigtree**

@ Hybrid

I think your prejudice is on display, rather than having a valid criticism of the movie.

The point wasn't that the book was special. Like I said earlier, it was viewed (falsely) as a magic talisman in-universe that could increase the power of the megalomaniacal Oldman.

We as the audience become aware that the book isn't special in our world, and is misunderstood in post-apocalyptia. I think you're projecting yourself onto the plot. The audience isn't supposed to believe in the magic of the book. Quite the contrary, we're expected to understand the pointlessness of fighting over religion.

In the end, all points of view are considered equal. given the same "value" on the same shelf.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

greatbigtree wrote:
We as the audience become aware that the book isn't special in our world, and is misunderstood in post-apocalyptia.

There is no hint of that. There is nothing in the presentation of the movie that makes us see the book as “not actually a big deal”.
The whole thing is supposed to be a mere 30 years after the apocalypse, why would Carnegie, who can read, already knows the bible, and is old enough to have known the Bible as an adult before the cataclysm, think of it as this incredible think that will allow him to control people? Certainly not because that's how someone intelligent enough to control the town would behave. More like because the author consider it the most important book ever…

**DarkTraveler777**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But, if you actually would like to discuss the use of the bible in that movie I'd be happy to. The book was just a book, it was the message behind it and how the person used that message which made the book potent.

The stupid villain who is already in charge of everything and is perfectly in control risks and lose all for a book he has no need of, because it's so special .
He could literally write anything in any piece of paper and it would work just as well.
But we, the audience, are supposed to believe that the book is special.

You aren't getting it, clearly.

The book isn't special on its own. The book represents control to Carnegie (your "stupid villain") because he is old enough to remember the power religion had before society collapsed, but he obviously wasn't a believer and doesn't know exactly *how* belief motivates people. He thinks he needs the bible because it will give him access to that power of control, forgetting that part of faith's power isn't just subservience to a book, or a series of laws, but also belief in something better, something bigger--namely hope. Hope for the future. Hope for salvation. Whatever it is for the individual, it isn't just about using the book as a weapon to keep people in line. You have to also give people something to cling to, to put their faith in, and build hope around.

Carnegie couldn't "write anything" and achieve the same outcome because he didn't have the words. I think that is an actual line in the movie, even, but its been a while since I watched it. Still, the character lacked the capacity to project the influential power of religion that he wanted, so he fetishisized a book thinking that the book was enough to grant him the power he wanted. It wasn't. The book wasn't special. That was the twist! The whole time the characters and audience are led to believe that the book is the answer, the macguffin that will change things, and it isn't! What is lost on most of the characters (and apparently you) is not that the book is special, but rather it was the message inside the book that was significant. Or it wasn't. Because, again, the world ultimately didn't care about Eli, Carnegie or the bible.

**greatbigtree**

Not actually a big deal, other than the whole put on a shelf with the other religious texts in a completely mundane way with no fanfare or special circumstance?

I'm going to rewatch it tonight. I thought it occurred further into the post-apocalypse, maybe I remember incorrectly. That said, I do distinctly recall NOT feeling it was a propaganda film. Another viewing is in order!

**DarkTraveler777**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
We as the audience become aware that the book isn't special in our world, and is misunderstood in post-apocalyptia.

There is no hint of that. There is nothing in the presentation of the movie that makes us see the book as “not actually a big deal”.

Yes, there is. That the book is in braille and functionally useless is indication 1.

That Eli gives the book to Carnegie is indication 2. If it was really a holy artifact would the hero hand it over? The physical book didn't matter because Eli had the text memorized and he knew that. The book was just a vessel and not an actual artifact.

That the bible is shelved next to the torah and quran and other texts indicates that it isn't special. That others have carried the same burden as Eli, with the same goals, only to have their efforts end up on a dusty shelf is kinda depressing.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The whole thing is supposed to be a mere 30 years after the apocalypse, why would Carnegie, who can read, already knows the bible, and is old enough to have known the Bible as an adult before the cataclysm, think of it as this incredible think that will allow him to control people? Certainly not because that's how someone intelligent enough to control the town would behave. More like because the author consider it the most important book ever…

A couple of problems with your assertion:
1) Carnegie doesn't know the bible. That is the problem. He knows of it. He knew it motivated people, and cowed people, but he doesn't know it's verses intimately enough to make any use of them, and it is probably safe that he didn't know them to begin with. Carnegie was probably a "dirty atheist" like you and me, knowing that religion could be a useful tool but not knowing enough of the metaphysical aspects to make a production. Otherwise, Carnegie would be rattling off verses in the film, which he doesn't. That alone is a strong indicator that he is unaware of the bible's contents.

Imagine if a dialogue scene occurred between Carnegie and Eli with Carnegie misquoting scripture and Eli correcting him. Then your argument might hold some water, since it would be clear that Carnegie knew the rough details of the bible, or at least knew enough to trick people, but he doesn't even have that minimal understanding of the text.

2) I don't agree with your assessment that the movie fawns over the bible, so claiming the author considers it the most important book ever is just grasping at straws. Do you actually know anything about the screen writer(s)? I don't so this isn't a gotcha moment, but I agree with greatbigtree, I think your prejudice is showing. Along with your hate boner.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The book isn't special on its own. The book represents control to Carnegie (your "stupid villain") because he is old enough to remember the power religion had before society collapsed, but he obviously wasn't a believer and doesn't know exactly *how* belief motivates people.

Yeah, Atheists are bad and stupidly misunderstand religion, yawn.
I guess at 20, he had no idea how cults work, never heard of scientology or anything, had never read the bible…

There is NO non-believer right now that believes having a bible will help you control people and who are good enough manipulators to control people. It's pretty easy to see that many of the best manipulators don't use the bible. Cult leaders just write their own books, possibly pretending it's the latest version/addition of previous holy books…

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Carnegie couldn't "write anything" and achieve the same outcome because he didn't have the words.

He already has the words. HE ALREADY MANIPULATES EVERYONE IN TOWN! He can simply take a sheet of paper with random symbols on it and make it up on the fly as he needs.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Still, the character lacked the capacity to project the influential power of religion that he wanted

He does just fine. He does better than he would if he was bound by an actual book. He isn't even devout himself ffs, he has no reason to want the book.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
That Eli gives the book to Carnegie is indication 2. If it was really a holy artifact would the hero hand it over? The physical book didn't matter because Eli had the text memorized and he knew that. The book was just a vessel and not an actual artifact.

“It's not total bible fanboyism because look it says that the text is the important part not the book”.
Yeah, sure, but it's the text that makes it a bible, not the physical book…

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
That the bible is shelved next to the torah and quran and other texts indicates that it isn't special.

Or… that those other books are special too?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
1) Carnegie doesn't know the bible.

Like many Americans, Carnegie has no idea what is in the bible

.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Carnegie was probably a "dirty atheist" like you and me, knowing that religion could be a useful tool but not knowing enough of the metaphysical aspects to make a production.

But the people that make the best cult leaders aren't the one that knows the religious text best. Charles Manson got a pretty dedicated cult going, he use the freaking Beatles lyrics as his holy scripture. When I said Carnegie could use anything written on paper that was literal.
And yeah, someone good enough to control a whole town would know it.

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Do you actually know anything about the screen writer(s)?

No, do you?

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I don't so this isn't a gotcha moment, but I agree with greatbigtree, I think your prejudice is showing. Along with your hate boner.

So, what exactly is my prejudice? And why did I get this “hate boner”, exactly?

**DarkTraveler777**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The book isn't special on its own. The book represents control to Carnegie (your "stupid villain") because he is old enough to remember the power religion had before society collapsed, but he obviously wasn't a believer and doesn't know exactly *how* belief motivates people.

Yeah, Atheists are bad and stupidly misunderstand religion, yawn.
I guess at 20, he had no idea how cults work, never heard of scientology or anything, had never read the bible…

I dunno, I haven't seen the "Young Carnegie" movie. Was it good?

Book of Eli doesn't indicate that Carnegie knows anything more about the bible than it was a useful tool for controlling people. If he had a religious background, yes, he probably could have written his own bible and conned people into following him, but he doesn't have the ability to galvanize people with religion because he wasn't religious. He is able to pretend, but he doesn't know where to start which is why he wants a bible.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
There is NO non-believer right now that believes having a bible will help you control people and who are good enough manipulators to control people. It's pretty easy to see that many of the best manipulators don't use the bible. Cult leaders just write their own books, possibly pretending it's the latest version/addition of previous holy books…

Oh, cool. I didn't realize we were living in a post-apocalyptic hellscape. We aren't posting on the internet right now? With the lights on and access to all of humanity's combined knowledge? I am just checking because I am at work, and sometimes this place feels like a hellscape.

So, to address your point. Cult leaders have access to knowledge. Scientology was created by an author who was most certainly a reader of other texts. Other cults are formed by charlatans who take religion and twist it to suit their needs. In Book of Eli Carnegie was trying to do that, but 30+ years of scavenging and societal collapse took away the foundations of knowledge necessary to craft a cult. That. Is. Why. Carnegie. Wanted. The. Fething. Bible. He didn't have religious texts to taint and turn into his own religion. They were all burned, or whatever the line is from the movie. That is why Eli's book is special to Carnegie. Read that correctly. It is special to Carnegie because he thinks it will unlock insights into controlling people. The book is not special on its own. Much like you, Carnegie projected all over that book.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Carnegie couldn't "write anything" and achieve the same outcome because he didn't have the words.

He already has the words. HE ALREADY MANIPULATES EVERYONE IN TOWN! He can simply take a sheet of paper with random symbols on it and make it up on the fly as he needs.

The movie addresses that. He wants to expand his control, increase his territories, and knows he can do that with religion.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Still, the character lacked the capacity to project the influential power of religion that he wanted

He does just fine. He does better than he would if he was bound by an actual book. He isn't even devout himself ffs, he has no reason to want the book.

He does fine? Carnegie barely controls the town. In fact, when he loses a few guys to Eli, his position is extremely jeopardized by lack of manpower/muscle. I think you are overstating Carnegie's position in order to further your argument.

**nareik**

Disney Cars 3.

**greatbigtree**

Your prejudice is shown by derogatorily supposing the only reason to like the film was that "you must be Christian".

"...movie was only successful in the land of the Christian crazies"

The book is sooooo (sarcastically) special.

Your tone is quite blatantly disrespectful of a belief you don't share. You seem unwilling to accept any praise of this movie on the basis that it's just "bad Christian propaganda" because a central prop happened to be a bible.

That would be a few examples.