Of course a lot of people may just like it for the title related content. The idea of an underground unarmed street fighting competition between average joes who by day are just like you and me, no one special, just working class and middle class wage slaves caught up in the daily grind with no real ventilation our outlet for their more primitive and savage impulses. As some famous writers and thinkers have proposed civilization is but a thin veneer covering our true nature which is the untamed beast of the jungle, forest , mountains, steppes or caves.

Of course the fight club could also provide a vent for pent up aggressions from years of sheep like loyalty and servitude in thankless jobs for employers who do none of the work but keep all the profits earned by hard working wage slaves who even after a lifetime of service are no better off than when they started and every morning wonder if they will be the next victim of "corporate downsizing" which can be a legal cover for just about anything imaginable.

If that was the message intended by the film's creators then considering the product placement you pointed out I would call the end result cognitive dissonance.

In other words the real goal of the film would then be to attract as many would be anti-Capitalists and potential socialists as possible with a dark fantasy that caters to their tastes while at the same time using the powerful psychological techniques developed by decades of behavioural scientists working for the multi-billion dollar advertising industry to sell more products via the film and thus promote exactly what the film's content rages against.

And the main character would then be a perfect representation of the target audience. Split personality being symbolic of the cognitive dissonance the film creates (or appeals to) in it's large fan base. Is that what they have been calling Meta these days?

I just watched Fight Club. Literally. Just now.

I don't see what the fuss is about. To me, the movie was a pretentious attempt at anti-consumerism, featuring lots of product placement, usually Pepsi. It seemed to support the idea that having a job, free time and being able to afford some luxuries is a bad thing. Compare that to slaving at a shoe factory 14 hours a day, seven days a week, for $50 a month.

I feel like Jack's missing sense of irony.

AArdvark wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

Wow thanks for that, these speedrun animations are awesome! Amazing how well the Star Wars one works, as if it were made for it.

[youtube][/youtube]

PS: to use the youtube tag just copy the url from the address bar and paste between the youtube tags and don't forget to remove the s from it, needs to be http not https.

When I watched it I couldn't help but think of the history of socialist/anarchist revolutions.

Anabaptists vs Holy Roman (German) Empire of Reformation era Germany.

The commoners (or 3rd Estate) vs the nobility and clergy (the 1st and 2nd estates) of medieval society during the French Revolution.

Colonial America vs the British Empire in the American Revolution.

And finally the Bolsheviks vs Czar ruled Russian Empire.

All had pretty similar goals in mind, or they at least had a similar idea which inspired so many to join in revolt. The French called it Liberty, Fraternity (brotherhood) & Equality.

None of these anti-authority revolutions could have happened if there weren't a large group or class of less fortunates and a widening gap between rich and poor (similar to what we have today).

On the other hand as Oswald Spengler pointed out, even in their justifiable and righteous struggle for freedom they never become anything more than pawns for the next power hungry tyrant preparing to fill the vacuum left when the poor masses tear down the old rich regime.

"Meet the new boss - same as the old boss" Like The Who we all like to think we won't get fooled again. So far it seems Spenglar's cyclical theory of history repeating itself forever (or Pink Floyd's imagery of a boot smashing a face forever) is humanity's inevitable fate.

For me the ending of Fight Club was a nice dream and one I like to imagine has a happy ending where the perfect utopian society is finally established and every lives happily ever after. But I know that is not reality. And though after those towers of human oppression have fallen the revolutionaries may establish a bastion of freedom that lasts a hundred or more years as our American forefathers did, history will eventually repeat itself and another revolution will be required.

This is what I think makes the American revolution so special. Those guys actually planned for that eventuality and built safeguards into their new system, not to prevent the next revolution, but to give them the approval of the founders!

The founders believed it was the right of the people to overthrow their government when it no longer served them as originally intended. While I see history once again repeating itself, those founders at least give me hope that even if Spengler got it all right, we can at least prepare for it and perhaps make the transition from one cycle to the next a little shorter and less destructive.

it all makes sense now!





[youtube][/youtube]

AArdvark wrote:OK, watched the opening credits and the first five minutes.

That's basically all you need.

I enjoyed the movie even though I do not care for clubbing.

Unless it is baby seals.

OK, watched the opening credits and the first five minutes.

RealNC wrote:It seems to be about fighting . I don't like fighting, unless it's Kung Fu :-P

I would say there is a grand total of 2 minutes of actual fighting in the movie. That estimate might be high.

pinback wrote:

RealNC wrote:Never watched it. Probably never will. Nothing in that movie seems to appeal to me.

What do you think is "in the movie" that does not appeal to you? Have we not made clear that the short descriptions of the film you tend to hear/read are absolutely NOT what the movie is actually about?

It seems to be about fighting . I don't like fighting, unless it's Kung Fu :-P

RealNC wrote:Never watched it. Probably never will. Nothing in that movie seems to appeal to me.

What do you think is "in the movie" that does not appeal to you? Have we not made clear that the short descriptions of the film you tend to hear/read are absolutely NOT what the movie is actually about?

Would the bastard you disabled the edit button please kill himself? Thanks.

Never watched it. Probably never will. Nothing in that movie seems to appeal to me.

The movie put the man with the bad words in a good mood!

Tdarcos wrote:

pinback wrote:It's the only movie I know that the twist is so remarkable, and yet uncovering it matters so little to the viewing experience.

Ben, Ben, Ben. Tak, tsk, tsk. The first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club.

I'll let this go. I'm in a good mood.

pinback wrote:It's the only movie I know that the twist is so remarkable, and yet uncovering it matters so little to the viewing experience.

Ben, Ben, Ben. Tak, tsk, tsk. The first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that Fight Club was a full length novel. One clue is that its full name is "Fight Club: A Novel".

All kidding aside, and perhaps obviously, it depends on the font size. I recently downloaded a book and was intimidated by its 600+ page count. I checked online and Amazon lists it as 280 pages. I assume the PDF was enlarged for easier eReading.

Must have been the Cliff Notes. Dunno. It was an etext rip.