What really went wrong?

they didnt follow the novel's structure

This was actually a pretty good movie. People got mad because they couldn't follow 6 separate, simple plot lines simultaneously.

they cut their balls off

it's a feat of cinema that it came out as well as it did imo

I think the problem was the wachowski's influence. I know someone who did production for their more recent scifi film and heard they could not have been the reason the matrix was good. Tom Tykwer directed the story segments most people thought were good.anyway

The book is fucking hard to adapt with any faithfulness

>People got mad because they couldn't follow 6 separate,

I believe each story had a connection via reincarnation. I thought it was great too.

Nothing. It was pretty good.

Oh my god you literally spent too much time in this shithole. Loser.

The structure of the book did not work as a movie.
The book was weird but good. The movie was only weird.

2deep4u

I fuckin loved it
The chemistry between Tom Hanks and Halle Berry was great in the 1970s and the distant future.
The composer story was uncomfortable to watch but the Cloud Altas symphony was beautiful.
I loved the futuristic story with consumer culture/speak and totalism.
Knuckle sandwich lol
Hugh Grants characters never arced. So the idea is perhaps some people never grow or grow very very slowly.

The big letdown: The make-up effects. It just didn't work.

Nothing went wrong, it was okay. It had those subtle connections between the chapters which made it enjoyable. It was like watching a weird mash-up of some very average movie director's filmography. Not great, but truly unique.

there's a great moment in the movie where a scene's momentum is carried throughout different times on earth, and that should have been how the entire movie is made. Each individual stories aren't that important by themselves, I feel it would have worked better if they left some of the stories without a clear ending, just focusing on the essential aspects, and let us fill in the gaps.

>Hugh Grants characters never arced. So the idea is perhaps some people never grow or grow very very slowly.

Rather than arced, I would say his characters went through a process of simplification. At all stages of the story he emboddied the parasitic. He was always living off other people, from a slave owner to a corporate lobbyist, to managing the Korean chicks to finally literally eating people.

The same can be said for Weaving's characters, at every point they are the devil, encouraging and emboddying the very worst qualities of people.

I think Hugo Weaving's characters actually got worse in each incarnation.

Great movie, amazing how Iron Man 7 grosses half a billion while movies that take more than a kw of brainpower don't make nearly as much

>What really went wrong?
It was boring.

None of the characters were interesting, the plot went no where, the stories had no depth or theme to them, it was weird for the sake of being weird, ugly aesthetic and terrible makeup (ayy lmao yellowface).

They should have scaled everything down and dropped some of the weirder story lines and focused on fewer characters while developing stronger themes. Maybe it would have worked better as a min series but the film is just a bloated ugly mess.

>the plot went no where
Typical American response, learn to Buddhism

>They should have scaled everything down

Now I KNOW you're American, too retarded to understand anything other than macro jpgs and Resident Evil movies

Yeah I forgot about Hugo Weaving's characters.
Un-redeemable it would seem.
To me its almost an allegory for reincarnation/samsara.
We get to repeat lives and given chances, all the while a cosmic narrative is unfolding.

Mark me on this: Cloud Atlas will gain a massive following over the next few decades and will be hailed as a masterpiece.

t. normalfag

>Now I KNOW you're American, too retarded to understand anything other than macro jpgs and Resident Evil movies

The Resident Evil kinos do better in Europe.

Nothing went wrong, you just picked the wrong year to attempt discussing it on Cred Forums

That was the let down for me. Weaving only played the ultimate evil in each incarnation.
The other archetypes shifted between bein good etc, but they had to use Weaving as a big bad in each one. Should have shaken that up as well to get the point more across.

My country also has a shemale supermodel

Doesn't mean I can't hold you to higher standard

>learn to Buddhism
lmao please educate me on eastern philosophy first year college white boy

>t. normalfag
the movie was as normalfag as it gets. it felt like a bunch of normies TRYING to make a movie weird and not understanding at all what that really means or how to do it.

>first year college white boy
??? Are you an unironic sjw??? On Cred Forums????

check your privilege and stop appropriating asian culture

I love this movie and regard it as kino

I literally am aware of this fact, cuck.

interesting idea with decent execution but the lack of subtlety of its purported message left something to be desired. nice visuals, and there was some redeeming dialogue. worth a watch.

the SJWism was kind of annoying too lol, but what can you expect from the wachowski sisters?

>sisters
heh...

Overly long. I really liked it, but it needed to move faster. Its pacing was bad and length was.....well, also bad. Still I liked it.

It's a good movie with an interesting message, shot and acted really well.

I really don't see the problem unless you have the attention span o fa field mouse. Also it's a good book adaptation, not that any of you faggots would ever read a book.

The movie reminded me of The Tree ij a lot of ways. It plays at being "3deep6U", but fails HARD. But at the same time is an enjoyable movie to watch for unintentional or secondary reasons.

It is fascinating to watch, but fails to make a emotional impact because how hard it fails.

More like what went right!

That story was trash. Quite literally nothing but a patchwork of tropes and cliches (emblematic of the entire movie, really). The story itself has been essentially done a million times before.
>lol religious faith is an illusion teehee

is this satire?

>lol religious faith is an illusion teehee
Which story was that?

How is having a story about an escaped slave and a gay bohemian composer pandering or oscar bait? The composer being gay was subtly done and important to his story.
>bad makeup
uwot? The yellowface was expertly done and gave the future Koreans this strange, almost alien mixed look.
>gayboi story arc was shit
It wasn't very good desu. Mostly because not much happened and it was kinda pointless, but not shit.
>movie too short
It was 3 hours after all. It could be longer but the arcs aren't supposed to individual movies by themselves.
>sjw
>there's minorities and a gay in a movie about multiple humans across history and the world
>fucking SJWS!
>>lol religious faith is an illusion teehee
How the fuck did you get that out of it? Suomi's story is entirely about her being human because she can understand and feel philosophical and spiritual concepts. Her being made into a religion in the future shows how big an impact of a supposed subhuman clone made.

If you're referring to the Suchong's story, or the one about the Korean amidst a land of mongoloids, religion didn't enter into it. It's edgy critique/commentary on capitalism/consumerism #23234234, in which the Chink end up speaking as if she took a community college philosophy course and spells out the theme of the movie in usual Wachowski philosophic bloviation. Pretty shit, but not commentary on religion.

>I was a dumb liberal kid
So now you're just a dumb kid?

good movie. if you didnt like it you probably are alt-right weeb

genre fiction like this can never be good because the story is so stupid and the prose is fucking awful. Why they even make shit like this into films is strange

>ITT "I didn't get it" the thread.

I quite liked it even though I typically hate the watchowski degenerates and their agenda pushing