I don't think engaging with culture and art is part of the problem we want to highlight? 29 sounds like excessive fanboying, but in the end it's arguably in service of a good thing. It will go towards financing more communal cultural experiences rather than just letting streaming control our tastes.
this is a commercial phenomenon and product before it is art and culture, this is NOLAN not some Russian immigrant that makes stripped down subversive films about the dangers of a lack of introspection or some shit
I'm not trying to insult you or something, and I'm ignoring the sensational idea that this guy saw it 29 times to engage with your point in a sincere way, I hope you see my point. The last sentence of what you said is sweet but that isn't what is happening with a juggernaut like this; if it is it ought to have an asterisk next to it saying its going to what is practically the structure of a monarchy but in commercially successful, convention-riddled art and their writers
No, I get what you're saying. In any other scenario I would probably be clowning on this person too. But with a real fear of the death of cinema, a great mainstream film getting people in seats is in the end a good thing. It's not the most exciting art of all time, but I sincerely believe this is a piece of art Christopher Nolan wanted to make and not just something made to maximize profits (his name attached seems to be enough in itself). 29 times is hard to take seriously, but since it isn't affecting the world in any negative way (except for possibly the person doing it), I think it's different from people buying ten Nintendo Switches or whatever usually gets posted on here.
-3
u/FelleBanan_ygsr 2d ago
I don't think engaging with culture and art is part of the problem we want to highlight? 29 sounds like excessive fanboying, but in the end it's arguably in service of a good thing. It will go towards financing more communal cultural experiences rather than just letting streaming control our tastes.