Fight club video game?

[DJ_DEEM]

i dunno if this has been mentioned yet?

A fight club video game is going to be released soon,

i really just wanna know if anyone esle is as genrally offended as i am i mean comeon! the movie came out like 4 years ago, and isnt a video game defeting the entire purpose and point of the movie?

im sorry thats just a terrible idea..its not like the movie is just about fighting...

*sigh*

[esquire]

i dunno if this has been mentioned yet?

A fight club video game is going to be released soon,

i really just wanna know if anyone esle is as genrally offended as i am i mean comeon! the movie came out like 4 years ago, and isnt a video game defeting the entire purpose and point of the movie?

im sorry thats just a terrible idea..its not like the movie is just about fighting...

*sigh*

The first rule of Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club."

[MarkMan]

Played the game quite a bit.

Unfortunately, it isn't too good lol.

Try before you buy!

[Querjek]

They need a "Fight Like a Girl Club" game

(anyone remember the MADTV sketch? No? Ok.)

[Graham Mitchell]

i dunno if this has been mentioned yet?

A fight club video game is going to be released soon,

i really just wanna know if anyone esle is as genrally offended as i am i mean comeon! the movie came out like 4 years ago, and isnt a video game defeting the entire purpose and point of the movie?

im sorry thats just a terrible idea..its not like the movie is just about fighting...

*sigh*

Sure, I'm offended, but I'm not surprised.. Fight Club, while a wonderful movie with a poignant message about commercialism and human psychology, was made in Hollywood, and not by a small indie director. Anything made in Hollywood is subject to sufficient whoring in order to make some people a few bucks. Artistic integrity is usually the last thing people in that industry take into account. That's why independent publishers exist (something our little hobby seriously needs to keep it vital.) And let's face it, there's definitely a market for this. I'm sure every 17-29 year-old male with an X-box loved this movie.

[kainemaxwell]

The first rule of Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club."
...Or in this case "You do not talk about the video game Fight Club."

[Nez]

What I find more horrifying is the Scareface game. Thats what truly terifies me.

[esquire]

I'm still holding out for the "Short Circuit" video game. I can't wait to be able to play Number 5!

[mr_nihilism]

And yet we continue to buy like the good consumers society has made us to be. What's the difference between the Fight Club game and any other? Nothing, except that it acts as an acute reminder that we never acted on Tyler Durden's words.

[rbudrick]

The first rule of Fight Club is "You do not talk about Fight Club."

Well obviously some of you are, because you are all here!

Ahem. Does anyone else think that any Fight Club merchandise is hypocritical? In Fight Club's defense, they did hide their merchandise for sale on a hidden menu on the DVD, but they were still fucking expensive.

But if the message was concerning anti-commercialism, why they selling shit to make money? Unless of course, the film studio is indeed giving all proceeds to anti-commercial terrorists organizations to stay true to the film. ;)

-Rob

[wufners]

I'm still holding out for the "Short Circuit" video game. I can't wait to be able to play Number 5!

Balls to Number 5 (alive!), I want to play as Steve Gutenberg!

Hopefully a "Three Men and a Baby" and a "Police Academy" game aren't too far behind. Speaking of which . . . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418068/ O_O

So what's up with this Fight Club game? Is it just a fighter vs. fighter style game a la "Street Fighter?" Or is there more too it?

[TheRedEye]

Hopefully a "Three Men and a Baby" and a "Police Academy" game aren't too far behind.

Steve Woita did a Police Academy game for the NES, y'know.

[Neil Koch]

So what's up with this Fight Club game? Is it just a fighter vs. fighter style game a la "Street Fighter?" Or is there more too it?


From what I've seen, it's a pretty standard brawler with characters and stages from the movie. You can break limbs but that seems to be the only unique feature. Fight Club is my favorite movie, but this game just looks really generic and not even true to the movie -- they call Ed Norton's character "Jack", but he doesn't have a name, he's just credited as "narrator".

[rbudrick]

Steve Woita did a Police Academy game for the NES, y'know.


http://www.mines.edu/students/j/jepark/filez/owned-broke.jpg

-Rob

[fahrvergnugen]

Fight Club was about a man so insane and consumed with self-loathing that his hatred for his life came out. It was about someone who felt that he was so despicable and worthless, the only way that he could ever become someone good would be to rise from the ashes of his ruined life like a phoenix. It was about someone so selfish that he didn't care who he destroyed in his pursuit of this goal.

I'm totally amused by people who come out of Fight Club seduced by the anti-capitalist "fuck the man" screed got it all completely backward. Fight Club condemns that kind of thought, it doesn't glorify it.

Anyway, the game looks like ass and also misses the point of the story entirely.

[KJN]

I'm still holding out for the "Short Circuit" video game. I can't wait to be able to play Number 5!
http://kim.c64.org/games/screenshots/full/short_circuit_01.gif
http://www.gb64.com/Screenshots/S/Short_Circuit.gifhttp://kim.c64.org/games/screenshots/full/short_circuit_03.gif
It's been done (by Ocean of course).

Nice soundtrack (http://www.c64.org/HVSC/Galway_Martin/Short_Circuit.sid) by Martin Galway to.

[rbudrick]

I'm totally amused by people who come out of Fight Club seduced by the anti-capitalist "fuck the man" screed got it all completely backward. Fight Club condemns that kind of thought, it doesn't glorify it.

Yeah.....ummm...except for that Osama act he pulls on that huge building...riiiight.

-Rob

[Vroomfunkel]

I'm totally amused by people who come out of Fight Club seduced by the anti-capitalist "fuck the man" screed got it all completely backward. Fight Club condemns that kind of thought, it doesn't glorify it.


I'm totally amused by someone who doesn't seem to realise that a film can be about more than one thing at the same time. Fight Club is about anti-consumerism (which, incidentally, is not *entirely* the same thing as anti-capitalism ..) and also about personality disorder. And many other things too ..

It doesn't exactly 'condemn' anything. Nor does it really glorify anything much. It pits an individual at the end of his tether against a world gone mad, and observes the unpleasant results. If anything it condemns both the way the world works, and human nature.

But of course, you are entitled to your own interpretation .. however wrong it may be LOL

Vroomfunkel

[Jorpho]

Uppercut: Away, Away/Down, Down, High Punch
Quick Foot Sweep: Down, Down, Towards, Low Kick
Question Nature of Postmodern Consumerist Society: Away, Towards, Away, Up, Down, Quiet Narrate

Or not.

[Daniel Thomas]

Uh, wouldn't every beat-em-up be a 'Fight Club' game?

I guess perhaps if you need more overt fascism than your typical Steets of Rage or Final Fight game. then you'd want Fight Club. Sorry, pass.

[FOXXX]

Read the BOOK!!!

[esquire]

Uh, wouldn't every beat-em-up be a 'Fight Club' game?

I guess perhaps if you need more overt fascism than your typical Steets of Rage or Final Fight game. then you'd want Fight Club. Sorry, pass.

No. In Fight Club, there are only two guys to a fight, and only one fight at a time. No shirts, No shoes. If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the fight is over. Fights will go on as long as they have to. And most importantly, if this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

[Dahne]

It's already been said, but I'll reiterate:

The movie is excellent.

The book is better.

Chuck Palahniuk has a strange, incredible style that is somewhat reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut, but mostly not like anyone else. I just recently saw the movie again, then went and got the book, and it's really just amazing. The movie is more like the original short story version (the sixth chapter of the full novel). Palahniuk calls it a love story. It's hard to see that from the movie, but it really is. The ending, in particular, is much different. I can see why it was changed, as the book's ending might have felt anticlimactic on film (though there's one line in the book version that I know would have gotten a great reaction out of an audience), but it cut out what is in my opinion the most beautiful line in the whole thing (paraphrased, because someone else has my copy right now):

"I tried to explain that he was wrong. We're not all lovely and unique snowflakes. We're not crap or trash, either. We just are."

[Daniel Thomas]

Well, I'm glad to see that people are thinking seriously about the movies, and that's a good thing. There's too many mindless drones who just go for explosions and fart jokes.

Personally, I didn't care for Fight Club that much. I enjoyed the commentary about the dangers of our consumer society, but what is offered as a solution? Start a street gang and beat the shit out of each other. Then make your big 'statement against society' by smashing things. Uh, sorry, no. I'm sure there's a bit of satire in it all, but what I don't need is more validation of a juvinile frat boy culture. You're a real man because you pick fights with strangers. No, you're not. That's not manhood; that's fascism.

Not that I'm getting off-topic or anything. Oops. Put Johnny 5 in a fighting game, and I'll buy that for a dollar.

[Graham Mitchell]

I'm totally amused by people who come out of Fight Club seduced by the anti-capitalist "fuck the man" screed got it all completely backward. Fight Club condemns that kind of thought, it doesn't glorify it.


Right, because holding Helena Bonham Carter's hand while watching a skyscraper topple to the ground to the tune of the Pixie's "Where is my mind" is not glorifying destruction at all.

[Jorpho]

No. In Fight Club, there are only two guys to a fight, and only one fight at a time. No shirts, No shoes. If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the fight is over. Fights will go on as long as they have to. And most importantly, if this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

Except oddly enough, in all the screenshots I've seen, everyone is wearing a shirt.

[Vroomfunkel]

***** SPOILERS ********

OK. Let's clear this up once and for all. Fight Club (the film) does not propose any 'solution' to consumer culture. The protaganist rejects the fight club when he realises what it has become. In fact when he realises that he is actually controlling it, he would rather kill himself than let it continue.

So OK, it doesn't offer a solution. But have you got one?

The book is somewhat different, but it still ends with a fight cliub member approaching the protaganist and whispering "We're going to break up civilisation so we can make something better out of the world". It's not clear if the the protaganist is with the speaker or against them by this stage, but the central theme is still the same: society is broken. What is the alternative, if any?

Vroomfunkel

[dethink]

fight club is about a lot of things...but that's not the point of this thread...

i still don't get the point of releasing a game this far removed from the movie's release, other than that the publisher had the rights to it, and slapped the name on a fighter in development in hopes of more sales, due to the established name.

pretty lousy license to base a game off of, IMO. not because the movie was bad, but the fighting aspect of it wasn't the point of the movie. any bets the suits behind this never even SAW the movie? LOL

[Graham Mitchell]

i still don't get the point of releasing a game this far removed from the movie's release, other than that the publisher had the rights to it, and slapped the name on a fighter in development in hopes of more sales, due to the established name.

pretty lousy license to base a game off of, IMO. not because the movie was bad, but the fighting aspect of it wasn't the point of the movie. any bets the suits behind this never even SAW the movie?

Well, judging at the inflammatory reactions people are having about this movie 4 years after it's release, it's safe to say that this movie/book/story is important to a lot of people. In that case, I suppose one could look at this movie as timeless--I mean, let's face it. This movie is probably going to provoke some thinking in every generation after us that sees it. (Unless nuclear holocaust or chemical warfare drastically changes the way society works). Thus, this movie's always gonna be around, and it will always be dear to many people.

Just like Star Wars.

How long has it been since a (worthwhile) Star Wars movie was released? Yet a few games come out based on this story every year. Try and name a console over the past 15 or 20 years that never got a Star Wars game (okay, TG-16, and maybe Intellivision or something. But you get what I mean.) I think people are going to view the Fight Club license like the Star Wars license (ie-infinitely useful), and this game is just the start of that. I understand that now a Scarface game is being made, as well. In my opinion, that's kind of the same idea.

[DJ_DEEM]

Intellivision had a star wars game : P

[fahrvergnugen]

Snipped from a paper I wrote a few months ago:

Fight Club is the tale of a man whose self-loathing is so total that the only way in which he can envision himself ever becoming a whole and worthwhile person is by rising, phoenix-like, reborn from the ashes of his ruined and worthless life. “It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything,” says The Narrator. Though his self-hatred runs deep, he is unable to take action toward bringing about his own annihilation. While he doesn’t realize it for much of the film, he instead invents an alter ego, a second personality. This is Tyler Durden, and it is his work to plant the seeds of the Narrator’s destruction and nurture them. It is he who rails against the typical consumer lifestyle The Narrator has adopted. It is he who blows up the Narrator’s apartment, pushing him further and further in each step toward his own downfall. In their interaction, Tyler is the one trying to bring a primal chaos back into their lives. Tyler is the revolutionary. Tyler is bent on The Narrator’s doom.

The Narrator views Tyler Durden as everything he wishes he could be, but believes he is not. Tyler is an encyclopedia of anarchic knowledge. He is able to fashion weapons and explosives from common household objects, while The Narrator shops at Ikea. Tyler is a working-class man, serving food and projecting films, while The Narrator makes his way in the corporate world. Tyler is virile, engaging in frantic, degrading sex acts with Marla, yet The Narrator cannot stand Marla. His dislike for her during much of the film borders on hate. Tyler is a blue-collar revolutionary. He soils food he is about to serve with his genitals, and splices single frames of pornographic material into children’s films. The Narrator’s profession is corrupt, trading lives for dollars deep in the accounting offices of a large automobile manufacturer. Tyler is charismatic, inspiring a cult of militaristic followers called Project Mayhem ready to commit acts of terrorism. The Narrator is clearly second fiddle, unable to rally the troops in any effective way. Tyler says it best, when he tells The Narrator, “All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.” Tyler is The Narrator’s ideal. Tyler is the Narrator’s antithesis.

Fight Club hides its views by pretending to advocate that which it despises. It may be interpreted by the inattentive viewer as an anti-capitalist screed, promoting a primal re-expression of the self. However, these philosophies are espoused by the film’s antagonist, and it is not the filmmaker’s intent to glorify these ideas. Fight Club is not a call to anarchy, but rather about the unexpected conclusion at the end of The Narrator’s quest for quest for redemption through total self-destruction. The true philosophical thrust of the film lies in The Narrator’s journey through the transformation he seeks, and how he finds his answer not in his destruction at Tyler’s hands, but in the victory of his fight for self preservation. His rise from the ashes comes when he shoots himself in the face and survives, moments before Tyler’s terrorist army destroys a cityscape with a rain of fire. When it comes time to fight for his life, The Narrator finds that he is worth defending, even if it means killing himself to kill Tyler. Yet Tyler’s message is so seductive and powerful that the inattentive viewer may come away from Fight Club feeling that it is a rallying cry for rebellion, instead of a study of what can happen when rebellion is co-opted for the purposes of one selfish man and taken too far.

EDIT: And it's still a gay idea for a videogame, and not in that totally acceptable "Has sex with other ideas for videogames of the same gender," either.

[Mr•X]

I might rent the game...the movie was great and I have yet to read the book...


-X

[Dahne]

Oddly enough, I'm more interested in a game that comes out a significant period of time after the movie than one that comes out nearly simultaneously. It says that this isn't just another attempt at marketing, but sometihng that people really were interested in enough that they would still remember it. Practically every big-budget movie has a game that comes out with it, but there aren't many that prove their worth enough to make a later game viable. Plus, it serves as a reminder to go back and take a second look at something you've enjoyed previously.

But I'm just insane that way.

[blissfulnoise]

I let one of my best friends punch me in the face as hard as he could after leaving the theater from watching said movie.

It hurt... a lot.

I decided that while I may be made of the same decaying organic matter as everything else; I still didn't like to get punched in the face.

[Vroomfunkel]

Snipped from a paper I wrote a few months ago:

I'm glad that you saw the film as a fitting subject for a paper (or was it required? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt anyway)

However having written a paper on it does not make you any more right. You appear to interpret "It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything" as a statement of self loathing. This equates self-esteem with material possessions, which is precisely the mindset that the whole film critiques. If you cannot grasp this, then it is no suprise that you don't understand the whole film.

Likewise "Tyler is a blue-collar revolutionary. He soils food he is about to serve with his genitals, and splices single frames of pornographic material into children’s films" betrays your perception of so-called "blue-collar revolutionaries". Wake up!! You are making an enormous paridigmatic leap from disgruntled working class figure, to disgusting perverted fuck-up, apparently without even thinking it necessary to attempt any kind of rationalisation for this connection.

You are desperate to deny that Fight Club attacks consumer culture and all its trappings, but you fail to give any real reason for thinking so. Yes, ultimately the narrator rejects Tylers methods - but there is no suggestion that this means he is happy to go back to being a happy consumer. The film is a question, not an answer. Maybe that is uncomfortable, but I'm afraid that's how it is ..

Vroomfunkel

[Graham Mitchell]

I let one of my best friends punch me in the face as hard as he could after leaving the theater from watching said movie.

It hurt... a lot.

I decided that while I may be made of the same decaying organic matter as everything else; I still didn't like to get punched in the face.

When this movie came out, the glorification of the male desire to compete with and attack members of his own kind took its hold on my college campus. One of the dorms actually used University budget cash to start a Fight Club of their own (with pads of course). I never heard much of it, but I feel once people started getting hurt or mad at their friends or whatever, the appeal of beating the shit out of each other must have faded away. The Fight Club was not offered the next year. LOL

[fahrvergnugen]

Snipped from a paper I wrote a few months ago:

I'm glad that you saw the film as a fitting subject for a paper (or was it required? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt anyway)


Stop being arrogant and condescending. It's ugly, and with a nick like that you have to at least be someone who reads cool books.

Since you asked, the paper was on Susan Sontag's assertion that there are in essence no new ideas in film. I started out to disprove her by showing the great originality in the films Fight Club, Donne Darko, and Adaptation, even though they have substantial similarities, and wound up rewriting my thesis to partially agree with her, because in the end they're all about crazy white boys who see people that probably aren't there.


You appear to interpret "It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything" as a statement of self loathing. This equates self-esteem with material possessions, which is precisely the mindset that the whole film critiques. If you cannot grasp this, then it is no suprise that you don't understand the whole film.

*sigh* Don't put words in my mouth. I'm interpreting it as nothing of the kind, although I still say The Narrator really does hate himself. You haven't bothered to try and dispute this idea, but I'm open to any way you might see him as something other than consumed with self-loathing.

My thoughts, however, are that he hates his job, he hates his life, he hates his values, and he hates the only woman he can connect with. He hates it all so much he can't sleep, and the only way for him to rest is to see people who are more pathetic and miserable than he is.

As far as material possessions go, he's got everything, and he hates it, too. The Narrator hates his life and everything in it, and himself, too. So the protagonist has rejected it at the start of the film, but the difference is that he hasn't rejected it in totality for the entire world, the way Tyler does. He's just rejected it for himself.

The Narrator rejects all of this, but doesn't know what to do to make a change. So Tyler blows his house up to kickstart things and begin the serious business of tearing down The Narrator into nothingness.


Likewise "Tyler is a blue-collar revolutionary. He soils food he is about to serve with his genitals, and splices single frames of pornographic material into children’s films" betrays your perception of so-called "blue-collar revolutionaries". Wake up!! You are making an enormous paridigmatic leap from disgruntled working class figure, to disgusting perverted fuck-up, apparently without even thinking it necessary to attempt any kind of rationalisation for this connection.

Heh. "Wake up." Like you're privy to some amazing truth that I would only see if I opened my eyes and saw your light. How like Jesus you must feel! The amount of hubris you display with this statement is pretty amazing.

Anyway, here's a thought: Putting your genitals in someone's food, or showing children pornography, is disgusting, perverted, and fucked-up. It's also an act of rebellion against the people to whom the food is being served, or for whom the film is being projected. Further, people who serve food and project films are blue-collar workers. Therefore, they are disgusting, perverted, and fucked-up acts of revolution by a blue-collar worker.

You seem to think I'm lumping the entire labor movement in with one guy who likes to soil food. Not the case. Also this whole bit is a straw-man argument, aside from the real business at hand of "Does Fight Club advocate anti-consumerism, as you suggest, or deride it, as I suggest?"


You are desperate to deny that Fight Club attacks consumer culture and all its trappings, but you fail to give any real reason for thinking so. Yes, ultimately the narrator rejects Tylers methods - but there is no suggestion that this means he is happy to go back to being a happy consumer. The film is a question, not an answer. Maybe that is uncomfortable, but I'm afraid that's how it is.

OH! IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE! Because I can't handle the hard questions without easy answer that the great and powerful Vroomfunkel, with his fantastic philosopher's mind, can wrap his brain around. Clearly his pronouncements of the way things are makes them so, and reality will bend itself to align to his perceptions, as no other artistic interpretation of a film than his could possibly be found valid.

Have I mentioned yet that you're really, really arrogant in this post? 'Cuz damn, man. You're really, really arrogant in this post. The only thing I'm desperate to do right now is finish this post and hopefully get a reply from someone who is less of a pompous windbag. You're so arrogant in this post, that when people read it, they go, "God damnit, that is one arrogant fucker I'm reading on my screen right there."

Anyway, here we're agreeing, more or less. Just because The Narrator rejects Tyler and his values doesn't mean that the values he rejected before trying Tyler's on for size are ones he should go back to. I'm not saying that the film promotes consumerist/capitalist culture. I'm just saying that for all the bluster spent deriding it, the film also makes it clear that these are the villain's ideals, and not necessarily ones that should be followed. The film can deride the ideas of anti-consumerist activism and ideology without being pro-consumerism, y'know. And by the way, arguing the merits of anti-consumerism on a collector's forum is really, really funny.

[blissfulnoise]

People are missing the point that Fight Club is, at its very heart, high farce. As a matter of fact, it's just like every one of Chuck Palahniuk's other novels. Wanna do a list?

Lullaby: A story of a freelance journalist coming upon a children's poem that kills those that hear it.

Invisible Monsters: A story of a very well to do fashion model who has her jaw shot off by her best friend and goes on a self discovery tour with her long lost brother who is now a woman.

Choke: Jesus… If you've read it, you don't need me to tell you how disjointed from our reality the characters are...

While I don't completely agree with fahvergnugen, I think he's on track. David Fincher's Fight Club is visually and aurally memorizing. So much so that an audience can get sucked up in the presentation and begin to think, "Damn, they're really on to something here" when it's plain as day that poor audience is dining on satire as though it’s truth.

Sure, there's always a hint of truth in the best satire but only enough to keep everyone in on the joke. And Fight Club's "truth" is the feeling of alienation that our generation has adopted into. Chuck sells us our fear in the form of nihilism when any of us know that blowing up buildings, peeing in peoples chowder, and shaving monkeys solves nothing (well, in and of themselves I imagine they're a good way to solve boredom); author & reader / viewer included.

Maybe Fincher's original goal was to create such a kinetic movie that it could only BE farce, but maybe he just did too damn good a job and mislead the public into thinking it had answers to questions we didn't even realize we had. What we do know is that Hollywood bought into that train of thought as they labeled the film "a threat" and shot it down for any sort of Oscar contention.

What do I think the movie / novel was trying to convey? Entertainment. I don't think that either medium preached an answer to the crisis’s everyday life presents. I don't think it sold materialism, I don't think it sold apathy, I don't think it sold anarchy.

Mr. Palahniuk presented us with the account of one man who literally lost his mind after staring too hard at the void that makes up who we are. This character, "Jack", dealt with it by starting fights with his imaginary friend, forming a social club for other bored people who just wanted to look away from the void for a little while, and then attempted to change the landscape of how everyone else deals with this void.

There were no right answers in the book, but I can tell you I didn't get any advocation of self, public, or any other form of destruction out of either medium. Heck, Palahniuk AND Fincher disproved that as a viable solution through the events of the story. Even Tyler abandoned chaos by forming his personal Sputnik in his basement. And when Jack accepted Tyler's vision of an orderless world it only resulted in Jack's abandonment.

But on that same note, I don't think that "Jack" was a machosist at all. I just don't think he had the tools to deal with everyday life that was buring itself deeper and deeper into his concousiness.

Most of us don't give the mundane details of our daily lives more than a second though. Those of us that do, deal with it a variety of ways, hobbies, friends, family life. Jack dealt with it by forming (perceived) symbiotic bonds in his support groups. When that was taken away from him (the perceived symbiosis), he dealt with it through fighting other guys. That fighting became addictive, and much like addictive substances, lost it's impact over time. Then "Jack" moved onto fighting larger groups of people (no more one-at-a-time stuff); specifically, the general public. This was a catharsis for "Jack" until he realized what the hell he was doing and put a stop to it. All junkies reach this point, it just depends on if they have the strength of will to change their circumstances. He didn't shoot himself because he wanted to die; he shot himself because that was the only antidote that he saw at the time.

Bah, i've typed too much. This is a fun discussion though. Obviously, I'm a big fan of this movie and book.

However, don't take my analysis as an endorsement that the book/movie sold ANY answer to the public; take them as a character dissection. The only answer that people read from the movie (whether they think it's a good answer or not) is the one they formed on their own.

It's like the doormouse said, "Feed your head" 8-)

[blissfulnoise]

And by the way, arguing the merits of anti-consumerism on a collector's forum is really, really funny.

And by the way, no need to point out the obvious. It just makes us all feel bad. I've long accepted the fact that my stuff owns me; I sleep easier knowing that my TV calls the shots. LOL

[Vroomfunkel]

OH! IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE! Because I can't handle the hard questions without easy answer that the great and powerful Vroomfunkel, with his fantastic philosopher's mind, can wrap his brain around.

OK .. confession time. I did write the last post whilst mildly inebriated, and deliberately made it slightly provocative. I just don't like it when people paste papers into the middle of a conversation ... mind you, it appears that I hit a nerve of some kind. But at least we've got some talking going on now.

And, for what it is worth, your expanded arguments make more sense. But I still disagree with large parts of it. And I'm not sure I quite understand your parting shot, as quoted above. Perhaps my 'fantastic philosopher's mind' is failing me LOL


Anyway, here's a thought: Putting your genitals in someone's food, or showing children pornography, is disgusting, perverted, and fucked-up. It's also an act of rebellion against the people to whom the food is being served, or for whom the film is being projected.

Well, I guess this is evidence that at least we can agree on something!


You seem to think I'm lumping the entire labor movement in with one guy who likes to soil food. Not the case.

This is, at best, unclear in the post I was responding to. Since you have elaborated I will accept that this was not what you meant.

At the end of the day, the fact is that I know hardly anyone - if anyone at all - who actually thought that the film was a "rallying cry for rebellion", which is the conclusion that your paper is fighting against. So, to me, it seems like you are fighting a straw man.

The original point of disagreement was about whether Fight Club 'condemns' a particular kind of thought or not. I still don't think that it condemns any particular kinds of thought. It showcases the emptiness of a life completely devoted to consumerism. It showcases the futility of responding to that mindset in a purely destructive way. But both Jack's original condition and Tyler's final condition are outrageous extremes to which few, if any, people in this world would ever approach.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that while Tyler's determination to screw the world embraces anti-capitalism as one of its facets, the connection is not reciprocal - that is, the ethos of anti-capitalism does not necessarily entail the destructive chaos and violence that Tyler chooses to inflict. It seems unclear whether you accept this or not, so I will just throw that in as a statement for discussion.


Don't put words in my mouth. I'm interpreting it as nothing of the kind, although I still say The Narrator really does hate himself. You haven't bothered to try and dispute this idea, but I'm open to any way you might see him as something other than consumed with self-loathing.

I say it because that is how it appears in your paper .. you leap from one idea to the next with no intervening explanation. I read it as I would a normal piece of writing, where there is generally a logical connection between one sentence and the next. Sorry if that is a mis-interpretation.

As the resolution of this issue centres around a fictional (and dysfunctional) character's feelings towards himself, I don't think either of us are going to be able to prove definitively who is right and who is wrong here. You say that he hates himself and sees his only hope as to rise from the ashes of his destroyed life. I say he hates everything that his life has become and sees his only hope as abandoning all the trappings of that life and trying a radically different way. You say that "When it comes time to fight for his life, The Narrator finds that he is worth defending," I say that he spent the whole film trying to defend himself. Jack at the start, and Tyler at the end are the two impossible extremes and the narrator spends the whole film trying to find himself a place somewhere in between. He rejects Jack's lifestyle at the beginning, and he rejects Tylers at the end. And the film gives no answer as to what the in-between is - we are just left hanging with that one to answer for ourselves.

Anyway, I have enjoyed talking about it. I am not especially interested in trading insults, but I would just point out that when accusing someone of arrogance, it is probably best not to immediately assume the right to speak on behalf of everyone else in the world as in


You're so arrogant in this post, that when people read it, they go, "God damnit, that is one arrogant fucker I'm reading on my screen right there

You can think what you like about me. But have the decency not to presume to speak on everyone else's behalf .. they can make their own minds up.

EDIT: And why not argue the merits of anti-consumerism on a collectors board? What better place to do it? Admittedly, this should perhaps be in Off-Topic now though. Although that does lead me to a final point that I think we both agree on: the game thoroughly misses the point of the film, from whatever perspective you look at it from!

Vroomfunkel

[Jorpho]

I'm guessing the video game isn't going to be like this thread.

[fahrvergnugen]

You're so arrogant in this post, that when people read it, they go, "God damnit, that is one arrogant fucker I'm reading on my screen right there

You can think what you like about me. But have the decency not to presume to speak on everyone else's behalf .. they can make their own minds up.

It's a South Park reference.

"Cartman, you're such a fat fuck that when people see you walking down the street, they say, 'GODDAMNIT, that is a big fat fuck right there.'

Anyway, you've proven yourself at least the equal of Magicthighs. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.