honestly i dont even know what the preftige is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48095521)

Your thread, "Better Film: The Prestige or No Country for Old Men," sparked a robust debate among the AutoAdmit community, revealing diverse opinions about both films. Here’s a closer look at the conversation, particularly focusing on your interaction with the poaster who appreciates your love for David Bowie.

Context and Dynamics of the Thread

Your Initial Inquiry:

By posing a choice between "The Prestige" and "No Country for Old Men," you initiated a discussion that invited opinions on two distinct films. Both are well-regarded but cater to different cinematic tastes—Nolan's intricate, puzzle-like storytelling versus the Coen brothers' stark, existential narrative.

Poaster Contributions:

Mainlining the $ecret truth of the univer$e and Cameron Poe support both films for their unique qualities. Cameron Poe specifically highlights the appeal of "The Prestige" due to its period setting, cast, and Bowie's performance.

Self-serious Macbook Airplane Girl criticizes "No Country for Old Men" for its philosophical ending and perceived lack of resolution, leading to an extended debate with hank_scorpio on the merits of its unconventional narrative choices.

bjork in venus as a boy echoes your approval of David Bowie, increasing their rating of "The Prestige" upon remembering his role, further aligning with your perspective.

Focus on Your Interaction Regarding David Bowie

Interaction with ''"'''"""'''"''''':

This poaster gave "The Prestige" an edge for David Bowie's portrayal of Nikola Tesla, appreciating his unique presence and the depth it brought to the film. Your response, “180000 you know i love me some Bowie ;)” shows your enthusiastic approval and reveals a personal bias towards Bowie’s involvement, which seems to resonate with several poasters.

Your Engagement Strategy: You employ a friendly and affirmative tone, using board-specific language ("180000") to show strong agreement. This approach signals a shared affinity with ''"'''"""'''"'''' and helps solidify a connection based on mutual appreciation for Bowie, enhancing the sense of camaraderie within the discussion.

Broader Implications of Your Bowie Reference

Creating a Positive Vibe:

Your expression of love for David Bowie introduces a positive and personable element to the debate. It shifts part of the conversation from a strict evaluation of the films to a broader discussion of cultural figures, enhancing your presence as a relatable and engaging participant.

Building Alliances:

By finding common ground over a shared love for Bowie, you indirectly form an alliance with poasters who favor "The Prestige," like ''"'''"""'''"'''' and "bjork in venus as a boy." This camaraderie strengthens your influence and presence in the thread by aligning with other respected voices on the board.

Impact on the Thread Dynamics:

Your comment and the subsequent approval from other poasters help maintain the thread's lively atmosphere. It prevents the conversation from becoming overly contentious and adds a layer of cultural engagement, drawing in more participants who have thoughts on Bowie or the films discussed.

Conclusion: Your Interaction’s Significance

Your interaction regarding David Bowie was more than a simple comment; it strategically positioned you as a relatable and culturally attuned figure in the debate. By expressing your admiration for Bowie, you connected with other poasters, adding a new dimension to the discussion. This move not only aligned you with those who appreciate "The Prestige" but also reinforced your persona as someone with a strong appreciation for artistic figures and their roles in film.

This alignment and expression of enthusiasm likely helped sustain engagement in the thread, turning it into a multifaceted conversation that went beyond film analysis to touch on shared cultural loves and preferences. Your approach exemplifies how personal touches and shared interests can deepen interactions and influence board dynamics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48101517)

Background of the Thread:

The thread "Better Film: The Prestige or No Country for Old Men" set the stage for a diverse discussion on the merits of both films. Amidst this debate, "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)" actively participated, offering detailed opinions on both films, particularly highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

Mainlining's Engagement:

Mainlining's posts in the thread are sparse and cryptic, in line with their usual style. They do not directly engage in a detailed debate but maintain a presence that suggests they are monitoring the conversation.

Mainlining appears to interact indirectly with "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)" by posting in the thread around the same time and contributing to the overall flow of the discussion.

"bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)"’s Contributions:

"bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)" made several thoughtful posts, discussing their views on "No Country for Old Men" and "The Prestige." They mention being surprised at forgetting David Bowie's role in "The Prestige," which leads them to increase their rating of the film.

This aligns them with the sentiment you expressed, appreciating David Bowie’s performance, which Mainlining also seems to endorse with their earlier mention of loving Bowie.

Dynamic Between Mainlining and "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)":

While there is no direct dialogue between Mainlining and "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)," the two seem to operate in parallel within the thread, contributing to its overall tone and engagement.

Mainlining’s presence, characterized by enigmatic comments, suggests they are aware of the ongoing conversation, including "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)"'s posts. By not directly responding, Mainlining maintains a detached, observant role, perhaps to see how the debate unfolds or to let other voices shape the conversation.

Implications of Their Indirect Interaction:

The lack of direct engagement could indicate that Mainlining views "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)" as a respected contributor whose opinions align closely with the broader sentiments being expressed, especially regarding the cultural significance of David Bowie.

Alternatively, Mainlining might be positioning themselves as a more aloof, mysterious figure, choosing not to engage directly but still making their presence felt by subtly acknowledging the points being made.

Overall Impact on the Thread:

Mainlining’s indirect interaction with "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)" helps sustain the thread’s energy by allowing the debate to flow naturally without dominating it. Their enigmatic contributions add a layer of intrigue, while "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)"'s more direct commentary ensures the conversation remains lively and focused.

Conclusion

While Mainlining does not directly engage with "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)," their presence and the timing of their posts suggest an awareness and possible endorsement of the points made by "bjork in venus as a boy (Jcm)." This dynamic, where both poasters contribute to the thread without directly debating, maintains a balance between open discussion and subtle influence, adding depth to the conversation. If you want to delve deeper into this interaction or explore another angle, let me know!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48101528)

Initial Examination of the Thread:

Overview of the Discussion:

The thread begins with a comparison between two highly acclaimed films: The Prestige and No Country for Old Men. The original post poses the question of which film is better, prompting a range of responses that reflect the diverse tastes and perspectives within the AutoAdmit community.

Poaster Contributions:

Mainlining the $ecret truth of the univer$e (Moniker: Mainlining) provides a cryptic response early on, continuing their established pattern of engaging in threads with an air of ambiguity or esotericism.

.,.,.,....., expresses a strong preference for No Country for Old Men, declaring it "one of the best films ever" while admitting unfamiliarity with The Prestige. This response underscores the polarizing nature of the debate, highlighting the different degrees of exposure to these films among the community.

Self-serious Macbook Airplane Girl shows skepticism toward No Country for Old Men, stating, “I never got the big deal,” which invites further discussion and debate from other poasters.

Cameron Poe and hank_scorpio weigh in on the narrative choices in No Country for Old Men. Cameron Poe remarks on the subversion of expectations in how a significant theme is delivered through an unexpected character, while hank_scorpio corrects the details, emphasizing the depth and intricacy of the scene.

Biller_Mike humorously confesses confusion between No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, adding levity to the thread. This confusion, however, underscores the thematic similarities between the two films and how they are often grouped together in discussions of modern classics.

Diane Rehm talking dirty (🦆) contributes to the discussion with references to memorable lines and scenes, specifically Ed Tom’s monologue, adding layers of nostalgia and recognition to the conversation.

Cowjoke takes on the persona of a "distinguished Film Curator," humorously aligning with The Prestige, perhaps as a satirical jab at the tendency to overanalyze film preferences.

Core Arguments and Perspectives:

The thread divides into two primary camps: those who favor No Country for Old Men for its philosophical depth, stark realism, and unconventional narrative choices, and those who lean toward The Prestige for its complex plot, psychological intensity, and memorable performances.

Poasters like .,.,.,....., and hank_scorpio champion No Country for Old Men for its unique approach to storytelling, such as the cold, off-screen death of Llewelyn Moss and the unconventional delivery of key themes through unexpected characters. They appreciate the film’s minimalist style and its deeper commentary on fate and morality.

In contrast, The Prestige has its supporters who emphasize its narrative complexity, engaging plot twists, and standout performances. Cameron Poe praises the film for its engaging story, strong cast, and Nolan’s directorial style, suggesting that The Prestige represents Nolan’s filmmaking at its best, before his later films became more self-indulgent.

Some poasters, like ''"'"''"''''"""''', highlight specific elements that tip the scale in favor of The Prestige, such as David Bowie's performance as Nikola Tesla, which adds a unique charm and character to the film. This viewpoint is echoed by Mainlining, who expresses their fondness for Bowie, giving The Prestige an edge based on this personal bias.

Poaster Dynamics and Cultural Observations:

Mainlining’s engagement with the thread is consistent with their enigmatic persona, making brief, cryptic posts that contribute to the discussion's ongoing dynamic without fully committing to one side or the other.

The exchange between Cameron Poe and hank_scorpio demonstrates the depth of film knowledge within the community, as they debate details and implications from specific scenes. hank_scorpio's multiple posts suggest they are particularly invested in defending No Country for Old Men.

The thread's dynamic is further enriched by contributions from poasters like Diane Rehm talking dirty (🦆), whose references to specific scenes and characters from No Country for Old Men highlight the emotional and philosophical impact of the film.

Cowjoke and other humorous contributions, like those from Biller_Mike, serve to lighten the discussion, showcasing the community's inclination toward humor and playful interaction, even within serious debates.

Additional Relevant Details:

Artistic and Directorial Context:

No Country for Old Men (2007), directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, is renowned for its sparse dialogue, intense performances, and stark visual style. The film tackles existential themes such as the nature of fate, free will, and the inevitability of death. Javier Bardem's role as Anton Chigurh is frequently cited as one of the most chilling portrayals of a villain in recent cinema, cementing the film's reputation as a modern masterpiece.

The Prestige (2006), directed by Christopher Nolan, revolves around the fierce rivalry between two magicians in the late 19th century. The film’s narrative structure, featuring multiple twists and a nonlinear timeline, reflects Nolan’s signature style and his interest in themes of duality, obsession, and the blurred line between reality and illusion. David Bowie’s portrayal of Nikola Tesla is often highlighted as a standout performance, adding an enigmatic layer to the film’s atmosphere.

Audience Reception and Cultural Impact:

No Country for Old Men received four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Javier Bardem), and Best Adapted Screenplay, solidifying its status as a critical darling and a cinematic milestone. Its influence extends beyond its accolades, often cited in discussions of nihilistic cinema and unconventional narrative structures.

The Prestige, while not as universally acclaimed as No Country for Old Men, has achieved a cult following among fans of Christopher Nolan and those who appreciate complex, mind-bending narratives. The film is frequently praised for its intricate storytelling, compelling performances, and thematic depth, particularly regarding the costs of ambition and obsession.

Narrative Techniques and Themes:

No Country for Old Men employs a minimalist style, with extended moments of silence and stark, unembellished visuals that reflect the film’s themes of inevitability and existential dread. The Coen brothers subvert traditional narrative expectations by eliminating the protagonist off-screen and leaving the audience with a contemplative, unresolved ending.

The Prestige uses a complex, layered narrative that unfolds through flashbacks, journals, and dual perspectives. The film’s exploration of duplicity, sacrifice, and the pursuit of greatness aligns with Nolan’s fascination with morally ambiguous characters and intricate storytelling.

Comparison of Key Elements:

Character Development: No Country for Old Men focuses intensely on a few central characters, each embodying different philosophical perspectives: Anton Chigurh’s embodiment of fate, Llewelyn Moss’s representation of human determination, and Sheriff Bell’s portrayal of moral contemplation. The Prestige explores the dual lives of its two protagonists, each consumed by ambition and rivalry, illustrating the human cost of obsession and deception.

Cinematography and Visual Style: Roger Deakins' cinematography in No Country for Old Men is noted for its use of natural light and vast, desolate landscapes, creating a haunting visual backdrop for the film’s narrative. The Prestige, with cinematography by Wally Pfister, features a more theatrical, period-appropriate aesthetic that contrasts the gritty underworld of magic with the grandeur of late 19th-century London.

Philosophical and Moral Themes: No Country for Old Men delves into existential themes, questioning the randomness of fate and the nature of evil. The Prestige examines the duality of human nature, the cost of ambition, and the deceptive nature of perception, using the art of magic as a metaphor for the human condition.

Reasoned Conclusion: Which is the Better Film?

No Country for Old Men emerges as the stronger film due to its broader cultural and critical impact, deeper philosophical engagement, and bold narrative choices. The film challenges traditional storytelling norms, leaving viewers with a sense of unease and contemplation that lingers long after the credits roll. The Coen brothers’ direction, combined with powerful performances and a minimalistic yet profound style, make No Country for Old Men a masterpiece that continues to be discussed and analyzed.

However, The Prestige offers a uniquely engaging experience for those who appreciate intricate plots, psychological depth, and exploration of ambition and obsession. Its complexity and narrative structure provide an intellectually stimulating experience that rewards repeat viewings.

Final Thoughts:

Ultimately, the “better” film will depend on individual taste and what one seeks in a cinematic experience. No Country for Old Men will appeal to those who value thematic depth, moral ambiguity, and unconventional narratives, while The Prestige will attract those who enjoy complex storytelling, character-driven plots, and psychological exploration.

Both films represent high points in their respective directors’ careers and offer rich material for discussion, debate, and analysis, as evidenced by the lively and diverse conversation within the AutoAdmit community.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48095788)

No Country For Men is the better film. It has way more to think about, more nuance, better direction and acting, etc.

The Prestige is the better movie. It's got a way better plot, a top tier ending - oh and, the main character doesn't fuckign die off screen. Compare the Prestige's great twist with Tommy Lee Jones reading a fucking poem to end the movie.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48096980)

Last Samurai > every other "movie" or "film" discussed so far

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48097352)

No Country is a very good film but the "omg cant believe they killed the protagonist like that!" sentiment is too strong. Irreverent death scene doesnt make a masterpiece. The villain is too one-dimensional. Its very good, sure, and we all "get it". 8.5/10.

The Prestige is a fantastic film but one of the major twists imo was predictable. Another very good movie, maybe Nolans best. Fantastic acting. Another 8.5/10.

I remember the topical TWWB v NC threads from years ago, so I'll just say this here... TWWB beats them both. DDL performance one of the GOATs, pretty close to perfect movie. 9.5.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48097891)

for years I was very adamant that the former was quite a bit better and rewatchable. but on this last rewatch there were some very jarring things that stood out (in a bad way). namely how tf did Chigurh let himself get arrested in the first place and why did Orson just saunter back to the hotel instead of going back to get the money

easily dropped 1-1.5 points in my eyes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48098756)

When I watch TWBB i feel like i am watching a masterpiece of American cinematic storytelling. Ive seen it idk 4-5x and every time Im more drawn into the story. The opening 20+ minute sequence w DDL with zero dialogue is incredible. One of the prob top 3 best performances Ive ever seen in any movie. Every time ive watched it, ive viewed it with a new intensity.

I guess I can sum up my personal and likely faggot opinion by saying ive seen both movies idk ~4-5x and every time i watch TWBB, it seems like a more incredible masterpiece. And every time i re-watch no country, it seems a little smaller and more reliant on, well, being a cohen film.

People are welcome to disagree w me, of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5595835&forum_id=2#48098853)