I'm not a hollywood enthusiast so maybe I'm missing something, and sorry about quoting wikipedia, but it says the original movie grossed 676.3m at the box office against a 112.5m budget. How is that possible if "no one saw Austin Powers in the cinema"?
Austin Powers was like 17 million and did 60ish million in box office. It was not a flop by any means but it was the video market that pushed its sequels to getting made and pushed its cultural influence.
That doesn't make sense. Where did you get this?
You are right, I was looking at numbers for the whole series, which includes the (fairly bad, imo) second and third movies which were made when it was already popular. I should have known better since the numbers I quoted were quite large. I think my point stands though, as ~67m box office is probably no small potatoes for a 1997 movie.
100 million dollar movie cost would have been summer blockbuster or bust in the 90s. Remember that rule of thumb is movie has to make twice its money back and the 17 doesnt include marketing. Also 60 is misleading because when a movie gets eyeballs matters. Its a formula that gives the studio the most early on in a run and more to the theatres later on. A movie with a bad opener but gets good word of mouth and gets eyeballs and box office in the weeks past the first 2 can still be a failure.
agreed.
i was an avid chuck palahniuk reader until snuff. i lost interest after that.
Did you hear about the theory that both Tyler and the girl along with the entire fight club are all in the main chars head? It really makes a lot of sense honestly
Yeah, Snuff was terrible. Rant is my overall favourite book of his, i thought Pygmy was rather good and if you haven't read it i can recommend it. I used to be a fan like you and think it is the last good thing he has written. I read both Doomed and Damned and found them to be below dogshit-tier, both from a prose and story point of view. Tell-All is self-masturbatory, virtually unreadable bullshit. Beautiful You i read and did not like one bit either. I have no clue what happened to Chuck after Pygmy but to me he completely lost whatever it was that made is books interesting, original and entertaining.
That is a theory that i only heard from people who only watched the film, the book and the comic make clear that this is not the case, Marla is not one of his delusions. Tyler is his split personality, it doesn't go deeper than that.
Yea I didn't read the book or comic but in the movie it makes a lot of sense.
Tyler doesn't have anything to teach. He's an overgrown teenage anarchist with daddy issues living out a childish antisocial fantasy. The narrator grows by rejecting him and accepting responsibility for his life. That's Marla's purpose in the film, she forces the narrator to care about someone other than himself. This endangers his relationship with Tyler, which is really just self-obsession. "All of this has to do with a girl named Marla."
Both Palahniuk and Uhls have debunked the notion that Marla is a hallucination in their respective stories, though Palahniuk said (with some graciousness, I think) it was a good idea. It makes no sense in the context of his novel, because Marla's mother supplies their fat. In the movie, Marla's genuinely confused and hurt by her boyfriend's rapid changes in personality, which is not what I'd expect if she were just another expression of the narrator's subconscious mind.
Doesn't that thread already exist?
I never watched the movie when it came out because it seemed like some dumb bro fighting movie and at the time everybody at school decided random fights were now just going to be a thing because of the movie. Which was kind of fun for a bit. It wasn't until years later when I was an adult I was looking through some list of trippy movies or something like that and fight club was on the list for some reason so I decided to give it a try and I guess it wasn't so much a dumb bro fighting movie at all. I thought it was a pretty good movie. Not the best movie in the world or anything but the whole mental breakdown shit and discovering he's actually both people was pretty trippy. I managed to not be spoilered over the years, mostly because I never cared and kind of forgot about it so I still didn't really know what the movie was about when I went into it.
It made sense when I watched the video, the guy did bring some compelling evidence from the film but I'm not entirely sold on it. I did rewatch the movie with that in mind and honestly it makes a little more sense if they are both in his mind and it broke because he had cancer. One of the examples I remember was at the beginning he basically begged the doctor to give him xanax, later in the film Marla is seen with a prescription of xanax. I cant remember all the "evidence" he used but it was pretty compelling to belive
It's more that it's an act of defiance that allows the narrator to take back control of his life. All throughout the film you notice that the narrator takes more of a backseat to his own life and never really thinks or acts for himself "Three pitchers of beer and you still can't ask me" "Tylers words were coming out of my mouth" "Name something you want to do before you die" "I can't".
There's a deleted scene that underscores this so blatantly I'm glad they left it out of the movie. After Chloe gives her speech about needing to have sex one more time before she dies she singles out the narrator and tries to corner him but he dodges her and runs straight to Marla instead. Basically showing his first instinct was to choose Marla over the group without realizing it. But that would have been a much shorter and less interesting movie.
I personally believe in the Narrator and Tyler Durden are grown up Calvin and Hobbes Hypothesis. I believe it in spite of it being completely fucking stupid.
I'd say Tyler is definitely a DID split. Even the house on paper street is imaginary. Same with the girl