I understand your point of view, the trouble is that your point of view is based on a false premise that suggests that people who dislike the films "don't get it" because they need things explained to them outright. That's not the problem. However, before discussing that, let's delve further into your point of view.
1000 movies? Why bring that up, are they all copies of the Pulse movies in various formats? Otherwise, why bring up the size of your movie collection in a comment about three specific movies? Are you trying to establish your credibility? Furthermore, why qualify them as original movies? Are they original movies as opposed to uninspired remakes like the first pulse movie and shameless and poorly-made cash-ins like the two sequels? Original as in they're full retail copies instead of pirated or bootlegged duplicates? You're making statements that are ultimately irrelevant to your own point. Speaking of which, let's get back to your point of view.
You like the Pulse films, and others don't. This baffles you, so you start by insisting people see all three films as they supposedly form a complete story, nevermind they've had different writers and the original Japanese film which led to the American remake had no sequels of its own. Why would seeing a second and third disparate sequel change one's mind about the first film?
Have you only heard "I don't get it" as the reason why people dislike the film? Maybe you should ask some specifics before you assume they're too stupid to get the supposed subtlety and allegedly complex internal logic (which doesn't exist and consistently contradicts itself, respectively). They offer no thrills beyond jump-scares and there's no mystery to be solved. There's no ambiguity, just bad writing.
The only recurring character is Zieglar, who was an ineffectual supporting character in the first film, an annoyance in the second film whose only purpose is to put the father in danger by taking his daughter hostage before disappearing from the film (seriously, why did he need Stephen to get the computer part when he's already shown the effectiveness of his red suit?), and a crazy moron in the third film who has essentially been sitting on a solution in the form of a flash drive while ambivalently cooperating with a military force bent on using nuclear weapons to "destroy the internet" despite people having fled technology and civilizations in favor of dead zones for the last 7 years. Justine only appears in two and three and only because they have the same writer, a writer who clearly didn't understand that Zieglar's only purpose in the first film was to offer an explanation as to how the ghosts began coming through transmissions, which only served to answer the question no one watching the film would have cared to ask, "Why are the ghosts only coming through now?"
Yes, the movies make us think, as you said, but only about the broken and inconsistent internal logic of the films' stories. There's nothing wrong with ambiguity in films, but when that ambiguity creates plot-holes and inconsistent characterizations, that's not good storytelling.
If you can look past that, however, and still enjoy the films flaws and all, as you seem to, then there's nothing wrong with that and you're entitled to your opinion. Don't, however, assume that people who dislike the films feel the way they do because the films are "over their heads" and don't "explain everything" because, in the end, there's nothing to "get" and what there may actually be to "get" is so insubstantial, flawed, and ill-conceived that it only highlights the flaws. There's a difference between asking people to suspend their disbelief and outright insulting their intelligence. The Pulse films feign performing the former but actually only do the latter, and you're following suit with your assessment of people who don't agree with you about the films.
You like the films, fine, but don't try to pigeonhole people who don't (at least, not without asking them just what it is they don't get).
reply
share