u/Glass_Evidence_8597

Tambien aplica cuando criticas una pelicula infantil y te salen con que "es para niños, no le trates de encontrar gran logica"

En una escena lo quiere matar, y si tenemos la teoria de que cuando paso al universo de Holland pasaron solo unos segundos para el, entonces se puede decir que en cuestion de segundos paso de "odiarlo" a "esta bien, te perdono" aunque por otra parte, en la propia the amazing spider man 2 fue asi pero al revez, paso de ser su fan numero uno a su hater number one

Just to be clear, it doesn’t bother me that much either. After all, they’re just posters, but I did find it interesting how canceled he is to the point where they won’t even give him any credit anymore. Although, yeah, sadly, he deserves it.

El de toy story si se planeo

And to think those three Mexicans at that motel had absolutely nothing to do with anything other than having the bad luck of staying next door to Moss. Anton Chigurh, the best villain I’ve seen so far.

PUES BIEN, LA ESPERA AL FIN HA TERMINADO, Y NINGUN ALTANERO Y TONTO VAQUERO HECHARA ATRAS TODO LO QUE HE LOGRADO >:V

Fuera de mame, ¿Por que no se eligio a nadie?

Personalmente en ese tiempo no era muy fan de toy story, pero recuerdo que si no me habia gustado la idea de hacer la cuarta, pero no era el por capricho de nostalgia, en lo personal, fue porque como dije en el titulo, la 3 la senti seria, adulta y hasta oscura, entiendo que sea para niños y que una cuarta pelicula a ellos si les llame la atencion, pero recuerdo tener 12 años en 2019 (cuando se estreno) y ya me imaginaba que no seria de mi total agrado, pienso yo que pudo ser mucho mejor, pongo de ejemplo a los vengadores, infinity war fue epica, pero endgame fue hasta algo oscura (probablemente se burlen de mi pero es mi vision, el hecho de que no tengamos tanta accion hasta la pelea final, es una forma de ver que definitivamente era al menos para mi, la pelicula mas seria al menos de la saga de los vengadores)

Asi que mi logica era esta en resumidas cuentas: Si la 3 toco temas adultos, serios y oscuros (infantilizandolos un poco) la 4rta debia ser la pelicula que debia seguir los tonos de la 3ra, claro, incluir su humor PERO tambien sus mensajes, pero creo que se inclinaron mas en hacerla graciosa, que en hacerla conmovedora

Y me acuerdo que ver estos posters fue lo unico que me emociono, pues tenia la nula esperanza de que asi fuera

Just last night I asked another question about this film, but now I'm also curious about something else: what was the most depressing aspect of it for you? This is easily the most depressing work of fiction I've ever experienced, and not because of just one thing. I'll try to go from the least disturbing to the most disturbing. Hopefully I can explain myself well.

1. The ruined landscapes and a world reduced to ashes. The fact that sunlight hasn't broken through the ash-filled sky in years, the dead trees, the complete absence of color. The boy doesn't even know what colors are. I'm a very nostalgic person, and this reminded me of the time I walked past the preschool I attended as a child. It had been abandoned by then, and it gave me this strange feeling of sadness and nostalgia. Now I imagine the father walking through ruined cities and destroyed towns, feeling that same nostalgia as he thinks about how those places were once full of life.

2. What humanity has become. Seeing another human being is no longer a sign of hope—it's a sign of danger. The father immediately reaches for his gun every time he sees another person. You can't trust anyone anymore. It's terrifying to think that human beings could be reduced to such a vulnerable state that our brains focus on only one thing: survival. People become capable of doing unimaginable things just to be the last ones left alive. The idea of "women and children first" disappeared long ago.

3. What I consider the most heartbreaking part of all: the childhood the boy is forced to live through. When I was a kid, I constantly asked my dad questions about the world. I can't imagine being this boy, whose childhood is filled with questions that, because he can only ask his father, he'll never truly have answered. He has no friends. Instead of playing, he searches through rubble looking for something to eat or drink. There aren't even any signs that other children still exist in this world. It almost seems like they all died before the adults, which is the opposite of what should happen—we expect adults to go first so children can have a future. Here, it was the other way around, all because of humanity's savage survival instinct.

He doesn't even know what colors are. A can of Coca-Cola is something completely new to him. He doesn't know the games we grew up playing, or the stories about heroes and vigilantes that most children hear. He's a survivor at only nine years old.

Without a doubt, the part that disturbed me the most in the movie was the main lesson his father teaches him in case he's ever trapped by a group of cannibals with no chance of escape: put the revolver in his mouth, pull the trigger, and spare himself the agony of being dismembered alive. To me, that's the worst part. I was always taught to keep fighting no matter how difficult life became, but in this world—where those "difficulties" are millions of times darker and more horrifying than anything we face—the easiest escape is suicide.

The second most disturbing moment for me only happens in the novel, when the boy witnesses an act of cannibalism committed against someone even more vulnerable than he is, and his father is powerless to stop him from seeing it. Thinking that this was the everyday reality of a nine-year-old child is, without question, the most depressing aspect of this story for me.

What about you?

I'd like to share my interpretation of how this world ended up in ruins. As we all know, McCarthy left it up to the reader to decide what caused the end of the Earth. At first, I liked to imagine it as a nuclear war between world powers. It gave the story that classic "humanity destroyed itself" feeling, showing how human savagery can become so extreme that it could easily lead us into the most vulnerable and depressing situation imaginable. I felt that fit the book and its message that we're basically "cavemen wearing designer clothes."

But then I started thinking that a natural apocalypse might actually be even more depressing than a nuclear one. Here's why.

A nuclear apocalypse is still humanity condemning itself through terrible decisions. But a natural catastrophe is, in my opinion, much more terrifying. Why? Think about it. A nuclear war can, at least in theory, be prevented. By acting rationally, avoiding wars, and maintaining peace, humanity has some control over whether it happens. It's ultimately the result of our own choices.

On the other hand, if a massive asteroid or comet struck the Earth... how would we recover from that? Maybe humanity could survive in some form, but only in the very long run. In the world of The Road, I find it far more horrifying to imagine that the dead world the father and son are walking through was devastated by a comet or a super-asteroid rather than by a neutron bomb.

To me, an asteroid symbolizes something much darker: that no matter how united humanity is, sometimes a tragic fate is simply unavoidable, even for good people. The Earth died, and there was absolutely nothing anyone could have done to stop it.

As I said, everyone can come up with their own theory about what happened. For a long time, I thought a nuclear catastrophe was the most heartbreaking possibility. But imagining that nature itself turned against us, and that we were completely powerless to stop it no matter how united we were... that's a million times more terrifying to me. It's also far more hopeless than nuclear war. Like I said, a nuclear war can sometimes be prevented—whether easily or with great difficulty—but an angry Mother Nature? Good luck with that.

I absolutely love the movie, but honestly, there are still a few things I don't fully understand. I more or less got the idea that the sheriff was confronting a level of violence that was beyond what he could cope with, or something along those lines. But it's that final monologue that's always fascinated me.

Do you have any interpretations you'd be willing to share? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!