Trollhunter

[yoco]

Release Date: June 10, 2011 (limited)
Studio: Magnet Releasing (Magnolia Pictures)
Director: Andre Ovredal
Screenwriter: Andre Ovredal
Starring: Otto Jespersen, Hans Morten Hansen, Tomas Alf Larsen, Johanna Mørck, Knut Nærum, Robert Stoltenberg, Glenn Erland Tosterud
Genre: Action, Adventure, Drama, Horror, Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for some sequences of creature terror)

Shot in a vérité style, "Trollhunter" is the story of a group of Norwegian film students that set out to capture real-life trolls on camera after learning their existence has been covered up for years by a government conspiracy.

[SealLion]

So basically, it's a film that illustrates some ridiculous point of Muslims vs Christians.
Oh, great.
Why not just make a film next on the ongoing feud between the Flying Spaghetti monsters and the Ninja Pirates.
Should be real entertaining.
Is film actually meant to dumb us down this much??
What a joke.

[slikrapid]

blair witch & co. elements detected

Shot in a vérité style

thats a good one

michael moore as a role model? yikes! they do have something in common though: they are similarly still tapping in the dark (literally and figuratively)

i wonder whats so 'important' about this movie? a hint that the olden legends/mythology may have some truth to them? they do, more than you might think, certainly more than their bastardized new(er) age successors

trolls can smell a christian?
petrify them with an artificial light show?
smash the stone in pieces with a single hammer/axe blow?
an amateur/student filming crew with explosives?
trolls abound when the camera starts rolling?
pretty convenient

So basically, it's a film that illustrates some ridiculous point of Muslims vs Christians.

umm, didn't catch that part


related stuff:

Finntroll - Trollhammaren

[SealLion]

Basically what I meant with regards to Muslims vs. Christian theme is a portrait of religious feudalism that supposedly and or might lead back to the Crusades.
Reminds me of my history lessons to the 8 Crusades having occured. Christians vs Jews and slaughtering them to pieces and Christians slaughtering Muslims once they get to the Holy City and Muslims slaughtering Christians with the same zeal and vigor that both sides probably had for one another. It was like a see-saw of vengeance and retribution of various religious factions at the time. Today, we have a continuation of discord between faiths that's catapulted and fused with films that are supposed to make one side better than the other.

[cheatos]

For a moment (from looking at the title), I thought this was about hunting internet trolls
From the looks of it, it's going to suck.
Perhaps this movie isn't for everyone ? (exclusive for the Norwegian minds?)

[Nobody]

The trailer sucks balls. I rather liked the movie though.

[slikrapid]

@SealLion:

what I meant with regards to Muslims vs. Christian theme is a portrait of religious feudalism that supposedly and or might lead back to the Crusades.

well, one could say that after 9/11 'the crusades' are back in business (though this kind of activity never ceased anyways), with visible official support, the target being of arabic/islamic/muslim 'affiliation', with strong religious related elements

the religious feudalism (or the societal one as well) never really ended, it just changed its appearance, being still widely spread nowadays, with/using a different 'sheep's clothing'

Reminds me of my history lessons to the 8 Crusades having occured. Christians vs Jews and slaughtering them to pieces and Christians slaughtering Muslims once they get to the Holy City and Muslims slaughtering Christians with the same zeal and vigor that both sides probably had for one another. It was like a see-saw of vengeance and retribution of various religious factions at the time.

its interesting how the, lets call it the zionist capital, jerusalem was in the middle of this conflict, perhaps even as the turning point or a location of high-interest, whereas nowadays it may be a different country as the visible ringleader, however again it revolves around primarily zionist interests (usa being used as the pawn) - finally, even the conflicting religions have a common 'ancestor' (or connecting/shared basis in torah) in judaism (again, a zionist pillar) - seems these conflicts are a re-appearing theme, happening within a common 'house' of the abrahamic worshipers, pitted against each other, even though they serve the same deity (under various names, in different ways/rituals)

now, regardless of which religion dominates a particular crusade/conquest, it may be said that other religions standing in its way will become persecuted/attacked, fi. during early arab conquests of the middle east, northern africa & parts of europe, the dominant religion of the invaders was islam and every other religion (non-islamic, non mainstream-islamic) was having a difficult time existing within these new conditions of mostly foreign dominance, especially because the new conditions were achieved through military means (conquest) - a similar outcome happened when the subsequent catholic-dominated forces advanced towards the jerusalem area, regarding non-christian & more accurately non-catholic religions - the religious difference was an additional (often the decisive one) element of their animosity towards the enemy (or anyone standing in its way) and a useful tool in stirring-up/influencing/mobilizing the masses for a conflict/crusade/conquest

nowadays, the religious argument has somewhat lost its previous 'weight', yet it still functions as a way to label/identify/visualize the enemy or opponent, still being useful to mobilize forces for a specific cause - interestingly, the majority still doesn't have a sufficiently better understanding of these mechanisms and the way in which they operate (or how they are being used & abused), the majority is still the extended, insufficiently informed & aware, used & abused hand of the elitist driving/steering/manipulating/deceiving/indoctrinating forces, as they have been for thousands of years - by now it should be clear how no amount of technological advances will make any significant progress in countering such a state/situation/condition, since they bring an illusion of reaching an advanced state - what they lack is addressing the understanding of the mechanisms & their obscured purposes, so the actual advance can only relate to the technical aspect, certainly not sufficiently to the mental one, however, the latter is much more important for reaching an advanced state, which is precisely the reason why it is systematically & officially kept on low levels (and/or outside the mainstream) throughout the ages


@cheatos:

For a moment (from looking at the title), I thought this was about hunting internet trolls

interestingly, thats also the first-choice of google (based probably on popularity), even though the 'new-age' usage of the term is a clear distortion of its original meaning - this kind of alteration may actually be intentional, in order to increase confusion and steer interpretation away from the original meaning - a more preferable way would be to simply create a new word for it, its not like there is a shortage of words or letter combinations or smth.

Perhaps this movie isn't for everyone ? (exclusive for the Norwegian minds?)

sure, depends on what might be 'of interest' to the viewer: topic (interesting mostly to scandinavians and anyone interested in norse mythology), movie style/genre, country of origin, people involved, etc. - however, it is being globally distributed (likely also created for global 'consumption')

[Sazzy]

I liked this movie a lot, so did the friends I watched it with.
Apparently, like usual, SBI hates everything I like.

[yoco]

Sazzy, I like your avatar

[Nobody]

@silkrapid

well, one could say that after 9/11 'the crusades' are back in business (though this kind of activity never ceased anyways), with visible official support, the target being of arabic/islamic/muslim 'affiliation', with strong religious related elements

Actually, in the movie being Muslim was a rather large advantage. In fact, characters in the movie who are faithless have the largest advantage of all. Traditional Nordic folklore isn't really known for it's tolerance of Christianity.

I mean generally I would agree with you. You've got people like Glenn Beck manning the helm of the "average" American. But I don't this this movie is an example of that.

sure, depends on what might be 'of interest' to the viewer: topic (interesting mostly to scandinavians and anyone interested in norse mythology), movie style/genre, country of origin, people involved, etc. - however, it is being globally distributed (likely also created for global 'consumption')

I don't think there's any underlying plot within the movie to impose a zionist agenda on the cookie-cutter/puppet people of the world. My stance is much more practical. This is the first "real" film that Norway has produced that could compare to a full-scale Hollywood production. They're proud of it. The same way the Koreans were proud of "Dragon Wars". Although "Dragon Wars" was laughably horrible and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever... lol

...what they lack is addressing the understanding of the mechanisms & their obscured purposes, so the actual advance can only relate to the technical aspect, certainly not sufficiently to the mental one, however, the latter is much more important for reaching an advanced state, which is precisely the reason why it is systematically & officially kept on low levels (and/or outside the mainstream) throughout the ages

I think most intelligent people are aware of it, but seriously... what can you do? The victors write history. And history informs common thought and practices.

Do I think peoples ignorance of the factors that shape the world cheats them out of seeing the true nature of things? Sure. Do I think it limits peoples perceptions of the capacity of their own individuality? Absolutely. But until the majority comes to see what the minority does, that thought process isn't going to be considered acceptable to the average person on the street. And when it is, you'll just have people telling us it's a heathen plot to control the world government rather than a zionist one. People want to connect the dots, whether they exist or not.

Conspiracies do exist, I admit it. But I'm convinced the world just isn't as interesting as people want it to be. The nature of chaos in the world prevents it, and our instinctual nature to "connect the dots" supports it. People crave purpose in their everyday lives, and trying to get someone to accept the idea that... "oh yeah, your life really is insignificant. You really are an ant on an anthill. And everyone has to ultimately face death alone and to admit that they will blink out of existence and eventually be forgotten--no matter what mark you may leave on the world" is a big pill to swallow. People would rather cling to hope (which inadvertently comes hand-in-hand with faith).

I do believe that society as a whole can advance to a level that is beyond this, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. We're talking centuries at the least, with plenty of bloodshed inbetween. But hey, maybe I'm just a "the glass is half-empty" kinda guy... hah.

[slikrapid]

@Nobody:

Actually, in the movie being Muslim was a rather large advantage. In fact, characters in the movie who are faithless have the largest advantage of all. Traditional Nordic folklore isn't really known for it's tolerance of Christianity.

my previous comments (the religion/crusades/... part) were general ones, not related to this movie at all (haven't even seen it yet)

not sure how could one's religion be a disadvantage regarding the trolls (or any other materialized 'monster' with an aggressive attitude), the belief itself doesn't seem to be relevant here - some (practical) knowledge regarding trolls, suitable equipment/tools, composed/sharp mind and the like would be an advantage - the 'trolls can smell a christian' element would probably be a word-play on the 'smell of fear' idea

as for norse intolerance towards christianity, that one is quite logical, as the latter is clearly an intruder/conqueror/usurper/mis-interpreter/mis-representer with a clear agenda to subvert & dethrone any other previous/original religion/belief/custom found among various (targeted) cultures

I don't think there's any underlying plot within the movie to impose a zionist agenda on the cookie-cutter/puppet people of the world.

just to make it clear, that particular comment wasn't even meant to address any possible underlying agenda

But until the majority comes to see what the minority does, that thought process isn't going to be considered acceptable to the average person on the street. And when it is, you'll just have people telling us it's a heathen plot to control the world government rather than a zionist one. People want to connect the dots, whether they exist or not.

it never will (completely) since that would render them one and the same, which is a practically unreachable position, which renders the terms meaningless (minority=majority), ie. their division will always exist, as long as they perceive themselves as individual beings

But I'm convinced the world just isn't as interesting as people want it to be.

depending on the perspective the world can be (and is) as interesting as one can perceive it (and/or 'wants' it) to be, there is no intrinsic limitation to how interesting it actually is (its infinitely interesting in itself), the limiting factor is the 'observer' (his capabilities, level of awareness, goals/desires/wants/needs) or more accurately the being experiencing it

The nature of chaos in the world prevents it, and our instinctual nature to "connect the dots" supports it.

i'd say that the nature of chaos supports it (the chaotic unknowns make it interesting, making room for interpretations/theories, for something to be interested in), the 'connect the dots' (thinking, reasoning, intuition) representing mechanisms that make sense of the chaos, allowing the experience of existence to be interpreted/understood

People crave purpose in their everyday lives, and trying to get someone to accept the idea that... "oh yeah, your life really is insignificant. You really are an ant on an anthill. And everyone has to ultimately face death alone and to admit that they will blink out of existence and eventually be forgotten--no matter what mark you may leave on the world" is a big pill to swallow. People would rather cling to hope (which inadvertently comes hand-in-hand with faith).

its quite natural to search for purpose(s) as life without purpose has no meaning, it cannot exist at all (the living itself is already a basic purpose out of many possible ones, or more accurately the existence itself is the most basic purpose, a purpose in and of itself)

the significance of one's existence again depends on the perspective, intrinsically it has the same significance as any other existence there is (regardless of the perceived value or importance or influence or any other imagined/arbitrary attribute), it has the highest significance for the being experiencing it (regardless of whether that being is actually aware of it or not), it can also have any other level of significance imaginable depending on who makes the evaluation (fi. some external observer) and what kind of value scale is being used to evaluate the significance

I do believe that society as a whole can advance to a level that is beyond this, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. We're talking centuries at the least, with plenty of bloodshed inbetween. But hey, maybe I'm just a "the glass is half-empty" kinda guy... hah.

imo the society as a whole is on a continuous path of deterioration/degradation, the overall average getting lower and lower as time goes by, whereas the overall perception of its advanced/advancing state will continue to rise like a bloated illusion (supported by localized/convenient/hand-picked/superficial improvements, fed by the media, 'blessed' by the establishment, believed by the majority of its participants, etc.), as mentioned before regarding the mental vs. technical viewpoint

[yoco]

Who knew such a debate would turn out in this thread!

[Nobody]

@silk

not sure how could one's religion be a disadvantage regarding the trolls (or any other materialized 'monster' with an aggressive attitude), the belief itself doesn't seem to be relevant here - some (practical) knowledge regarding trolls, suitable equipment/tools, composed/sharp mind and the like would be an advantage - the 'trolls can smell a christian' element would probably be a word-play on the 'smell of fear' idea

I know you haven't seen the movie, but it isn't. They can literally smell Christian blood.

as for norse intolerance towards christianity, that one is quite logical

I wasn't trying to say it was illogical or wrong. Their hostility is just.

depending on the perspective the world can be (and is) as interesting as one can perceive it (and/or 'wants' it) to be, there is no intrinsic limitation to how interesting it actually is (its infinitely interesting in itself), the limiting factor is the 'observer' (his capabilities, level of awareness, goals/desires/wants/needs) or more accurately the being experiencing it

I wasn't trying to say that there are limitations to how interesting life can be. Perhaps I didn't write that in the most clear way. I was trying to infer my opinion that people who entertain conspiracy theories are grasping at straws. I was trying to say that I've found the natural rhythms of life, in a broader sense, aren't as interesting as conspiracy theorists would hope them to be. But there are plenty of things within life that are fascinating.

i'd say that the nature of chaos supports it (the chaotic unknowns make it interesting, making room for interpretations/theories, for something to be interested in), the 'connect the dots' (thinking, reasoning, intuition) representing mechanisms that make sense of the chaos, allowing the experience of existence to be interpreted/understood

But true chaos is illogical. There is no understanding it in any rational way. One can love the randomness of Chaos, but trying to understand it is an exercise in futility, imo. And let's say there was a way to pin together two ideas amidst the chaos and find a small pattern. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean you can predict the way those two things have interacted throughout time.

It's like finding patterns in the stock market. You can take a timeline snapshot of the market and find patterns within that time period, but just because you found that pattern doesn't mean you can make predictions about how that pattern worked in the past or will work in the future. And in the case of conspiracies or wider agendas, we're talking on a massive number of variables--not just two.

Personally I find Chaos in and of itself to be very interesting. And anyone who has sat and watched the white static on their TV screen probably does to, to varying degrees.

its quite natural to search for purpose(s) as life without purpose has no meaning, it cannot exist at all (the living itself is already a basic purpose out of many possible ones, or more accurately the existence itself is the most basic purpose, a purpose in and of itself)

the significance of one's existence again depends on the perspective, intrinsically it has the same significance as any other existence there is (regardless of the perceived value or importance or influence or any other imagined/arbitrary attribute), it has the highest significance for the being experiencing it (regardless of whether that being is actually aware of it or not), it can also have any other level of significance imaginable depending on who makes the evaluation (fi. some external observer) and what kind of value scale is being used to evaluate the significance

These two paragraphs make sense, but it seems like an easy way out. I'm paraphrasing here, but if "things without purpose can't exist" and "everything that exists has a purpose, even if that purpose is to only 'be'" means also that "a purpose can't exist without a thing". And there are purposes that could be filled by a thing but are left unrealized. So this would lead us to believe that "un-being" is also a purpose. And to have both "being" and "un-being" as purposes seems like a logical fallacy to me, barring any misinterpretation I may have had in your concept.

Though my logic may be wrong as well. It's been a long time since I took philosophy, hah.






@yoco

lol. I wouldn't really call it a debate. At least I don't view it that way. Talking about this sort of stuff is really interesting to me personally. And nothing greases the old grey matter like new opinions, or even opposing opinions. Chip in and give us your viewpoint!

Although I admit... the fact that this discussion spawned out of the Trollhunter movie is hilarious, hah.

[slikrapid]

@Nobody:

They can literally smell Christian blood.

well, imo that still doesn't make sense if taken (or applied) literally, the other aforementioned explanation seems closer to the point (regardless whether the authors had this in mind or not) - its pretty safe to say that christian blood doesn't significantly differ from any other human's blood with respect to the religious affiliation - what may be perceived as different is their personality/attitude/reactions (that part which is highly influenced/shaped through religion), fi. dealing with fear when facing a troll - theoretically: a close adherent to norse beliefs would be almost fearless, whereas a typical/'prescribed' christian would be stricken with fear (praying & turning the other cheek at the same time), which would allow the troll to sense the easier prey & go for the christian one - such an attitude would then be ascribed to religion (as a significant observable difference) among weak men/people (hence: weak blood & the variation: smell the weak blood and its 'bearer')

I was trying to infer my opinion that people who entertain conspiracy theories are grasping at straws. I was trying to say that I've found the natural rhythms of life, in a broader sense, aren't as interesting as conspiracy theorists would hope them to be. But there are plenty of things within life that are fascinating.

considering their line of work it would seem they are left with no other choice but to grasp at straws - the primary motivation of genuine researchers arises because the supposedly accurate/strong/reliable arguments/explanations, given/supported by the mainstream authorities, under closer scrutiny turn out to be nothing more than disguised deceptions in quite a number of cases, most visible in controversial subjects - then there is the obscurity & inaccessibility of significant proofs for their theories (largely because of intentional obstruction), lack of support/attention (minor groups), lack of funding, lacking freedom to pursue their goals, lack of integrity (infiltrated 'agents', wannabe's, ulterior motives,...), etc.

imo the conspiracy theorists, even with their flaws & inadequacies, are still a quite important segment of the society, providing a different view on supposedly established interpretations, at least to point out how things are not that certain/understood/established as the 'rulers' would want everyone to believe

'natural rhythms of life'...not sure what exactly is meant by that phrase, could you give some example (if possible, combined with some conspiratorial claim for contrast)?

But true chaos is illogical. There is no understanding it in any rational way. One can love the randomness of Chaos, but trying to understand it is an exercise in futility, imo. And let's say there was a way to pin together two ideas amidst the chaos and find a small pattern. Just because two things correlate doesn't mean you can predict the way those two things have interacted throughout time.

even so, the rationality & logic did emerge and got formed from that chaos via conscious efforts of its inhabitants, ie. those constructs were already there, just in a different form (lets say, the chaotic form) - chaos & order as opposites are a part of every existing system, which operates somewhere in between - a higher level system would be one that has a higher level of awareness/consciousness, one that can handle chaos & order 'with ease', has better understanding of it and control/influence over it (fi. humans vs. animals)

as for predictions, they are easier to do when dealing with actions of lower level systems (machines, animals, sheeple,...), its certainly easy enough considering how much exploitation has been going on for millennia - however, every single human has a potential to reach a higher level - whether one is aware of that or has such a goal is another story

means also that "a purpose can't exist without a thing". And there are purposes that could be filled by a thing but are left unrealized. So this would lead us to believe that "un-being" is also a purpose. And to have both "being" and "un-being" as purposes seems like a logical fallacy to me, barring any misinterpretation I may have had in your concept.

well, a purpose is simply a characteristic of some thing (hence its usage: the purpose of...) - similarly to other characteristics it has a meaning only when relating to some thing (or any thing in a general definition, or every thing if its a fundamental one) - it is essentially a human mental construct that can be observed/perceived - since the mind can 'create' constructs which are outside of the usual perception, it is possible to create a construct of 'a purpose that can exist without a thing', that one may be an example of a chaotic construct that defies the ordered definition, showing that no matter how precise or ordered a definition is, there is always some construct that will be able to defy it and retain the chaotic aspect

the purpose of 'un-being' is to exist (!) and to be (!) the counterpart of 'being', its perfect antipode

logic in itself is not a perfect system, its simply a highly structured one, one that has no place for anything outside of its 'borders' & set of rules, which gets disposed of as being 'illogical' - luckily, the 'ratio' (reason) is just one aspect of the mind which is more tolerant to chaotic instances

[Sazzy]

I think you guys overthink everything way too much. It's probably why you don't like so many things either