Inconclusion

Board the wagons and pull the air whistle because the Inconclusion train is departing for the next year! Before we do, however, we've decided to do something special for the holidays and watch a movie together to pierce its story and themes. So join us for a discussion of the 2013 movie Snowpiercer where we struggle with the premise of the setting, endorse eating bugs and renounce eating babies, and no one accuses another of derailing the topic even once despite the obvious setup. Happy holidays!

The guy from the person of interest
Erdal Beşikçioğlu
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection: method to release gases to the atmosphere to cool the earth
Dara O Briain bit about the movie 2012

Write us your holiday wishes:
Instagram - inconclusion_podcast
Threads - inconclusion_podcast
Bluesky - inconclusion.bsky.social
Twitter - _inconclusion_
Linkedin - inconclusion
Reddit - r/inconclusionpodcast

Creators & Guests

Host
can deniz çam
Host
Elif Gecyatan
I am a visual artist and a qualitative researcher.
Host
Enes Yılmaz
lüzumsuz
Host
İzel Çelik
She likes apps, technology, design, and talking about things she likes. After wearing her Turkish friends down, she decided to expand her borders and speak to the whole world about her interests.
Host
Melih Binali

What is Inconclusion?

A podcast about tech and stuff. Inconclusion, the discourse never ends.

Instagram - @inconclusion_podcast

Twitter - @_inconclusion_

Hey guys, I was listening to one of my podcasts and they were talking about how the listen numbers drop during the last week of the year. Isn't that interesting? Because people still would listen on whole days and such but the last week of the year, they don't listen. I mean personally, I listen to podcasts when I'm in the gym so maybe people aren't going to the gym or work and they don't have the allocated time for listening. Or maybe they listen to other things like Christmas music. Yeah, but it's after Christmas. Or they were getting ready for the new years. I think everybody just hangover. For a whole week. What did they put into their eggnogs? You start drinking on Christmas and you stop at New Year's? So, as a brilliant mathematician, I have calculated that the episode we are recording will be on that period. So, I thought maybe we can instead of doing something about a current technological event that people won't listen, we can do one about a movie that is vaguely snorkeling. And... Kinda sci-fi? So that, yeah, kinda sci-fi because we are technically a technological podcast. But also with a social angle because we are dead too. And so that people would be inclined to listen even after the holiday season. Because the movie is still the movie. And weather will still be cold. What do you guys think? Do you wanna talk about a movie that we have watched in order to prepare for this episode? Yeah! I thought others will be joining me. Yeah, yeah. So... Our somewhat awkward introduction aside, today dear listeners, we have a special episode for you in order to commemorate the special time of the year. We are going to talk about the movie Snowpiercer. 2013 movie. Yeah, not the TV show, like it's a Netflix show actually, not a TV show. Not the Netflix show, which is interesting with good visuals and good themes and such. The movie, which is different on those regards. I mean, you... okay. So maybe we can first talk a bit about what is in the movie and then we can talk about what we think about the movie. And as always, if you think this particular deviation from our regular format is more fun than the actual episodes, feel free to comment on our social media so that we can do more of these in the future. So Mr. Binari, what do you... like, what happens in the movie? Well, Snowpiercer is about a class... a class rebellion that takes place in a main... I don't know how to explain it actually. Hang on. Train? I'm thinking this over. Like, chuv chuv? Chuv chuv. Chug chug chug chug. Well, Snowpiercer is about a class rebellion that takes place in a train in a post-apocalyptic setting. We called it Kindle Sci-Fi and this was the funny thing about it because when we threw out this idea, when we were talking about what movie to do, when Snowpiercer was thrown like as an option, because I think I am one of the two people who watched this movie before. Is that what I watched it? I know and I watched it. I knew that sci-fi elements of it was very much like placeholders to hang ideas around, rather than like actual sci-fi elements that is like intriguing or investigated in this plot. So I was like, I don't think we're going to be able to discuss much around that. And I have a feeling that is kind of what's going to happen here. But the plot of the movie is revolving. The plot of the movie rolls around this. Ha ha, it rolls like a revolution. This rebellion that starts from the back of the train, the tail of the train, that goes to the engine at the very front of the train because as a very clumsy metaphor for class struggle, this train is compartmentalized in litter classes. And we kind of follow this journey from the very back to the very front, where some poor world building is done. And we finish on again completely on metaphors and not actual investigation of sci-fi elements or actual plot elements. I have a question for you, Binele. Yes. Why the world was frozen over? Was that explained in the movie or it was in other media? Or was it in a book? I think they say it in the passing in the movie that it is climate change. But it is also very much ingrained with the propaganda that is sold within the movie. So you are never explicitly told what happened. All of the world building elements of the movie you hear from like second or third hand accounts, which kind of creates this unreliable narrator feeling that which does not help sometimes because like I said, the movie is like, I think when we watched from everyone's reactions, I think I have the most positive reaction to this movie. This movie is very adorable because it is very much like... I mean, adorable is like... It is adorable because this is the clumsiest, like the most basic class struggle metaphor you can create a story around. It is very much, really makes you think, doesn't it? Levels off. What if there was a train? No, it doesn't make me think. It just makes me get annoyed a little bit. I mean, of course at some point I was questioning what they are they eating? Is this cannibalism or is this kids? Are these our kids? There's those kind of elements of how can you place a society inside of a train? That's the questioning that I had. How would that work? And can we do it a better way? I was just constantly thinking about that during the movie. I don't know how it was for you guys. I personally really like the movie. I obviously don't know how much you like the movie, so I can say I liked it more than you, but... No, I love this movie. I really like the movie and I agree with the notion that it was an adorable movie. But I disagree that it's a clumsy metaphor. What I was thinking is about the movie is... I see the way they want to make some references to social structures, social classes, but it says behind some illogical elements, actually, because the way they built the train or the way they built the world, in that sense, there are some things that can't be explained. There are some illogical things. We didn't get the reasons behind it. Maybe if they were explained better, we might not see those things. Like Elif says, what they're eating, how they're living their lives, how they're still surviving, actually. And we don't see that and we don't understand why they're on the train in the first place. Maybe they think they don't want to explain in the first place. Like Bineli said, maybe they don't need to live on trains in that world, but they are believing so. But maybe to explain this, they should have explained us they need to live on this train so bad. But after that, we can learn that they don't need to live on that train for that time. By the way, spoilers about the movie. You are warned. We still don't know actually, but in the movie, it's not explained yet. But the way I see a better world building, you need to see through your main characters or your characters' point of view. If they're believing in, they need to live on this train, for example, or they need to eat that food to live. It's the best food they can get. We need to see from that perspective. We need to believe in that. But during that time we were watching the film, we were questioning all the things. So I think the concept can be good because it's a book, I guess. And they... The film after... Yes, yes, the comic book. And I don't know the comic book, so I can't comment about the graphic novel. But there is a TV, I mean, Netflix series about it as well. And I think they can maybe better build the world in that mediums. But in the movie, maybe there wasn't enough time to explain all of this so that we can believe in those things as well. But I can, as far as I know, I only watched one or two episodes of the TV series. And the world didn't get me into it, so I stopped watching. Afterwards I tried to understand the world. And I watched many YouTube videos about this before watching this movie. So I only watched some YouTube videos explaining movies and Netflix series. And then graphic novel or I don't know. I was bombarded with information that I still didn't get why they're on the train. Or like how... Exactly how we end up here. I didn't understand how train works. I mean, it should be the first thing they should explain. Because if we are living on the train and this is the only life exists in the world now, because in the first scenes of the movie, they're explaining it and as well as on the Netflix show, it's the intro basically. So we need to believe how train works. I mean, how train... the explanation of how train works to the travelers, passengers. So we need to get this. We don't actually need to know the real reason, the real thing. I have to disagree with you, Enes. Because the movie starts at the end of the... in the tail and they know nothing about the train. But we should understand why they get on the first place on the train. What they were thinking before getting on the train. I think this is explained in the movie actually. Because I think I remember people talking about this in the relative start of the movie, in the tail, that they would have died if they did not get on the train. And on that point, I can understand your intellectual curiosity about why that's the case. But I think the way movies choose to portray its story is... You don't... you aren't immediately bombarded with all this information like the Russian novels. And instead, what happens is as you progress, this information is revealed to you. Yes. You move to the next wagon and then there are windows and you can see that everywhere is covered in ice. And then you move a little bit more and you get to the place with the crazy Alison Pilander children. Where you are shown that... I would say children were crazy as well. Yeah, I agree. The people... every children is kind of crazy, I think. But you see that the people who tried to escape died and you see their frozen statues in the view. Like it is maybe not very direct. You aren't throwing these information. Like the show maybe does a better job at explaining things to the Netflix show. But in the movie, you are given the information that you require in order to understand what is happening. Like you see that they are eating some gross disgusting thing and then later you learn that it's bugs. I mean, it's... And going forward, you see the sushi wagon and you are immediately like "What about some people are eating sushi? How is that happening?" Exactly. I also didn't get it why the main character gets disgusted from the bugs. They were thrown into their food. He said like "Oh, you shouldn't tell this to the other people. They can't eat it." Like I completely get disconnected from the movie at that time. When I was watching a movie, I need to be get inside there. I need to be in the world. I need to believe in that is the reality. But when I get some illogical thing, I get disconnected and then the movie is a joke after it. That's for me. I mean, like I said, the movie isn't necessary. I mean, Binali said this, but I said it before the recording. The movie isn't necessarily a very sci-fi oriented movie. It is more of a social science fiction kind of like social science is still science. So I don't agree that this isn't sci-fi, but it isn't what you would expect from a sci-fi movie. There isn't like the different holograms and high technology flying cars, that kind of thing. But I still think it's sci-fi. They are imagining a particularly different version of the world and they are imagining a society. Like the way we associate sci-fi with spaceships is Star Wars, which is barely a sci-fi movie. And Star Trek, which is barely a sci-fi show. My point is not about technology. It's about social structure, social sociology, I guess. They can discuss, they can get discussed by bugs, eating bugs, but they don't get discussed by eating themselves. That's the point. Like they did that, but they can't get, they can't eat bugs. Yeah, but not everyone was eating people. I think eating bugs is more superior than eating people or even child. No, it was kind of mentioned that like before the bugs arrived, before we had the protein bar, we had to eat. That part, I don't think they chose eating themselves. In the first weeks they were not giving food. But they were eager to eat. I mean, look, I agree with Enes because that's one of my primary... Like in the last part, they said, "Oh, and it was delicious." I'm not delicious, but children is better to eat. I mean, the younger people, it's better to eat. It's tasteful. So, but they can get discussed eating bugs. He gets discussed. He gets discussed eating bugs. And after the reveal of the protein bar, how the protein bars is made, he didn't eat any of that. Okay, so first of all, I would like to say this as the in-conclusion podcast. We don't condone eating people and/or children. But I want to say there's a science behind that. As you get older, there's this chemical accumulation in your body. So it would make sense that younger people would have better taste because the chemical accumulation would make your taste worse. I can't see how that would happen. I mean, that's why we don't eat. This is the thing. This is the thing, though. In the movie itself, it's explained that that was a practice they were able to put behind themselves. And that was 17 years ago. So by the time of the like, Curtis Rebellion, by the time the movie happens, this is something they already don't do anymore. So yes, for that generation, because they also talk about how there were generations on the train that grew up on the train. They never saw the world without the train. So it is, I think, at least on some level understandable that he would not want people to have the drawings. Because he tells the painter guy to not draw that part, to not distribute it to the people. And I think it is on that level understandable. And it is like more seed as a way they are treated rather than the exact method of like, "Oh, it is bugs." By the way, about the bugs, I also agree. It's been bugging me as well. Because you see, the reason we consider bugs to be repulsivists, thank you again, Elif, thank you. You are a great audience. The reason we find bug-eating repulsivists because of allegedly the places that bugs hang out at. Yeah, but everybody hangs us at the train. And not just that, but like that quantity of bug, they are probably, they aren't catching bugs around the train. They are probably farm-raising the bugs. Exactly. So I don't even think the bugs would be disgusting. I think in that situation, bugs are a perfect valid thing to eat. But actually it is represented in many utopias that we will be eating bugs in the future. Like it's the better option they were presenting. There are people who are like maybe one in 100%, like 1% of our audience who lives in countries that do eat bugs. So I don't even categorically disagree with eating bugs. Like I said, I think... It's not mainstream. It's not common as chicken. I mean, we don't usually eat bugs, but I think bugs eatable. Like again, in such a situation, I think bugs are a perfect valid thing to eat. Yes, that's what I'm saying. I have a comparable beef. I think the tail people are ungrateful because this is not discussed explicitly in the movie, but from the surrounding material I noticed. The reason tail people exist is because while the train was departing, there were these people out there who would have died by freezing. And the train let some of them in in order to not die. And the way they respond to not dying, the train did not let them in. They forced their way into the train. The wagons that tail people live in are very easy to detach. And honestly, if I was still the servant, I would have detached tail years ago. But the thing this way... I mean, you couldn't because there's only one rail that goes around the world. Everybody on the train died because of tail people. Not because of tail people. Everybody on the train dies. Not exactly. But the train was able to control and continue moving because of tail people. That was a premise. That's not true at all. They use them as a... Because of the kids' labor. I mean, that's the weakest part of the movie. Because it doesn't make much sense to use kids in that regard. And that being the linchpin of the whole story. But this is what we use tail people for. And I think that could have been reinforced by something stronger. I think a better version of that plot wouldn't be kids have little arms. Therefore, we are stealing tail people's kids. But maybe kids' hearts are useful in the machine or something like that. How can I explain this? I think if they were making food out of children, it would be better explained. Making food out of children is never a good explanation because of the biomass and how entropy works. But on that regard, I am still not very... I don't think the train makes sense, but I don't think trains need to make sense either. I don't think trains need to make sense. And I think I'm going to also push back on that. I don't think we need to know how the daily life on the train works. I don't think we have to know how people live on the train, on a day-to-day basis, to make sense of the movie. But how am I going to understand the main character's struggle? The main character doesn't have a struggle. It's a class struggle. The main character isn't important. That's the point Nelly is making. The characters aren't important in this movie. The important thing is the class struggle. But they frame it that way. The way it's shot is that way. We need to understand their motivations. They are important in the sense that they represent things, not as characters themselves. Curtis himself does not have much of a pathos outside the rebellion leader. That's the whole thing behind the leader who doesn't want to lead things they force onto. Curtis and onto you through the narrative. These characters, Gilliam, Curtis, Nam, all represent players in a class struggle rather than actual characters. That's why when you get to the end of the movie and you see Wilford, it's very much a caricature of a character. I mean, the same is true for the teacher character, Ellison Pill plays. The upper classes, yeah, exactly. I think there's a principal difference between Ellison Pill and Curtis. I agree with the notion that none of these characters are characters. But there's an important distinction. Look, I don't think I'm a very good actor. If you put me in a movie, I would probably not do a very good job. But I think Curtis' character was very bad casting. I'm not going to say the guy plays it badly, maybe he's directed badly, I don't know. Throughout the movie, he is never not smiling like a high school joke. Like, never ever. The guy is always a joke. I am always feeling like somebody is going to throw an American football to him and he's going to start running across the whole movie. Exactly. Netflix show has much better casting on the substitute for the Curtis character. Like the black guy with the rasta, he's great at doing that. I don't necessarily like the character, but I love how the actor portrays the character and how the character is more... Like, he can drag people around him. The Curtis character is just thrown there. And I don't like that. Korean guy is the polar opposite. Korean guy is great. He's amazing. I completely agree. His motivations are the stupidest motivation and in the end he kills the whole train, but he's a good character. See, that part I don't agree with, but I think I moved two minds with Curtis character. I can see, like, I agree with things you said in terms of casting. Like, does this character feel like he can actually really people around him? Curtis in particular, rest of the casting is great. I love Till the Svinten, I love Ellison Pill. Shan Bean was a better... The guy, Wilford. Shan Bean was a better Wilford, but that's not the point. Oh, is Shan Bean Wilford in the series? Yes, yes, he's... And he's great at it. I love how Shan Bean plays bad guys. He's so good at this. He's both genuinely intimidating, but also too charming to resist. He's great at it. Wilford, but this Wilford isn't charming. He isn't trying to be charming, so it's fine. Yes, I think with the Curtis though, like this, like, I would say hardboiled, like not very charming character kind of works in that that Curtis is very much a fabricated figurehead, right? Like in the text of the movie he is, he's like propped up by Gilliam, and he's very much a cultist. Gilliam is a cultist role character, right? Yes. Played by John Hurt. By the way, John Hurt is a great actor. Like, I really love his work, Rest in Peace. He died, right? Yes, he's strong. John Hurt is playing it great. He's good at acting. He's acting good. And he plays a good character. Like, I mean, not ethically good, not the type of character I would like or vote for if he ever tried to pull the same thing again. But, I think the Curtis isn't the, okay, like I think the casting choice was bad for Curtis. That's my point. The Curtis character is too American joke to be like, not joke, joke, like the, like I said, American football player. J-O-C-K. Too American football player to make sense for that role. Yeah, yeah, I can see that. He was played by Chris Evans, right? Yes, that is Chris Evans. Captain America. Yeah, exactly. Who is another American football player disguised as a character? I mean, it is weird because Chris Evans does have the range to play other characters. Yeah, I think that's... But I have watched Knives Outz and he's great at... Like I said, maybe he's directed badly. I don't know. I think the styling of Chris Evans was great because he didn't look like the... Himself, yeah, like a typical way of him being this blonde, charming... What is that? Actually, I was thinking about Timeline. Is it before all that Marvel movies? It is before that, before he is... It would be. It's between. Maybe we are seeing Chris Evans as so American joke because we have seen him as a Captain America so much. I haven't recognized him at all while watching the movie. The entire deco-organized was this large-looking, smiling guy who cannot... Who wouldn't be able to portray being in a stressful situation if his life depended on it. No offense, Chris Evans. I am sure you are good at stressful situations. But consider the Spinelli and other people to imagine the guy from Person of Interest played that role. Yeah, I can see that. Do you see how much better that would have been? Or like Erdal Beşikçi or the other guy from Turkey? We will definitely put the link of Erdal Beşikçi. Imagine how insanely better it would have been if he was playing that role. He would have really delivered that problematic situations happening around me and I am not happy about this. He wouldn't be smiling across a frozen post-apocalyptic world. I am looking nice to everybody. I guess for me, I got so distracted the way the train was built. I wasn't able to get into the beef between the classes. I was so stuck with, "From the school we entered the Sex Dungeon Club." I am like, "Where do the kids go?" Okay, now most of them are dead. But still, where do these kids have been so far? Maybe Sex Dungeon only works during the school hours. When the school is over? The police, the compartments they use as homes are behind. Not after that. They went through there. The horde went through that part without any problems. So it was quickly glossed over. But the Sex Dungeons come later. I think the scene that they shot across each other from around the train, they were rolling in the circle and they were shooting at each other. I think that happened in the living compartments. Oh my God, that was such a stupid scene. It is a stupid scene because consider the following. We live in such a train that when you stick your arm out for too long, it freezes over. But they are making holes on the train. But not only that. That's the later explain part or the later cliff hang part, I guess. What's the cliff hang? We talked about it after watching the film with Binelli and you actually. They count the time of 7 minutes or so while doing the frozen up scene. So maybe that's some part of the world that is still cold during the time. So after that, there were no real danger of the world is not that cold. It's all a lie to put people to control people in the train. So they show only that part of like in the 7 minutes window, literally a window. They only show that. But after that, there is no real danger of people will die of cold. And at the end of the movie, it still reveals that there is not like outside the train. There can still be life even though it's still cold. And like also like it's throughout the movie, there are still still snowing. And if the world is really frozen, there won't be snowing. There will be snow everywhere, but there won't be a temperature that is like actually allows snow to appear. Snow to fall. Yeah, you are probably thinking water wouldn't boil. I like it doesn't boil, but like water wouldn't evaporate. Yeah, and form the clouds which then become rainfall, which is true but misleading. Like still like when you think about Antarctica, there is no snow falling. Like it's basically a desert. Okay, look, there is very little precipitation is the word you are looking for. There is very little precipitation in the Arctic. That's true. But in such a situation, what you would see is strong winds lift snow from the ground and move it around. Yes. Okay, you would still have clouds and fog in such environment as well. But it wouldn't be water fog, but the type of thing that snow going around. In fact, there are various natural hazards you would encounter in a frozen wasteland. One of them is sun coming from the sky and shimmering and creating very bright lights which would eventually start harming your eyes. And they would wear things similar to sunglasses in order to avoid that. When the British encountered Inuits in the Northern America, Inuit people, they lived in a place more hospitable than the one portrayed in the like... The place where Inuit people live isn't covered with snow around the year. It is only snow covers the place about half the year, which is still very inhospitable but better than the place the train goes across. And they know all kinds of different tricks to survive in that environment. But before I start saying how everybody on that train is gonna die because of the Korean person, no offense to Korean people, I am sure most of them don't kill trains. I want to say this. It is not explained in the movie and I am not sure whether it is explained in the book or not, but it is explained in the show. And I am gonna tell you why the world is covered with snow. You see, there is this highly speculative sci-fi concept that is discussed when we are talking about lowering the temperature to negate the effects of climate change. And it is basically this. We can release very large amount of gases to the atmosphere and make it so that light cannot penetrate. So the temperature is lowered. It is similar to how after a volcano, there is this volcanic winter. Yes. That concept, but we are doing it on purpose this time in order to lower the temperature. So the setting snow piercer is set in is. Humanity tried that as a last resort against climate change. And they feel spectacularly, they overshot badly. And now everywhere is covered in snow and sunlight cannot penetrate. Oh wow. Because the atmosphere is tickled with this failed experiment. Amazing work team. [Laughter] Again, in the show. I feel like if we go back to, I guess, or maybe please go to the answer. In the show, before they even start discussing about leaving the train, they do experiments and they do like weather models. Things like that. They aren't exploding the train mid-journey and trying to get out. Like this isn't the way this is done in the show. [Laughter] They did great. I don't know what you are talking about. I mean that's the clumsy part of the. When I say clumsy, that's the part I'm talking about though. Because this train is a perpetual motion engine, right? Which is like, I think that does not exist, but we accept that it exists in this setting. Exactly. Like we are okay. I convinced myself that there is something nuclear going on and it wouldn't run out for the next 200 years or so. That's how I made it to make sense in my brain. It is explicitly said to be a perpetual engine though. They say that, but... But it might be just propaganda. Like you are right. That's the thing with the... But the problem is... Eternal engine. The problem with the clumsy part for me is... I mean it doesn't have to be that the front section exploits/uses a tail section for this to be a story about clusterville. But the way they did it was... They do do that, but it is the most convoluted unnecessary way. Which is like stealing the children and using them as engine gear parts. Which they don't even have to do. Really? Like this is a train that has... I am assuming more than a thousand cars. That's also never discussed. During the movie we never see the train from front to the tail in order to keep the exact length mysterious. I think it's a cinematic trick. Yes, I think it is intended to be. But the thing is again, the reason I call it "columns" is because... Like I said, you don't have to make it so that front exploits the tail section for anything other than like... Because they can. You don't have to make it so that the train depends on the tail section. But the way they made it depends on the tail section and their exploitation was very weak. And I mean... I don't know how you guys... Indefendantness already talked about being distracted by the train's logistics to pay much more attention to the social aspect of it. So I don't know how you guys... Kind of. And I think this is the part we see the most with Jan Niniz in terms of Nam and his motivations. But like I said, this is very much characters as ideologies kind of movie. Where you have on one hand have Milford, on the other hand have Curtis. And on the other, on a separate spectrum of it, you have Nam, the Korean guy. And while this is Curtis's rebellion, while this is a class rebellion, during the movie, you get shown like... Through visual storytelling and through dialogue that the tail section revolution is not like very... Like this oh, like wholesome, heartwarming, like we are taking power back kind of revolution. They're very much intending to... We are gonna be the front people kind of rebellion. Yes, it's... I think you can see that in like the sushi car, the way they act or still listen to the character. You can see that in their dialogue making it to the front. And I mean, you can see that in the very end because Curtis was very much like almost okay with like going ahead with Wilfersplan. And becoming the head of the train. Like he was completely broken at that point. How much... Till he saw the suffering kid. Which was very again... Again, I do not... Does that make much sense? No, but again, I blame the clumsiness of that whole thing on it. Like it is kind of laughable that he gets this return. He gets this change of mind because he sees that children. But the fact that that children are there and used as the gear parts is the clumsy part to me. So that is why I can... Excuse a bit. By the way, like in the movie Wilfers says that, "Oh, Curtis, you are the first one to come to tail to the head of the main compartment." Like he is the American dream. He is the successor who made it from nothing and came to the top. A successor means the person who comes after the other person. He is successful. Yeah, sorry. You are saying but... Okay, listen. The real thing is actually he is not the first one. Tim is the first one. Maybe the other children was the first ones who came to the main compartment and came to tail to there. You are right. We found the plot all. We found the plot all. Bad movie. Cinema scenes. Think. Now look. Yeah, but to be fair, Wilfers doesn't see those children as people. They are machine parts. Look, here is the thing that I think everybody in the train is stupid about. We see that like in the start of the movie, I am okay with the concept because like the tail eating itself. Yeah, right. Especially when people are put in a situation where they need to kill in order to survive. And this is why the first season of Squid Game was very good and the reality show is not very smart about its primes. You see that when people are put in a situation where they need to kill other people in order to themselves survive, we would expect them to do that. However, here is the thing. Wilfers doesn't put children in the engine because he is a sadistic person. He is doing this so that everybody in the train doesn't die. And I don't think let's not put children in the place and let everybody die is the right solution to this problem. Put in the same situation. I would hate the fact that I am killing children in order to keep the humanity alive. But I think it is the responsible thing to do is not dying. Yeah. Like. Yeah. I don't even think there is anything. I don't even think there is a moral problem with this. Like you can maybe talk about the way you choose exclusively the tail children is a problem. You should also be putting rich children to the place. But I don't think putting children from the wilfers perspective. I mean, just take it from the wilfers perspective. If he knows the train is at Fox thing, like you don't need. You don't really need train to live because world is not that dangerous. If you know that and still use children to control people to believe in to make them believe in that's the only solution to live. Like there's no life outside. If you make if you want to control this and use children to still continue this, you're doing that. If I think you for those there's life outside. First of all, throughout the movie, we are never given a single reason to believe that Wilford thinks there's life outside. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So I don't think that I don't think that makes sense. And like in the show again, this is handled slightly better because they have scientific reasons like they do measurements and such. And they are relatively certain when there is whether it is safe to go outside or not. And I also think the correct guys reason like even if you can go out and there is there are polar bears outside. I don't think it is better than staying in a train where you can safely eat bugs. Like some things can serve even if some things can survive outside. It will almost certainly not be you like you can't survive in a place where polar bears survive. And by the polar bears shouldn't be alive. But that's the whole other thing. I mean, like they can use the resources of the train. There are so many railways around. They exploded the train. There is no train anymore. I mean, they're going to do. And create a city and a town to live in a safety environment. I love Frostpunk. It's a great game. Same. I think the thing is they could have like the thing is the perspective is we could have easily stopped the train to let the people like this is the problem when I say again clumsy. The when you could have looking you could look at it from the perspective of like this would stop the straight and let people go so that's like they can try to survive outside when now the weather is survivable. Right. But he continues to exploit them. But the way he exploits them is like so out of any like proportion because like I'm sorry. Using this is the biggest like linchpin of the movie, like using children as gear parts in a in a one wagon engine. And it's like that does not like that does not get into the proportion of like the unnecessary exploitation tail and goes. And it doesn't also like it doesn't also justify the entire premise of this is this is a train that is depicting a closed class struggle situation. Which is why the most important parts of the most interesting parts of the movie is like the teacher wagon where you see how the brainwashing of Wilford goes. Exactly. This is the problem with the movie. I think in a sense that apart from numb. Tail. The tail people care tail people characters met or so little in terms of petals. Name is not a tail person. Num is numb lives in the train but is treated badly by the train. He isn't a tail person. He's he's one of the essential crew. That's why he knows about gates. But the thing is. Again, I cannot look at it like I cannot look at this movie. Fully from like a. Or this makes sense. This word building makes sense. This word building works out, etc. Part. So I am looking at the cluster go ideology part right. And the reason I can stand with. I can stand with the stand with. Nams perspective and his motivations is. When we look at this on a purely like class war class struggle basis. We have on one hand Wilford who is brainwashing people that he is needed. His engine is needed and his engine and his train. Must run at any cost. I don't think it's history. Is he the one who made it? It is history. Everybody else in the humanity died. But Wilford and his people didn't because he built a train. And that's the way binaries talking about this guy. But please continue. I mean it doesn't change the fact that he is actively brainwashing people. And it's a 17 years in and it is like life exists. I also didn't understand the way they get on train as well. Like I think like a climate change does not happen instantly. Like the world didn't get frozen. I mean the world didn't get frozen like instantly at one time. When they get on board on when they're boarding the train. Like do you remember the movie 2012? Like the world was going like a big tsunami or so. Yeah. The ocean were grazing and they need to get on the boats immediately or they'll die. And also they let some of the people to board on the boat at the time. You are talking about the movie which the scientific explanation was "Nutrinos have mutated and they are heating the planet", right? That's the movie you are talking about. God damn it that our brains special about that movie. I mean the movie was bad. Movie was big. So I thought like I don't want to compare this movie with that movie. That's what I'm like. I don't want to do that. So I want some kind of explanation around. So first thing is that the second thing is like I don't really understand how life continues throughout the time of the 17 years. Because I thought maybe if they're boarding earlier than the frozen like things going really bad. There will be still people around like in the first five years or so or two years or so for example. So how they were seeing, perceiving the train and the railways, how they're interacting with the railways, the rail lines actually. Why they don't use fire? Like why people didn't use fire? Is everything like is making fire impossible? Can you be more specific? Like just the frozen age existed in our ancestors where we make a fire. Yeah, like the frozen age is the movie franchise. Sorry. That's one of the weaknesses of the movie. I still vehemently believe that even if polar bears can survive 70 years later, they would have died in between. But I think that is the point that the life outside never stopped. The scientific explanation behind the coldening of the world is that there's an experiment that gone wrong and like in maybe one or two years time the whole world is frozen over. Wilford as a scientist and a rich person, Wilford is like this Twitter opening. L.M. Mosque. I wasn't gonna say it anyway. Because you're being ridiculous. The train actually works. As a rich and smart person, Wilford saw that this was gonna happen in advance and build a train in order to avoid this. Okay, first, that's not what happened. Wilford was obsessed with trains and he made the train before this was gonna happen and when they learned about the coldening, they made changes to the train so it would still work after the cold. The train was made self-sufficient even before the apocalypse in court. That makes more sense. You wouldn't know this in the movie but the rail track is actually built in such a way that you would see all the important landmarks of the world in a single round and the train would go and one round would take one year. When you see the same landmark again, a year has passed. So it makes sense. If they were to get on board with people who believed the world was going to be ruined after some time and the tail people, like people who can be the people who after the world gets colder and they jumped into the train afterwards during the train's move, maybe. Maybe they are the last people who... I think most of them were the laborers who built the train, like the people who worked in the compound. No, that's all. In the show, the people who built the train are third class passengers. Oh yeah, because there are more classes in the show. There isn't just tail people and sushi people. There are middle people. They are more close. There is a middle class struggle that is not very... If you were to go with the class struggle, like Marx's book, there is no middle class and it's basically two classes. One of many reasons why Marx is wrong is... That's exclusive. If you were to read it in that lens quickly, eventually the actual top 1% in this case, the head is probably the capitalists in the bourgeoisie. I guess that's the part when I feel like... It kind of... It utilizes a lot of different class representations, like being here, being an actual machine part, and the newer generations being born into it. The only way to get out of the struggle is to destroy the master's tool. But for what cost is... The final message I'm kind of lost with, like, okay, we're going to start a new society with new order, whatever that might look like. But the polar bears is outside, and I have a kid that's supposed to be my brother almost, and I'm a young woman, and we are racially ambiguous. Like, you know what I mean? There were so many coding happening at the end. No, no, I don't know what you mean actually. I don't have a single clue what you mean actually. No, but I kind of understand what you are saying. I think what you are saying is, and I agree with you, Elif, they have tried to ban the story in such a way that, in order to make class struggle to make sense, everything else doesn't. Exactly. In order to emphasize the class struggle, they needed to make such a setting that, as NS doesn't find the setting realistic, because in order to make class struggle metaphor to make sense, you would need to create a scenario so unrealistic that it would be like there's this Turkish phrase, "It stays with your hand wherever you hold it from." Like, it's breaking apart as you are holding it. There's not "uslan elinde kalıyor." That is the type of setting we have because of that. You say that, but I think it's completely opposite, because they didn't even make, like, they built in all these things that doesn't make sense, and they don't even help you get the class struggle, because, like I said, there is no real exploitation that continues the system. I think the greatest problem, the kind of problem I have with the whole premise of the stories, and this was also true in the show, but much more so in here, in the movies, do you know the rebellion they are referring to that ended up with bullets being run out, that they have singly mentioned at the start of the movie? Yes, yes. Exactly. Yet there are still bullets left. I need more bullets. Not my point. I don't think there exists a single human being in charge of that train. Like, you can pick whomever from the society. I don't think there's a single human being that wouldn't have severed the tail at that point in time. Because? Because at that time, the children requiring wasn't even a thing back then. But no, the thing is, at the end of the movie, it is explained that alongside every other rebellion was motivated, like, from the front. Oh yeah, the Kılıçdarao the person explains this. No, the Wilford person explains this. They are so working together that I can't even differentiate anymore. But again, like, that's the clumsy part. And this is why... Because the system is broken and the system itself is recreating itself. And even though if you want to save the train, you cannot really save the train because it's been created for that specific system. Oh, and by the way, I would... I really want to retort to Enes on that regard. There isn't a point... Binali is more right in this. I don't think anybody on the train wants to get out except Nam. Nam is the only person who wants to get out of the train. I think everybody else is very happy in the train. Or the people who get outside the train also have left the train. I think this is perfectly addressed in the third season of the Netflix show, the same conflict. But there it isn't like... I really like the third season of the Snowpiercer show in Netflix. I think the people who have problems with the movie can watch the Netflix show and their problems will disappear. That's my general opinion about the movie. That's the thing that... That's what I was talking about. The thing is, again, the characters and what they represent is... We put this "tail vs. front" thing. And like I said, "tail's objective is very explicit to take over." It is not bringing justice. Words in class will take over. It's not even working class. It's not even that. It's not "we will be the ruling class." It's not a working class. They are not working. And we don't see the working class struggle as well. Yeah, that's the thing. That's why I'm so pissed with this movie. By the way, we don't see the motivations of the "tail people" because everybody from the "tail who isn't Curtis" is dead. No, the only team of the movie. Maybe the other people would have different opinions. We don't know because they died. Also, like... Who is the "tim" is the small kid? Tim Dites. Who worked in the head compartment. The main reason. Save my kid, Curtis. Okay, he's not dead. He's alive. But his mother is dead. The woman who is Tim's mother wants her child back. She doesn't care about the class struggle. She only wants to take her child. But she died. So her motivation is no longer matter. If there is only two children working in the head compartment, it's also nice for 17 years. I think like... It is my understanding that you would need to change it every few months. But like I said, I think you would sacrifice children so that the humanity survives. I think that's... I would have done it. I think everybody would have done it. I don't understand like... How much they can use a kit for some extent? Like maybe five minutes or so? Like obviously it would depend on the kid. Like different kids have different properties. So I would not say minutes because minutes would have... Like we would have been locked... They would have been locked that. Like maybe... I think maybe like a few months or so is... But like with a kid, like you're putting a kid in the small part and you want a repetitive task. They want you... You want them to do a repetitive task for how long? I don't know. You don't give them food. Do you give them food? That's the voice actors in Nickelodeon. How they meet their needs? How can like... How do they pee and stuff? Like how they do those and what they're eating? Like there should be some time and breaks. And also they need to do that continuously. Anyway, but my point is that if there is more cat or children in the head compartment, they're also leaving again. Cat? Oh, so what you are saying is if there were like 100 children and they worked in very short shifts, nobody would have died. Oh! No, but that's what you are saying essentially. If you had a large quantity of children that worked with short shifts they would have overall survived longer. That's what you are saying. Maybe not that much. And I am taking NS with me. He's like me. He's okay with sacrificing children in order to keep a mental life. He wants to optimize the sacrifice children are making. And I am taking NS to my track. And believe that they are also, if you create a currency and make them believe that they are doing nice and if you pay them. And... Oh no. Yeah, like I said, NS is perfect for me. I want NS in my track. Like I'm completely out of topic. Now I will talk about. I looked at the IMDB page of Chris Evans. He took the first Captain America film before the Snowpiercer movie. And as you may know, or if you watched, I didn't watch. He gets defrosted. Am I right? In the first movie. Yeah? Oh, yeah, he... Because nobody survived everybody died except for Chris Evans. He got defrosted later. Yes, this is great time continue to. I didn't watch that movie. Like after first three Captain America movies, not the two Captain America movie. One Avenger movie. And he played as Mr. Freezy in the movie called The Iceman. There's a pattern with Chris Evans, I think. Because the second Captain America movie is Winter Soldier. Which is like... He knows about Winter Soldier. First Avenger is Super Soldier and the Avengers. And the next movie is The Iceman with the role of Mr. Freezy. And like I'm okay with the casting of Chris Evans now. And also, my concluding remarks is I like the guy playing Nam. I think he plays it quite well too. But I think the motivation of leaving the train in order to create a new society is both at the same time the least developed motive in the entire movie and is the conclusion of the movie. So I think maybe there's a bit of a problem here. Like I understand that the messages break the chains. But what the chains are and the rationale to break them isn't well explored in the movie. Like the main thesis of the movie is the least explored thesis in the movie. All the other thesis are more explained. Again, I think the class metaphor is so clumsy that the break the chains motivation of Nam. Like break the wheel, break the system. Motivation of Nam feels the most out of place one, even though it is still the one I am more sympathized with. And that is why my closing remarks would be if you want an actually not clumsy. Because again, this movie is adorable. I love this movie. But if you want a non-clumsy, clustered movie from the same director, go watch Parasite. It is so much better. It is definitely better. Parasite is basically if "Weapons of the Week" was a movie. That's the experience you are getting. Did you finish watching it because I only watched it? No, but I see where it's like I want to maybe we should. For the next holiday season, we should do the Perseus. I watched it. If you like this episode, please subscribe us or follow us on our social media accounts as well. And say what you are thinking about this kind of episode that we are talking about movies or such. We are commenting about those. Also, you can kind of do anything. You can do anything on social media. Wow. Yes, do that. If the world freezes over and you are stuck in a tail of a train, you wouldn't be able to do those things. So comment while you still can. By the way, in conclusion, has reached 500 listens. Thank everybody for their contribution to that moment. Bye bye. Thank you.