922: Fight Club

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 14:44, 6 March 2013 by Davidy22 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Fight Club
I'm not saying it's all bad, but that movie has not aged as well as my teenage self in 2000 was confident it would.
Title text: I'm not saying it's all bad, but that movie has not aged as well as my teenage self in 2000 was confident it would.


Fight Club is a movie starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton that was released in 1999, based on the novel of the same name by Chuck Palahniuk. It included this oft-quoted and parodied line: "The first rule about Fight Club is do not talk about Fight Club."

The movie certainly does have a message about society and consumerism. But a lot of fans of the film only saw a movie with lots of fighting and mischief. Probably, a lot of people who saw the movie when they were younger, and enjoyed those aspects of it, would be disappointed were they to re-watch it with a better understanding of what the movie’s actually trying to say.

The line "This conversation is over" also appears to be a reference to the same line in the movie, in the scene where the Narrator (Edward Norton) is arguing with Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) while Tyler (Brad Pitt) tells the Narrator what to say from the bottom of the basement stairs.


Friend: But Fight Club isn't really about fighting. It's about the way society—
Person: Nope, don't wanna hear it.
Friend: But it says consumers are—
Person: This conversation is over.
The first rule of talking to me about movies is do NOT talk about Fight Club.
Comment.png add a comment!


I never really liked the movie either so... Davidy²²[talk] 09:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Is something like that really common? I was a teen when I saw that movie and I did understand what it was about. And I'm not trying to show off; honestly, I don't think there is any merit on that. Wasn't the movie pretty obvious about it's anti-consumerism ideas? :/ 23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No; it's about a dialectical opposition between the Narrator's two attempted paths to happiness: Conforming to what society says he should do to be happy, and smashing them all. (Norton and Pitt, respectively) It's the Slave and Master mentality from Nietzsche. A naive viewing of the movie (i.e. what almost every teenager sees, hence the mouseover text) is that, because the Conformist model is so clearly unhappy, the movie is glorifying Pitt's smashy-smashy ethos. Except that's completely self-destructive and unsatisfying, as well: an all-consuming hatred of consumerism is its own cosumerism-pathology. It's at the end of the movie that the dialectic resolves. Norton destroys both the confirmist and smashy-smashy selves, and starts on a path to true happiness. You see this as he leaves with Marla--he is leaving with her because he wants to be in a relationship with her because he and she will enjoy it. He is NOT doing it to ape how he's supposed to act, and he's not doing it as some sort of BDSM humiliation thing. He has become the Ubermensch--he is able to chart his own path to happiness, enjoying the fruits of material society if he would enjoy them, without being enslaved to them or enslaved by hatred of them. 15:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

tldr 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?