-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Er, people who do not believe in God is the exact definition of an Atheist. Technically, we are all born uneducated and stupid, living on instincts like animals. So I dont see how that argument is helping you either.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really, and how is that? I don't believe in God, you may call me an Atheist for that but it doesn't make me an Atheist; I'm just normal without any delusions, if that applies to the word Atheist than you may call me that. However I'm not part of a group and I speak only for myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) I agree there is no reason too. Also, it wasn't the entire organization. It was just the founder. Atheists can be *beep* just as much as any religious nut.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone can be f'cked in the head, people who don't believe in Gods too. However a person who states belief in something that doesn't exist is clearly much closer to insanity than someone who is rational and don't have delusions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) er, I was joking on "Four of the Apocalypse". I figure there must be a script because it was based on a book. Often, in movie reviews, something like this is said to mean sarcasm. I havent read any books, but I have read many websites.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was clearly no joke it was just you making stupid claims you can't back up without thinking again. I suggest you read some books, I've never found many reliable websites on Fulci. The ones I've read (many) are mostly full of common errors and stale copycat reviews.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Sorry, Im more liberal than conservative. The girl was slutty. Hell, she was possibly even a pedophile. How can you defend her when that trait was obvious. ANy chick who walks around naked, trying to seduce a young boy is going to be both 1) SLutty and 2) Pedophile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I defend anyone who's not proven guilty of anything. I definitely don't think she was a pedophile, no boy has ever taken damage of nudity. Seeing her naked liek that is every boys dream come true. I know we tried to spy on women all the time at that age and most boys do. She had smoked some dope in the past, that's the closest I come to something criminal, but I don't think smoking dope was illegal at the time in Italy. No girls walking around nude and joking around woth a little boy is 1)slutty 2) pedophile.
A pedophile would have to have sex with a child and get of on it. She's just bored and likes playing tricks for boredom. She never once tries to seduce the boy. Slutty is just a misogynist therm made up by men to make girls behave and it's not in use anymore except by morally stuck up people like yourself and other mysogynist folks. I suggest you stop using such a derogatory therm for woman. Oh, and stop pretending to be a liberal when your thoughts on woman are laced in stuff liberals would stear clare of as far back as the 1970's. It's quite obvious you're no liberal, and if you like to pretend you are, you're wrong. All your views presented in this thread are clearly conservative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) I dont decide whats biblically supported, but being I've actually read it multiple times I know that stuff has no biblical basis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like what exactly? What does not have biblical basis? You're trying to tell me you know it by heart?
------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the Pope, being Catholics believe Peter was the first pope, but its never stated Peters title should pass down, and everything surrounded the pope is almost anti-Christian. Not to slam the Pope, doesn't mean he isn't a good guy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you getting at? The pope is anti-christian? Please provide some arguments or perhaps some proof instead of just stating stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) Then state where he said it.....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop asking for evidence. I have told you to read up on Fulci or shut up. You have admitted you have not read up on him so I suggest you do so now. I've done my reading and you base your opinion on nothing. Besides you have not provided any evidence yourself when I have asked for it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)
At one point we couldnt prove evolution, or really.....we couldnt prove hardly anything.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with proof. Science is based upon the best information we have on any given subject. Christianity has no evidence and no gathered knowledge at all because the historical evidence the Bilbe has is mingled up with fairy tales. It was first told orally in several hundred years before it was written down and that doesn't count as evidence anywhere. Whenever Science comes across such unreliable data it must be thrown away because it's not helping us reach the truth. Science works on forever so we will always be the closest we can get to the truth of all matters. Science doesn't just make up a God who created the Universe and make up miracles to explain and lie to people about the things we don't fully understand yet. It tells us we are not sure yet and we're still working on it. It also uses all the knowlege in different areas to try to tell us at the best of our human knowledge what is closest to the truth. Christianity and most religions again, just make up stuff as they goes along and changes are made to their holy books all the time; especially the bible. It was just changed not to long ago to fit more with modern society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're far from finding the truth in everything. Hell, even the proof of Evolution is disputable(coming from someone who actually believes in it too).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one believes in evolution. We only agree that it's the closest we got to explaining it as of now. Only religious people go around believing all kind of things wothout any knowledge to base their belief on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can say "Christianity is all made up", but define made up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Made up as in a group of peple wrote it. It is a collection of stories told as bedtime stories and around campfires about morality and how the world was created. These stories come form people and are philosophies about how it they think it could have all started (like it somehow had to start some time, just because we humans experience time). This storytelling technique entails that stories are changed slightly through the generations. They were finally written down several hundred years later and have been changed numerous times since. If they were ever the word of God they're not anymore as they are so far from the original text by now. That's what I mean with the phrase made up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus is believed to have been a historical person who was probably baptised by John the Baptist, turned the tables in the temple, and probably taught a fluid version of the Bible. People believed he did miracles, and raised the dead. Many OT stories are believed to have at least some historical reference. Sodom and Ghimorah probably existed, Jericho existed, David seems to have existed, ect,ect,ect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible is full of mangled history yes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know too little about the Bible to be making these kinds of arguments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulls'it! You don't know the first thing about what I know of the bible and it's shortcomings when it comes to history. I've read several books about Bible history and I can tell you the people who wrote those books know a hell of alot more about the bible than reading it a couple of times will ever teach you. They actually know more than Chriastians too because they have actually examined the thing. I know what is historical in it and what is not and none of the miracles are historical events they're just found in the bible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8) Er, Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. Basically, Jews believe in the one God and that there would be a messiah. Christianity believes in the same God and believes Jesus is the messiah. Islam is sort of a combination of those believes....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I just said so. What about Buddheism's Buddha and Hindusism several Gods? How about Thor and Odin? Will people believing in these go to hell?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Scientists are always changing and revamping their beliefs as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science isn't a belief system, you're getting it mixed up with religion. Scientists don't revamp anything, they base their theories on the best knowledge we humans have at the time. The bets minds in the world in mathemathics, biology and all other forms of science get together and the closest answer humans can come up with is chosen. Nothing is declared 100% certain ever. That's the beauty of science; it's ever evolving and therefore always the best knowledge we have. Any theory can be unproven at any time if someone can disprove some of the calculations applied or some new knowledge comes along disproving it. This happens all the time and is as it should be.
Religion is not only based on no knowledge at all, it doesn't evolve either. It's always on a stand still. If you prefer guesses made buy a prieacher or yourself as to what should be used from the bible (the bible also says we should beat our women and castrate our gay men amongst other crazy stuff; our Lord must love the violence, especially against minority groups) as evidence before all human knowledge gathered continiously to provide you with answers than be my guest. I'll lay my thrust with human kind and you can keep your priest and your delusions for yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence, its not always wise to put 100% faith into them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They never ask you to put faith in them. I know that they will always deliver the closest answers we can get just like I know the bible delivers no answers.
This can easily be proven. Science is very often wrong and it should be or else it wouldn't be ever evolving. There's no use in attacking Science with the strongest card in the deck. Being ever evolving is precisely why it's so magnificent, that way it's really never wrong; because it never claims to be right. It only claims to be the closest we are to the truth.
Religions always claim they are 100% right and everyone else is worng and they never provide anything to back that claim up. Not 0.1 percent of evidence suggesting a single thing and Christians still claim people'll go to hell if they don't believe.
If you still don't get any of this now and still think Science has anything to prove you're just stupid and don't understand how science works(or simply denies to understand which is even worse) and you're too caught up in believing and the workings of religion that you probably couldn't spot the truth if it were dangling right in front of your nose. It's called brainwash includes delusions and you can get help for it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALso, once again, Disbelief in God=Atheist. Your parents wrre Atheist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your parents were Atheist too, everyone is born Atheist. My parents are not a member of any group though and don't need any label to explain why they're are perfectly normal people who haven't been aflicted by any delusional beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10) lol, exactly, there is not logic behind Fulci's films. He prefered making films that resembled nightmares..........but that doesnt mean there wont be apologetics who will try to make sense of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No that's just a stupid shallow remark from you again. You're going to try to call it a joke, but everyone reading this is going to find it funny just because it shows you know nothing and have still not read up on Fulci; yet still make these moronic statements. Fulci made films in all kinds of genres; his comedies were not films that resembled nightmares. Only a couple of his films could be argued had anything to do with nightmares. You're getting him mixed up with Argento who has actually claimed some of his films were made trying to achieve a kind of nightmarish quality. I don't understand why you insist of makinf such an ass out of yourself with all these uneducated guesses you make. Is it similar to your arguments to believe in God? You just have to base every one of your arguments on either lies or made up delusions.
Read up on the director we're discussing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11) Yes..... there can be looking too deeply.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one can't look too deeply. Who's to decide what's too much and for what film this or that is too much? Some film snobs? You? the people behind the oscars?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I asked if there was meaning in Zombie 3, you ignored the question
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's with the lying? I answered it. There were more than one director so I never bothered with trying to figure the film out. It's not a finished Fulci film.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12) lol, you take Fulci's word but ignore Bruno Mattei.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lol"!? How old are you, 13? "lol" what the hell is that supposed to mean? Use words please, I don't speak sms language!
Why on earth would I be interested in what Mattei had to say about anything? Mattei just does what Fragasso tells him to do, and on nearly all of his films he did. I've read countless interviews with both Fragasso and Mattei. Mattei was a total hack (he admitted to this himself) and he only liked to direct whatever the producer gave him. He was not a filmmaker who wrote his own scripts and ha any interest other than have fun shooting the films and make money. Actually he was a house painter who somtimes made films.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulci thought the film sucked and blamed it on Mattei. Mattei thought the film sucked but stated his scenes were the worst. Who sounds more genuine?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulci never blamed Mattei. You're talking out of your ass again. Read some books and stop telling lies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to remember Fulci's health and state of mind were bad at this point. Anyway, in the Zombie 3 disk, Mattei states most of the character oriented scenes(that group of main characters) were Fulci's scenes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No they weren't, there's basically no Fulci footage in the film. Only a couple of minutes here and there. Read Throwers book it's all documented there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The army scenes were more Mattei.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Based on your opinion? The army scenes were mostly shot by Fragasso himself, a few were shot by Mattei.
If one listens to Fragassos interviews and reads Throwers books Mattei didn't really shoot very much at all on the film and the stuff he did shoot was all written by Fragasso who produced and also helped direct most of Mattei's prior films. Fragasso hired Mattei because he was effective and followed the scripts he wrote and produced without changing stuff or asking any questions. Fulci was not like this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that. I've watched countless movies and love to dissect them. The styles often vary making it obvious that there is two directors. Dont bother defending him, because Demonia was just as bad and you can tell Zombie 3 and Demonia have a similar style. Fulci did have the best scene though(the gas station bit, although there wasnt any logic either). There was also one scene Im not sure who did it.......it felt Fulci'ish but involved the scientists whom I think Mattei directed(the opening scene with the Zombie bursting out of the glass). I tthink Fulci's direction was superior to Mattei's, but its like saying "Crap" and "Crapier"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonia was indeed terrible but it wasn't too bad when the budget (the absolutely lowest he ever had, 0 budget filmmaking almost) and crappy people he had working for him at the time are all taken account for. No director can shoot, direct and act every part in his own ultra low budget film. The contributors are usually what made a Fulci film bad. Whenever he was given a decent low budget, some ace actors and free reigns his work was highly competent technichally and often very unusual and interesting thematically.
Mattei was not good technichally, he never wrote a good script and he was lousy with actors.
Fulci was an amazing technician who usually knew more about every aspect of the production than the people in charge of the different aspects themselves, he had an eye for visuals, he could write good scripts, he has been said to be a brilliant collaborator on scripts too and he knew how to het his message across on film. There's no comparison between him and Mattei and in any account you haven't seen enough of his films
reply
share
Martialhorror
17 years ago
1) Being an Atheist isn't being part of a group. It simply means you dont believe in any Gods.
2) Then we may be closer to insanity, but I would take that over being just an *beep* Atheists usually are).
3) You've lied in this thread before, so when you say "There is no reliable site" then it means nothing. How do you even know Throwers book is reliable?
Yes....it was a joke. I knew there was a script because I know thats the only way a studio will ever make a movie. I also knew FOTA was based on a book. THe point is the script was all over the place it felt as if they were making up stuff as they went.
4) She was walking to him, naked, in a super seductive manner in which she was only interupted because the Mom was calling. Please dont tell me its okay to walk around naked with little kids..........
Fulci only did that to try to throw the audience off guard and make her a suspect....this is what I didnt like about the movie because he was basically having the suspects do suspicious stuff at the same time and it made it hard to believe. Face it, if you walk around naked around a kid then you are slutty. I'm not slamming women in general, Im slamming women who at least act like they're seducing little kids.
5) Do I know it by heart? No. But when something interests me I look it up.
No, the Pope is not anti-Christian, but what he represents kind of it. Jesus, Paul, ect all made church at someone elses house. Not these big-ass decorated ones. Jesus hated when people used religion as a means to get money........guess what? The Vatican didn't get all nice and pretty on its own? Jesus said make yourself a servant to others, the Pope is almost a King. Now, of course, the Popes aren't always bad, maybe not even usually.
6) Ill keep asking for evidense whenever you make a stupid claim like most of the claims you make. You've also never asked for evidense and when I offer to post some, you dont respond. I havent read ANY BOOKS but I have checked many websites, ect.
7) Er, to correct you, the gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus died. You also dont seem to know that the Jews were noted for being superb at oral tradition. Oh, most of Pauls letters are believed to be authentic and were written during his lifetime. Mangled history shows there is at least some proof these things happened. Technically, thats more proof than what you've offered.
8) Oh yeah, you have no proof the Bible has changed. That's, ironically, a myth. As far as we have them recorded, the Bible has been the same(Although the Jews have added various writings to it; Christians kind of have as well) for as long as we know. Now could they have been changed since they were written? Sure, but we dont have the original manuscripts and the oldest ones we have are basically the same. Now, I wont try to cover up evidense(unlike you), and will say that the ending of Mark doesn't appear in some of the older manuscripts(although its basically the same as the others) and the famous 666 was actually 616 in our oldest manuscript of Revelation(but they both point to the same thing). But being Mark's ending was lost probably early, someone probably rewrote it possibly by memory(it's rushed that way). Whoever did it, was probably either big in the Church or was maybe a desciple of Mark himself.
9) You do realize there are Christian scholars and Christian historians. Do you also know that most historians/scholars(including Christians) reject the supernatural aspect before really even examining them? Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed in Mathew, so they presume it was written after the temple would destroy. Not only do I read the Bible, I also look into the backstory surrounding it. Im interested in whats fictional, fact or maybe both. Some stories have heavy historical basis(Jesus), others have none(the Flood). So.....I still have more knowledge than you.
10) God decides who goes to hell in Christian theology.(In responce to "do so and so go to hell")
11) Religions don't claim they are 100% right, its just the people following the religions often do. I guess Islam does(the Koran was basically written by God himself through Muhammad). Judaism doesn't care because its part of their culture. Christianity varies between liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. Being the gospels dont always agree word for word, it shows it is going off peoples memories which means its probably not perfect.
12) Everyone is born stupid, whining, ect. Yet we grow out of it, Atheism is no different. My Dad was a loose Mormon and my Mom.....technically a lutheran but apparently sceptical of religion at that point when I was born.
13) You're probably right that not all of his films are nightmares. They often are just crappy or abstract. No, Im not confusing him with Argento. Argento's films often were intelligent and coherant(Tenebra, Deep Red, Opera, Cat O'nine tails(er, maybe not the last one). The only one that was sort of nightmarish I've seen is Suspiria(keeping in mind, I havent seen all of his films yet).
14) When I asked that question about Zombie 3, you responded "barely any of Fulci's footage was filmed". So how about another question, what was the hidden theme behind "Zombie"?
15) Ha, you show bias. I acknowledge because I just rush these posts, my wording is going to sound jumbled. But that sentence looked pretty clear. If you watch his interview on Zombie 3(which was more interesting than that entire movie), he states
-The movie was bad, but the worst scenes were his.
- Fulci gave him permission to do what he wanted with the movie.
- Fulci did most of the scenes with the main group of characters and Mattei did the more army oriented one. He also states most of Fulci's scenes lacked any kind of action.
- The interviewer said something like "Fulci didn't care for the final result that much" and Mattei responds "He said worse to me"
-Mattei credits the film as more of a Fulci film than his. He even stated how many minutes were used(although I cant remember how much, I think over 50% of the film his.
So who will you believe? Mattei acknowledges he sucks. Fulci doesn't. Fulci just blames everyone else for his problems. Also, I would like to add for Fulci to be credited as the director officially, the movie needs to retain at least 51% of Fulci's film. If Mattei had 50% of higher, the studio would be forced to credit Mattei as director.
16) As I said, in the interview with Mattei. Fulci was pissed at him for "ruining the film". Which as I also said, is funny because Demonia(and what I hear, Ghosts of Sodom) was just as bad. On Demonia, my biggest problem with the film was the cheap feel of it. Zombie 3 had the same feel, showing they may have been shot on the same type of camera. If Throwers is contradicting, I have to wonder if he is just as biased as you.
17) Er, many directors have shot films with ultra-low budgets and have made better films than Demonia. Dont try to justify the crapiness. For every good film Fulci has had, he's had a bad film. I loved "Zombie", "Lizard in Womans skin", "Beyond", "City of the Dead" and kinda "Dont Torture a Duckling", enjoyed "NY Ripper", "House by the Cemetary", "Massacre time" and kinda "Four of the Apocalypse".
I didn't like "Black Cat", "Murder Rock", and especially "New Gladiators". But they all seem decent compared to "Conquest", "Zombie 3" and "Demonia."
Now I love Fulci. I am aspiring to be a director and he is my biggest influence. He can has many memorable scenes, can make some creepy and intense moments and usually works well with his score(in contrast to Argento). I simply don't deny that he can produce *beep* as well. His actors usually suck, and the writing is generally worse.....
"I hate PG-13 horror flicks"- THIS IS MY SIG GENIUSES!
reply
share