MovieChat Forums > warrior-poet > Replies
warrior-poet's Replies
I assume your aware season 2 is out now. It's actually 100 years later. I'm only 2 episodes in, but I like where they've taken it so far. It's a very different show now, with a couple of flashbacks to draw a line between the two seasons. Can only agree with you. Unlike many of the Korean shows, this one keeps the story tighter and doesn't get as ridiculous as most of them seem to, while providing a more fully fleshed out and grounded world for the more fantastical elements to take place in. I quite liked season 1, and so far I'm enjoying season 2.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
<blockquote>I thought that the protagonists in the original were too unrealistically passive.</blockquote>
Haven't seen this version yet, but I completely agree. I suspect that more passive reaction in the original may have been a commentary that more closely reflected the culture of the victims (that's my theory, anyway). Do that to an American, mess with our kids, and you'll get your ass beat. Having said that, it didn't need to be a happy ending. They very well could have fought back but still lost out in the end, or maybe only one surviving (if that's not what happens-again, I haven't seen it yet). To me that would be a more powerful ending, with only one surviving to exact cathartic retribution while just barely hanging onto life. That's how I'd write it, anyway.
In fact, that's how I'd write the original ending as well. I can't connect with characters who just sit there and let someone kill them, acting like sheep programmed for slaughter. For me it transformed the film into pure allegory that didn't reflect actual reality.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
For me it'd fit perfectly into the universe established by Friday the 13th: The Series.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
In a certain respect, everything is politics. It's all about perspective and focus. My intent with the OP wasn't political, however. It was about the fact that something of this nature usually relegated to movies was technically possible.
Clicking on the below link is tantamount to being "rick-rolled". You've been warned, so DO NOT CLICK ON IT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UofHaZWFn7M
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
I disagree that this story has much to do with politics. This specific situation is about ancient religious beliefs and social conflict. Take away any and all governmental elements and this war would still be happening. And as terrifying as the technological aspect of this story is, as someone in the tech industry myself I find it very interesting, but also in essence not political.
While I can see how it could be spun as a political story since there's little doubt the Israeli government was involved with this incident, the stronger elements here are not political in nature in my view. This is Hatfield/Mccoy level stuff. I almost put it in the Politics section, then decided it wasn't really a political story, being comprised more pervasively of apolitical components.
Ultimately, I didn't post this for political reasons, but for the fact that thousands of pagers could be exploded.
pol·i·tics ( p¼l“¹-t¹ks) n. Abbr. pol. polit. 1. used with a sing. verba. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. b. Political science. 2. used with a sing. or pl. verba. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
It's definitely scary stuff.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Absolutely! And thank you for the feedback.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
The box is just a way to pass between worlds (which is impossible, but hey it's fantasy-scifi).
Every decision made by every conscious being, human or otherwise from the big bang on, or even interactions with variability between inanimate objects, splinters off a divergent universe. I don't find that the science supports the Hugh Everett Many Worlds interpretation of quantum uncertainty, entanglement, etc., and it's my view after years of studying the matter, that science in general has gone off the rails and needs to get reigned back into a scientific method and mindset. But it sure makes for some interesting storytelling.
If you liked this and enjoy this kind of trippy multi-timeline type story, you might want to check out Triangle (2009) or Predestination (2014). Or perhaps Primer (2004) or Time Lapse (2014). Or even the Tom Cruise blockbuster Edge Of Tomorrow (2014).
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
That's trying to prevent the inevitable. For example, many "Irish" have Scandinavian markers due to ancient Vikings injecting their genetics into the population long ago. Genetically speaking, some are barely distinguishable. Preserving "Irish" isn't about genetics. It's about culture. In fact, genetically speaking, the more diverse the healthier. The further away we get from inbreeding, the better off we are as a species. I get your inclination and don't completely disagree, but it has little to do with genetics. It's culture.
And to really boil it down to a foundation that applies to just about everything: it's about subverting naturally occurring entropy and maintaining civilization, language, etc. standards. Entropy produces needless change and chaos, while a framework of standards, introducing change in a measured, thoughtful manner only when beneficial, sustains stability. But constraining ourselves genetically only hurts us in the long run. From a genetics perspective, humans are already a mere 1% of what we once were due to ancient catastrophes that nearly wiped us out. Why further constrain ourselves by forcing the coalescing of genetic abnormalities?
it's never a good idea to put all your eggs into one basket, so to speak.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
<blockquote>Race doesn't exist beyond the level of skin pigmentation?"</blockquote>
Is that really what you perceived from my words? Nay, I said the exact opposite.
I'd suggest you read my post again. You processed it through your own preconceptions instead of actually attempting to comprehend what you were reading. To sum it up, race isn't about skin color (which is a byproduct, not a progenitor). It's about many other factors that although sometimes can correlate, just as often do not i.e. don't judge by skin color. Assess by the very items you just listed yourself, based partially on ancestry alongside measurable, observable behaviors and performance. Assuming purely off skin color is folly. Although of similar shade as many people dubbed as "white", my talents and skills vary greatly from others with a similar outward appearance. Skin color means nothing. Purge preconceptions and judge only by individual achievement.
What I was in fact suggesting is that we stop grouping people by "white", "black", etc. and instead use actual genetic and cultural quantifiers. You know, the stuff that <i>actually</i> makes us who we are. Don't fall into the traps the progressive far Left set. And for criminy's sake let's stop giving them power they don't otherwise have. Same goes toward the opposite end of the spectrum.
I was a very fast sprinter in high school, by the way, breaking several records. My endurance has always been horrendous. This is because I have a much higher naturally occurring percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers (power and speed) over slow-twitch (endurance). Even if less common in "whites", being "white" comes nowhere close to describing me. It has no real meaning. Let's instead start using measures that reflect real-world impacts on reality: deep, complex genetics and culture.
"White" vastly oversimplifies a highly diverse genetic representation to the point of absurdity and detriment. "White" means nothing and contributes no value to any discussion regarding genetic-based differences. What does have value is the specific genetic matrix of each individual. It may be possible to loosely group based on that (although why do that?), but skin color is irrelevant.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Bingo! THIS is what everyone should actually be focusing on. It's the ONLY thing that matters right now. People are waking up.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
What's "white"? I'm Irish-Indigenous. Is how I look more important than my actual ancestry? If we do away with the notion of "white", "black", etc., particularly since it's immaterial once looking beneath the surface genetically, it can't be a thing anymore. Let's endeavor to take their power away from them, or at the very least stop feeding them more. Starve them, and they'll wither away.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Agreed, it looks like she's pulling the action off quite well for her return to the action genre. Will be watching this weekend. I've found her acting a bit questionable at times over the years, but I'll never turn down a reason to "watch" her. On a completely <i>related</i> note, that one scene from her early career in Idle hands -- yeah you know the one -- is forever burned into my brain.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Very cool to have that input from him. Thanks for posting that. So this literal city-shaking idea was his from the get-go it sounds like. Kudos to him for stretching beyond the more juvenile scope of the original series and infusing some maturity into the story.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
For anyone else who comes across this (since all these posts predate the move from IMDB forum)...
Seeing that this was a remake of the 1989 TV movie Nick Knight staring Rick Springfield, the answer would be no.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
And yet during the Cambrian Explosion when life thrived, experiencing its biggest expansion in Earth's history, CO2 was at least 6,000 ppm (around 14 times higher than today’s approximate 425 ppm, and some studies put it about 20 times higher than today) and global median temperature was more than 10 degrees hotter than it is now (which is what in part raised CO2 as trapped CO2 was released into the air, and was a major factor driving the explosion of life). Right now, we're a hair’s breadth from descending back into a "snowball Earth", a period of time when life barely survived (albeit without today’s technology).
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/65fca7e0cc547c6c7696f190/Climate-The-Movie-The-Cold-Truth
Of course, life was quite different back then (mostly aquatic), which must be considered. It would be quite uncomfortable to exist in that environment, although manageable with today’s technology. But it proves there’s no “tipping point”. I don’t dismiss the possibility of anthropogenic impacts contributing to a warming planet, but the CO2 narrative widely misses the mark. Decades of experimentation has yet to back it up. In fact, several experiments have all but proven that the connection is tenuous at best. Plus, CO2 <i>follows</i> heat. And it doesn’t help that non-scientific entities are obfuscating any real science being done in that arena.
Yes, there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere than in recent history, a byproduct of an expanding industrial age. This is indisputable. Anyone disagreeing is ignoring verifiable measurements. But empirical observation indicates a strong net positive even if a bit of heat is retained (which is questionable, and is something that has yet to be reproduced experimentally). What <i>has</i> become quite clear is that a warmer climate and higher levels of non-pollutant CO2 produce much greater crop yields and plant growth, i.e. even if CO2 caused warming, it’s a net gain. But the warming itself is fully explainable by solar cycles and ice age retraction.
In fact, if CO2 caused warming, and if the highly dubious models held up, it would be <i>much</i> warmer than it is now.
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Ward2018JGRResponse.pdf
https://whyclimatechanges.com/pdf/Papers/Ward2018InconvenientRealityJGRrev.pdf
https://www-f9.ijs.si/~margan/CO2/Refs/Mean_Free_Path.pdf
Additionally, the alleged negatives being claimed (e.g. more severe weather, hot days and fires, less glacial ice, etc.) are demonstrably false, with every prediction failing the test of time. Real science would call the entire theory into question at this point, with so many failures. Which is a telltale sign that what’s going on has very little to do with genuine science, and more to do with belief, an apocalyptic doomsday cult predicting the end of days time and again, only to have each date pass by uneventfully.
So are all “climate scientists” wrong? No, in fact the majority don’t even hold a position about anthropogenic CO2-driven climate change (despite what some feebly claim regarding the erroneous 97% consensus). But an alarming number of so-called "scientists" are indeed quite mistaken, and not just in this field, because they don’t practice actual science (i.e. rigorous experimentation to validate theory with consistently repeatable results). They’ve forgotten the wisdom of Richard Feynman:
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62a15aa9e8e40e2cb2ce412d/If-anyone-who-disagrees-with-man-made-climate-change-wants-to-have-a-serious-conversation?reply=62a6bb358d399c712446914d
While yet others perpetuate a narrative that keeps their jobs funded and their pocketbooks lined.
In-Depth Chats with Additional References
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/64c407284a2c9a4b43319f78/Climate-Change-Perspectives?reply=64c48cf464cc4461dc65bba0
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/620678b4ac86d617c749b134/Why-cant-conservatives-accept-scientific-consensus?reply=620ac419bbc0e93442d0fa98
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/62a427cc971324170703acc9/Poll-Who-looks-like-an-idiot-in-this-thread?reply=62a4cccd971324170703b167
Papers
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117721009054
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Articles
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/climate-scientist-whistleblower-patrick-brown-reveals-how-the-media-s-obsession-with-global-warming-manipulates-the-truth-about-wildfires-80-are-ignited-by-humans/ar-AA1ghfMR
https://www.thecollegefix.com/scientist-says-he-left-out-full-truth-to-get-climate-change-paper-published/
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/why-we-cant-trust-the-science-journals-a-climate-scientist-explains/
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
The tools he's put in place that draw from the raw datasets is very comprehensive. The raw, unmanipulated data doesn't lie.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
That's weird. It goes right there for me. I see it around several places. It's on Vimeo also, and a few channels on YouTube. Could Google it maybe. But the URL works for me. Not sure what's going on there.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
I questioned that as well, but then I proceeded to listen (something we all need to start doing). I hadn't heard of Andrew Bustamante until that video. I suspect that title was designed to sensationalize and try to pull in more clicks.
That title was created by the podcast interviewer, not by Bustamante. After listening, I can see why they titled it that, but it was a poor choice and is very misleading, invoking preconceptions that aren't quite in line with Bustamante's message.
For example, listen to this bit from the second video: https://youtu.be/l46oWMu3b9M?t=7820.
There were a few bits he says in that particular discussion that I don't agree with, but what I absolutely do agree with is his approach to life and mindset. To your point, go into everything cautiously. However, never outright dismiss without due diligence.
You know, that old adage of "never judge a book by its cover". Don't rush to judgement, either in the affirmative or the negative. Delve into it first, scrutinize it, and only then render a judgement in a slow, measured manner. Or in other words...
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
Well-said, and agreed (mostly-I don't see it as "woke", and although there are dumb-ish parts, as a whole I wouldn't deem the premise completely dumb, even if a stretch). Despite the story's weaknesses, it serves as a morality tale all of humanity should heed.
_________________________________________
Never believe or disbelieve. Always question. Rebuke bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.