MovieChat Forums > Costumer > Replies
Costumer's Replies
An appeal to the majority is an error in logic. There are not two ways of counting. You start with the first number, in this case the year 1. So the first decade is 1-10. The rest follows. Its basic math. If there had been a year 0, then you would be correct.
Your argument that the year 1 was really the year 0 is so nonsensical it doesn't deserve refutation.
Please stop shouting.
As for the first question, they never specified, but I would assume they had enough fuel to land. I can easily see that whatever pulled them off course didn't, in itself, affect their fuel supply.
As for the orders from Ferris, it could force them to leave. But once Spock set off the flare, indicating the shuttle's survival, he certainly couldn't prevent Kirk from acting. It would be difficult to explain to a review board that he prevented a rescue where the position of the survivor's was known and a transporter would work, in order to save an hour of transit time, regardless of the emergency on Makus III
What I found odd was that Kirk's standing orders to investigate an astronomical phenomena would over-ride a time-sensitive mission to deliver medical supplies. He could have come back and investigated after delivering the supplies to Makus III.
Why do we need proof. The very fact that they can breath under water IS proof they have gills (or some other organ that allows them to breath.) It is a common opinion that film should show rather than tell. That trope is not absolute, of course. But why does someone have to tell us they have gills. Do we need someone to tell us Superman has heat vision? Is it not more effective to see him use it?
As is often the case, you are misusing the definition of plot hole. It doesn't contradict anything we have learned about this world in previous footage.
There are many species of deep sea fish which are not jelly-like. Other then interesting adaptations to the bodies, they are built like any other fish found at shallower depths.
To each their own. I have two tablets. I almost never use them.
Some people prefer a laptop to a smart phone. I have both. I use both. But for serious computer work I'm going to use the laptop. A smart phone's screen is too small; I have to scroll around to find things.
A virtual keyboard is not a quick to use and you often have to pull it up while a laptops always there.
A smartphone does have advantages. Its smaller and easier to carry around and conceal.
I have no issues with people using smartphones as computers. People should use what they like. But just using a laptop doesn't date things.
I don't see much resemblance. But Jerry Orbach was a great actor and I think he could carry any role given him.
I haven't seen this series yet, but on this question:
A human being at one has barely started to speak and walk. A dog, on the other hand, is mature. Is it valid for the dog to wonder why the human is taking care of itself? After all, its had a full year of experience. That should be plenty. It is for the dog.
If his species brain doesn't develop for over 50 years, then regardless of his experience he won't be able to talk. It all depends on what is normal for his species.
Some cultures have specific traditions on decorations. My Grandparents were from Lentini in Sicily. There tradition, which they practiced after immigrating to the US, was decorations go up on December 16. They come down on January 6.
They were quite strict about it. Now my mother (her daughter) loved Christmas. She followed the Dec. 16th tradition, but she ignored the Jan. 6th one. Decorations rarely came down in our house until Valentine's Day. One year it was Easter when Easter was early.
An argument can also be made that the "specialness" of Christmas decorations can only be maintained by short exposure.
To sum up, the Who's tradition may be to put up decorations on Dec. 24th. When they would come down would be conjecture.
it is no use arguing with someone who is deliberately ignoring history. This will be my last comment on this.
YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!
I know you don't want to be. History proves you are incorrect. Hundreds of movies were remade throughout the Golden Age. All the lists I supplied you prove that.
I try to be polite to everyone. I never denigrate their artistic perceptions of works. Everyone has different tastes.
I, and others, have given you examples. I supplied you with links to lists. If you cannot acknowledge what is in plane sight I cannot speak with you.
I assume your comment is that they didn't remake movies in the Golden Age of Hollywood. They did, you just are ignoring it. I gave you examples above. Generally it is defined as 1915 to 1963.
Just examples:
The Wizard of Oz was made three times in that period.
The Ten Commandments was made twice.
The Maltese Falcon was made three times. (The version with Humphrey Bogart was the third)
Philidelphia Story and High Society (same story with different titles)
Little Shop on the Corner/Good Old Summertime (again, same story with different titles)
Five Came Back/Back from Eternity (again, different titles for the same story)
The Letter was made twice (the second version with Bette Davis)
Little Women made at least twice
Prisoner of Zenda
The Front Page/His Girl Friday
TCM is currently doing an entire month of movie remakes: A month's worth.
These are only a few examples. There are scores more. Your refusal to acknowledge this is akin to insisting the sun rises in the west regardless of all evidence to the contrary. (And if you pull the earth rotates so the sun doesn't rise and set you are setting yourself up as a five year old. )
Everyone makes mistakes. It doesn't shame you to admit them. Do so.
Just a point, that wasn't the bad guy. That was one of the Brotherhood of the Cruciform Sword, the group protecting the Grail. They might be ruthless, but they were not the villains in this piece.
<blockquote>"If you are Scotland Yard then I am Mickey Mouse."</blockquote>
I'm not sure if this is a type, but just for accuracy, the line is "If you are a Scottish Lord then I am Mickey Mouse."
Many, when using Lord in reference to someone from Scotland, will spell and pronounce is "Laird" which can sound a bit like Yard.
If someone mentions this somewhere down the line, I apologize. I just didn't feel like paging all through the thread.
See my other comment. You simply are in denial. Check any book on the history of films.
A Birds 2 would be a sequel not a remake. And even if it was, you think that because Birds didn't have a remake there have not been many others? Would you like a list? Since such a list would be entirely too long to enter here, here are two links to Wikipedia. (Yes, I know it is not the most accurate source, but it is the quickest to find:(and I apologize, I cannot remember how to make these links.)
Films A-M: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_(A%E2%80%93M)
Films N-Z: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_(N%E2%80%93Z)
The list is enormous. Some quick mentions are:
Ten Commandments
Pride and Prejudice
King Kong
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Wizard of Oz (in 1925, 1939, 1950, 1975, 1976, 1978, and 2005)
Hollywood has always remade films since the first films were made. That is film history.
With the qualifications you mention, I agree. I suppose we are supposed to assume Benoit was equal to Sherlock Holmes who could interpret tiny signs into full blown descriptions of events. Its a trope.
I can only assume his purpose was to "lull" her into revealing what she knew. It is interesting she was able to get around a lot despite her violent "tell" when lying.
SPOILERS BELOW!
>>>>Benoit Blanc, who knew Marta was guilty from the beginning and yet didn't arrest her because he was saving this poor, defenseless grown, educated woman<<<
As I read he didn't know she was guilty. He knew she lied that she wasn't there when Harlan committed suicide because he saw the drop of blood on her shoe. Actually, he probably realized she could not have killed him since she had only a drop on her shoe. If she had killed him, that is cut his throat, there would likely be a lot more blood on her shoes.
His curiosity was what did she actually know and what actually happened. And to learn that he couldn't have her arrested. (He couldn't actually arrest her, unless you think he would perform a citizen's arrest, since he isn't a police officer.
The question is did it need to be fleshed out. Seuss' original story was complete in itself.
There is no use arguing with someone who deludes themselves.
Depending on your belief system, this could be classified as a fantasy. But it is certainly not SF.
You sound like Mr. Terrific in DC comics who had met an actual angel and convinced himself the angel must not actually be an angel. If it doesn't meet my opinion on what exists, it must be something else.
I would say your opinion is complete nonsense. Believe in God or not, in the wolrd of It's A Wonderful Life we are shown God is real, Angels are real and they intervene in the World when necessary.
Why would the Angels, Clarence and his superiors, speak among themselves as angels if they were aliens?