MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
"I did talk about the content of the film but you have yet to do the same."
You claimed that to believe the film has an important message is a delusion. You said that "the Emperor has no clothes".
If you knew what you were talking about, you could defend these claims by talking about the actual content of the film. But you're talking out of your arse since the film is beyond you. You should stick to cartoons.
By the way, another subject beyond your pathetic grasp is science. In the process of belittling my choice of a handle you even got that wrong. Hilarious.
Thanks for proving my point by your constant refusal to back up your claims with evidence from the film: people who call movies "pretentious" are vapid, intellectually lazy losers who throw out the P word because they are utterly incapable of actually saying something of substance.
Every post you make where you continue to avoid ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE FILM lends more and more support to that narrative. Please--continue.
"That report was incorrect? Good; the climate change theory must be examined as carefully as any other undecided scientific question. "
it has been examined and is no longer "undecided". Man made climate change is established science whether you like it or not.
"When I was born sixty three years and two days ago, there was still support for the theories of the Missing Link and the canals of Mars."
You have no idea what you are talking about. There has never been a "missing link" among serious scientists and the canals of mars were only believed in by a tiny minority. You keep offering up stupid ideas that were never part of the mainstream of science as some kind of warning against taking the mainstream seriously.
"Scientists have been wrong" is not an argument. It is empty noise.
"The important thing for her to do is to be careful not to embarrass herself with statements that cannot be dismissed as misquotations."
No, the important thing is for people like you to not stupidly and blindly accept reports in the press that have no basis in fact. A nine year old with a little bit of curiosity about objective reality could have discovered that the story of this thread was false in about ten seconds.
That you fell for this nonsense so easily tells me that your critical thinking skills aren't so great--no wonder you shrug off the scientific consensus on climate change. You don't know any better.
I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you have still not backed up a single one of your claims with evidence from the movie.
You started the criticisms of the film with your first post. It is your obligation to back yourself up. And you can't.
"I'm just not a fan of blood/gore as personal entertainment. :)"
It's actually not that gory. The Daredevil TV show had more blood and guts than this movie does. It's just that the idea of what happens is so awful and the final 30 minutes assault the viewer.
"So, this is a strait up "Horror" for blood/shock value? "
No, it isn't really a horror film. It has horrific elements, but the marketing is basically lying to people that it fits comfortably into that genre.
"One could show greed ruining the world without blood splattering everywhere."
The writer and director feels very strongly about environmental issues and he thinks what humanity is doing to the planet (and itself) is genuinely horrifying. So the assault against Jennifer Lawrence's character, who is symbolic of Mother Nature, needs to feel awful and make the audience despair at what is happening.
"MY question is, if someone were to surgically edit out the HORROR aspects - bloody scenes, gore - would this story remain intact, interesting and watchable?"
The movie is a metaphor for the greed of humanity ruining the planet, so the horror elements need to be there. Take them out and the film stops making thematic sense.
Excuse me, nutcase, but this has nothing to do with science. The thread makes a claim about something an actress said, and the reality is that she never said it. That's my point. Pay attention.
"Since you DIDN'T "Talk about the merits of the film citing details from it" that means you "basically admit you are talking out of your arse", right? Fair enough and thanks for providing an example of exactly the type of person I described."
I was responding to your content-free BS. So please, explain why thinking "mother!" has important messages is delusional. Explain why the "Emperor has no clothes". Do so citing details from the film.
You can't. You probably haven't even seen it.
Or quite possibly, some people like movies that require thinking and attention, and idiots who are not capable of either like to spin narratives where they are the real heroes and those who know better are "desperate" and "insecure". Projection, basically.
Talk about the merits of the film citing details from it, or basically admit you are talking out of your arse.
I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you still have absolutely no evidence to back up your bullshit.
General audiences don't care about the politics of artists the way you idiotic right wingers do. "It" was a huge hit and guess what--Stephen King has been bashing Trump far more loudly and publicly than Lawrence ever has. By your, um "logic", that movie should have flopped. Remember, your entire thesis is based on the idea that she is box office "poison" because of her politics. Oops.
"Not the wisest thing in the world to attribute a political context to the behavior of Mother Nature."
She didn't. It isn't the wisest thing in the world to blindly accept right wing memes based on nothing.
"Arthouse? You call that art? It was garbage."
Get back to me in a few decades when the critical consensus among those who love film is that it is a masterpiece.
That's an excellent point, Markdown474. I feel silly for not having thought about it myself!
You couldn't articulate why a single thing she has said about politics is "stupid" if your life depended on it. Go ahead--try it.
Excuse me, clueless idiot, but there is simply no evidence that the movie flopped because of her. In fact, even bad reviews for the film cite her performance as one of the most attractive things about the movie, and she is already in the discussion as a likely Oscar nominee. The public simply has no interest in art house horror films when a blockbuster like It is part of the competition, especially when even good reviews warn viewers that the movie is hard to watch and not for everyone. His previous films didn't generate this kind of talk.
Go ahead--entertain your idiotic fantasies based on the fact that you look at social media generated by fellow morons who already think like you. The adults in the room have no time for such circle-jerks.
"If you go to Twitter and read the posters tweets under all the promotion for Mother you would see many people were offended by her political comments."
That you would think social media responses are an objective measure of anything basically advertises your utter idiocy. Sorry, cupcake, but mother! is an art house movie that was never going to have wide appeal regardless of her popularity as an actress, and there isn't a single knuckle-dragging Trump supporter who would have been interested in it from the beginning.
"of course it bombed. and it might not have flopped so poorly had Jennifer Lawrence not pissed off millions of potential people who would have gone to see it out of curiosity. . ."
What an utter moron. There isn't a single person who was going to see this movie who would have changed their mind because of her Trump comments. The reason it is flopping is that the public are mostly morons who don't like thinking movies that challenge them. But that's okay--many movies that bored the public have gone on to be respected masterpieces, and my guess is that this is the fate mother! will end up enjoying.
Yep, the public has no taste for thoughtful, challenging movies that require thinking. But movies that flopped, were divisive and even critically panned have gone on to become regarded by future generations as masterpieces.
Only a complete moron with no awareness is going to think the short term is what matters.
What a complete and utter nutcase.