tricksoftrade's Replies


Oh...yeah, sorry for people who did not see the movie... 'the reason they call it a cockpit'...was a quote in the movie from a asshole pilot who looked down on female pilots. This gave fuel and determination to the headstrong Ms. Marvel. Well, either the directing style or the story,it will go down as a mistake because it bombed at the box office. Word of mouth (instead of smartphones) goes big in the over 50 crowd. I viewed this movie in its second week in the theaters, I knew it was a bad sign when I was the only one in the theater. The director was born in 1985. The style he used is just not appealing to older generations used to a steady cam. One can usually ascertain what target demographic the movie is trying to appeal to looking for by how they spend the advertising budget. I will place a bet that a hefty portion of it was on media that attracts older eyes. I might not know the correct lingo, but I do know that the current fad of zooming in super close is extremely annoying. But it seems to be more common now. I tried to watch one of those CSI tv shows that the director was doing the same thing, tight closeups with a shaky obviously hand-held cam. I lased 5 minutes. Maybe it is the effect of prolonged smartphone use among the populace? Where everybody uses them to 'film' every event in their lives....people have become accustomed to this style and therefore less annoyed. Senior citizens, the over 50 crowd, people interested in history (who tend to be older males). I'm in! It would be a challenge with the egos yes...but it could be done! Most of these people will have things going on and will only be available for cameos. But once the ball is rolling and if it gets rolling at full steam...I see the opposite happening, A snowball effect with comedians wanting to be a part of it and willing to leave the egos at the door. If they signed the release in that condition they have a good case. Even if the producers came back a few days later, those guys could argue that they could not remember what was said, and hey offering a college kid $1,000 or so to sign a paper... To call the female uniforms sexist today is to ignore the social times that the show was made in. In the 50's and the 60's there was great pressure for women to be demure. Displaying sexuality in any form of dress was taboo for a long, long time. This show was made in 1966, just the start of a kind of social revolution about sexual attitudes. The short skirts was a rebellion of sorts to this 'ladies are demure' attitude that was common for 40 some years. Uhura explains this in an interview. Think 'Barbarella' 1968 starring Jane Fonda...major films like this just weren't made before, this was the sexual revolution of the time. Sir, with all due respect, your analysis of Japans reactions to the prospect of a Soviet invasion is wrong. Your thought that Hirohito had ultimate power and 'revered as a God' is also, well....slightly off. The power dynamic was quite different. I implore you to educate yourself by reading 'Hirohito and the making of modern Japan' by Herbert Bix, winner of the Pulitzer prize. It will inform you of the power of the Togo militaristic wing and the character of Hirohito himself. The thought that the incredibly brave Japanese would immediately surrender upon Soviet invasion is the biggest error in your thinking. This is a paragraph from page 494 of Bix's book; 'From April 8th, 1945 until its capitulation, the Suzuki government's chief war policy was "Ketsugo", a further refinement of the "Shosango" (Victory number 3) plan for defense of the homeland. Its defining characteristic was heavy reliance of suicide tactics, and the manufacture of weapons solely for the purpose of suicide missions using massive numbers of kamikaze 'special attack' planes, human torpedoes shot from submarines, dynamite-filled "crash boats" powered with truck engines, human rocket bombs carried by aircraft, and suicide charges by specially trained ground units. While preparations for Operation Ketsu went forward, on June 9 a special session of the Imperial Diet passed a Wartime Emergency Measures Law and five other measures designed to mobilize the entire nation for that last battle.' The American marines were already painfully aware of the Japan 'warrior code' of never surrender. If the Soviets did invade the Japanese homeland, every man woman and child would do everything in their power to stop them. You don't BROADCAST to the WORLD that you will only accept unconditional surrender....and then give into a condition! Unless you want to appear weak. THAT is exactly what Stalin and the Japanese government would see. It is like a solid wall with one small crack. They will stall...look for more cracks...or try to make more. There was a STRONG contingent in the Japanese government would never accept surrender. Japans negotiators were not a unified front that you portray. To think that if the Americans gave into one condition and that the Japanese would IMMEDITIALY accept is naïve. Also, your view of the opinions of 5 star generals is a little off. For negotiations is not their field of expertise. While we can all agree that nuclear weapons are barbaric, generals receive promotions for successful battles. Finally, Japan should have reasoned out that the emperor would be in no danger and would have been kept as a figurehead. After all, the US would be occupying the country and executing the emperor would have placed occupying US troops in jeopardy. You are making a very large assumption..... that if the USA were to concede by letting Hirohito stay on it would have no effect on the negotiating process. We are not and will never be certain of this. A person with your obvious intellect should be able to figure out that if the USA were to give into conditions BEFORE surrender, it COULD (in my mind probably would) give the Japanese generals and Stalin one thing...hope. Hope for the Japanese war generals that they could gain more concessions if they dragged it out awhile longer, hope for Stalin that he could carve out a piece of Japan for himself. One should never underestimate the power of hope. . I was more aware of the style of directing than liberal bias. I was correct about the budget however...much less than Apollo 13. I stand corrected. I am going to see First Man today. The movie got away with it because it never showed both actors TOGETHER. If it did the 'unreality' of the situation would become evident to viewers. Coming back to this argument years later, I admit I come off a bit like a douche bag, but hey I was younger and more immature. Pretty sure that is why they included the chubby young female Asian in the last one. But it did not help, it bombed in China. Britain recently past a law that commercials cannot 'reinforce stereotypes'. If you noticed in America, all commercials with janitors or criminals are white men. I forgot to add that getting a movie INTO China is not like other countries. That country is very wary of America with it's democracy, liberty and rule of law. It does not wish these principles spread to its people. China has a communist led government movie review board. This committee has the power to reject the entry of a 100 + million Hollywood blockbuster if it so chooses. American movie studios obviously know this, and make strategic moves to help gain approval (Partnership with Ali-baba company and a Asian kicking American asses in the case of MI) An earlier poster noted this and had problems with Hollywood catering to it. I agree with him/her to a point. The studios know this also and have to walk a fine line, the pandering to China cannot be TOO obvious to American viewers. The MI writers did a fine job in doing this...the fight scene was soooo good that it did not cross my mind until I left the theater. No, it is pandering and I will tell you why. Put yourself in the position of a top Hollywood producer, or the head guy(or woman) in charge of a major studio. To make the film profitable and repay 100 plus million invested in it, you cannot do this by American audiences alone, China plays a very large part in that equation. It is a part of human behavior to root for someone of their own 'tribe' or race. Making a international movie without a Asian face is just not good business. The tricky part is HOW you put it in! It would be UNWISE to place a Asian face on the side of Ethan Hunt, because the Chinese view themselves as their own masters, not some lapdog to the Americans. Conversely, you cannot put a Asian face in the role of the antagonist because it would be an obvious turn off to Chinese viewers. So what to do? An independent contractor is the only solution, one who can kick the ass of the Americans in a fight. Brilliant! The fact that the only Asian face in the film was a murky independent contractor who just happened to kick the asses of two Americans is by no means coincidence my friend, it is a brief love note to China. I read that even though U.S. movies studios get a smaller cut in China (25%) than America (50%), the movies studios now get most of the revenue from that country. Going out to the movies, buying popcorn and a Coke, is a new experience for the growing Chinese middle class. A while ago I read the Pulitzer prize winning book 'Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan' by Herbert Bix. In it on (page 496) it gives the American rational for 'unconditional surrender' 'Their policy of no negotiated termination of the war aimed at smashing the fascist states and putting new non-fascist political entities in place. The objective was military and postwar political and social reform-always the two together. The philosophies of fascism and militarism were to be uprooted totally, and the conquered nations democratized, reborn as peace-loving capitalistic societies.' This hard line was build by Churchill and Roosevelt to make this the last 'total war'. Keeping Hirohito WAS a condition. You may disagree with the hard line of unconditional surrender, many do. We are so far mentally removed from the passions of the time that our opinion of it is skewed. You may also argue that Truman should have waited longer and that eventually Hirohito would comply with unconditional surrender (this is doubtful). It is hard to realize that I am arguing FOR the use of a nuclear weapon. Perhaps if Hirohito was not so concerned with saving his own skin, or that Truman was a more dynamic diplomat able to use backchannels...however that is not in the character of these two individuals that history has given us.