MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
The map screen shows not only where you are and how long you still have to go, but also where the next bend is, and which way it turns.
The speedometer is importar to know if you are going too fast, so you can crash because of that, or too slow so you won't beat the timer, and so on.
ALL the events have MUCH better graphics AND smoother animation and movement on the C64, not to mention, again, better soundworld, actual musics, and YES, the C64-version DOES SAVE THE SCORES!
You can also select a COUNTRY and hear that country's anthem when you win, so how much did they BUTCHER it when they ported it to NES? It's unbelievable. And yet AVGN reviews this as 'Winter Games' instead of 'Crappiest Port Ever Made', which he SHOULD have done, to be fair.
The last point I want to make is the figure skating. The fair points are 'too much white' - true even in the C64-version, I have no idea who thought THAT was a good idea! People use white even now way too much as background, even youtubers have HUGE white borders around a tiny video or picture or article they're showing, and don't seem to notice this idiocy at all.. sigh. Monitor white is NOT paper, but people treat as it is. Light and paper are completely different mediums - white is the BRIGHTEST light your monitor/display device is capable of showing, so putting it AROUND anything, is like putting bright light bulbs around every photo you are trying to look at. MAKES NO SENSE!
Anyway, the figure skating IS actually good fun, if you KNOW what you are doing. I can't imagine ever playing the NES-version, but if you play the C64-version using an actual JOYSTICK, and know HOW to do the moves, it's actually pretty cool (no pun intended).
That is not the reason, obviously.
These goofy movies are Spielberg's and George's attempts to re-create their childhood TV serials on the big screen and in a more contemporarily 'modern' way. "Indy" and the 'Great Adventure' existed LONG before these movies, and it's sometimes surprising, how closely the movies follow some of the silly formulas of those old TV serials, the guy sometimes even looks like Indy quite a lot.
So the 'Great Adventure' does not refer to.. I mean, what do you even think it refers to? ITSELF? .. but it refers to the old TV serials that George and Spielberg used to watch as kids.
Now, as far as the posters themselves, I don't agree with the original poster. First of all, movie posters are whatever, who cares, it's the movie that counts. Some posters are 'cool', others have interesting ideas or visuals, but if someone is or is not smiling, what difference does that make?
Second of all, LOOK at the smile carefully. It's not the kind of friendly neighbourhood 'happy to see you'-smile. It's a smile depicting CONFIDENCE, as in 'you have no chance against me, you miserable fool, HAVE AT YOU!'-type of smile. It's Indy being 100% certain this situation is easy for him to handle, and that he's better than whatever might be threatening him - he's about to dispose the enemy easily with his whip, and whipping out the whip might have given the enemy a whiplash due to being so surprised at it, which makes Indy smile even more.
Do you want to see a confident, energetic, resourceful character on the poster, or do you want to see a depressed, sad old man wanting to k himself, having no action while the whip just peacefully sleeps on his shoulder?
You want to see depressed misery and gloom, or do you want to see something triumphant and exciting?
You can see these things from all kinds of angles, why did you choose to see the posters that way? It tells more about you than the posters..
Thinking about it, how IRRESPONSIBLE would those spiritual masters and teachers be, if they foresaw what this world was going to turn into, and just let the Ark exist so Nazís of this movie could just melt their faces off with it? What spiritual master would be that irresponsible?
Of course they could foresee the future back in the day - anyone mature and spiritually cultivated enough to be able to correctly and responsible handle that kind of power would, by necessity, have spiritual mastery of multiple levels, which means clairvoyance would be child's play to them.
This means we can easily assume that they COULD, indeed, see the future (our present), and they would KNOW not to let this childish group of half-demons ravage the planet using their advanced technology and tremendous power, so they would, OF COURSE, destroy such things before people like this movie's characters (who don't understand anything non-materialistic) could get their hands on them.
Kind of anti-climactic anyway, to just melt faces off and have some demon spirits kill off some people, when they could've shown us majestic wonders that such enormous power could do. But nope, all we get is a horror movie cliché, and people call this movie imaginative..?
"I'm guessing that the book was written with the the main character being white. But since Pryor was cast, they had some explaining to do."
Because they ABSOLUTELY couldn't have cast(ed) a black man to play the uncle..?
"Champagne was made to drink. "
Are you saying Champagne is some kind of robot?
No, it was not made TO DRINK, it was made 'TO BE DRANK'.
There's a difference between drinking and being drank. 'To Drink' means they're drinking. Humans and animals are able to drink, champagne isn't able to drink.
I hate the premise that it's somehow difficult to spend a large amount of money, when the world is like this, where people do desperate things just to put bread on the table and the oligarchs have so much money it's not even funny.
In any case, since he's allowed to arbitrarily pay 'any amount he sees fit' for people's services, just hire a hooker for 30 million for 1 hour the last day, done.
They do have a bit of the right idea, living in an expensive hotel suite, so that would be one good thing to do.
Basically it should be easy to simply invest in things like that - just rent everything you can that you have to keep paying for, then trash the places so you have to pay damages. I know you are not allowed to 'destroy', but 'damaging' is not the same thing. If you get a scratch on your lamborghini, that's not destroying the lamborghini, but it'll cost to buff it out.
So to keep it simple, just rent expensive things, use expensive 'services', use the money for everything and anything that doesn't accumulate or give you anything permanent. So, food, traveling, massages, advisors, teachers, accountants and so on. 30 Million would be chump change considering how much all this would cost. Why rent only one hotel room when you could rent 20?
What would stop Brewster from doing the same '2 million' thing to 14 other hotels? He could live in 15 different hotel suites in luxury and then the last day just pay it all, and boom, done. Easy. Or pay slightly less and then he could also cruise around in an entourage of limousines all over the place, even between cities and such. Anything you consume, anything that's a service, anything you can rent at high price.. it's not that hard.
Yeah, but where's the cap, what DICTATES how much he can and can't pay? Shouldn't there always be some team of 'checkers' with him that tell him 'no, you can't do that' or 'the cap for this is 4700 dollars', or something?
It makes no sense to give him strict rules, but then LET HIM DECIDE the amounts throughout this whole thing..
Let me ask you this - who decided how much 'security service' is worth in value? Where does he get these numbers he so spontaniously spews out amidst excitement? Why can he pay the hotel 2 million, but not 3? not 4? not 5? Who decides and why? Why would he EVER pay a low amount, if he can pay a high amount?
So some kind of CAP explanation would definitely have benefited - but not saved - this movie.
At least you could arrange the 'basics of life' that most poeple dream about - house, travel, cars/motorbikes, pools, food, even social life (to an extent) to your liking. People are drawn to wealthy people, so you wouldn't have to 'buy' friends, but in a way, you would be in a great position to meet more people that 'like you' than ever.
So basically all your needs could be met in the most optimal way you can possibly imagine in this kind of a world.
2) You could 'secure' your life with that kind of money, meaning you would never have to work or worry about 'welfare' or whatnot. You could just live in your mansion and look at the view while creating pixel art that your programming team will make into a game or 'story', or hire an orchestra to play something you composed on your Commodore 64 to see how it would sound.
I mean, that kind of opportunities would be endless with that sort of money and wealth. You could 'relax' for the rest of your life, do anything you want - it would even be easy to be 'spiritual', as you could helicopter your way to some distant mountain haven no one else can get to, and just be one with the nature there while meditating.
3) Obviously, you could make it grow. Don't know how? Give some accountant 87000 dollars and he'll help you grow that money into a larger pile of money, so it would practically never run out. You don't need to GET 30 or 300 million bucks, you can just make your 3 million GROW, and who cares if it reaches all the way, when you can do so much with just 3 anyway?
4) Think about it - except for RIDICULOUS things like private jet, what can you do with 30 or 300 million that you can't do with 3? It seems like 'more is better', but after you have 'secured' your life and indulged in every fantasy you ever had, what's left to do that you can't do with 3 million or even 2 million? You have your house, lake cabin, all cars/vehicles you want, all computers/consoles/etc. you want, you have traveled to every location..
..not only that, but the premise is pretty idiotic, and here's why:
Smoking cigars/cigarettes until you puke feels bad. Smoking pretty much anything when you are a kid feels bad, unless it's some kind of psychedelic, which I do not recommend.
But spending money has a pleasure aspect to it, that can be pretty high - there are also grandeur about 'omnipotence' to it - when you feel like you can buy anything, you start feeling you can do anything. The amount you could travel with a lot of money, the physical satisfaction you could get on all possible levels, in the most optimal ways possible.. then there are things like customizing your location perfectly, being able to always arrange your circumstances and environment to your liking, and so on.
Of course it will feel thin at some point, when you have 'done it all' - after you have driven your 9th Lamborghini very fast in the mountain roads of Alps, it's gonna lose its luster.
But it's never gonna be as bad-feeling as smoking multiple cigars/cigarettes as a kid, it's not gonna make you vomit, it just loses its luster and that's it. So this premise DOES NOT WORK, spending enormous amount of money in 30 days will NOT make you feel anything comparable to smoking 30 cigars in a closet or whatever.
Then there's the 'wimp clause', and I have a LOT to say about that.
1) One million is a LOT of money in 1985, equivalent to around 2.8 or 2.9 million, we can round that to 3 million for simplicity. With 3 million in today's money, you could buy yourself a decent, pretty big house in a really good location/environment with lakes, forests, trees, etc. You could arrange your life to your liking, including hobbies, machines, computers, consoles, arcane cabinets, food, and so on. You could hire a cook, even if just for once a week or once a month.
You could travel to your heart's content, buy luxury cars, you name it. Basically you could at least 'reasonably' do 'anything you always wanted'.
This movie is the opposite of 'lightning in a bottle'.
When the right people combine to make the right kind of premise in the right kind of way, the movie can become accidentally better than it has any right to be.
This premise is nothing to type home about, but even so, the people that gathered to make this mess seem to have been the wrong people at the wrong time, doing the wrong kind of stuff in the wrong kind of way. The musics are tedious (which is a miracle in itself, considering this is made in 1985, which I still have trouble believing), the camera angles are horrible, the constant noise is groan-inducing and irritating, the music is too loud when people speak, John Candy is unlikable, the audio side is horrible (listen to the echo in the 'jail cell', which is ridiculously small).. the whole court scene is just cringe instead of funny, plus it's unrealistic to get 3000 bucks bail for a barfight like that, considering people do MUCH WORSE in those 'Wisconsin police cam' videos and get 'all charges dropped' or '50 dollar bail'..
I haven't watched the full movie, granted, but I am not sure I want to.
This movie REEKS of someone just wanting to make a movie to make money, instead of having a really good story they wanted to tell in their own, unique style, so the audiences would be a little bit internally richer and happier for it.
It smells heavily of 'boardroom meeting' where someone desperately pitches the stupidest idea they read from some old comic book, then discover some guy had already written a completely obsolete book about that stupid idea, and then buying the rights to that and just casting some big starts of the time.
They forgot the movie would actually have to be good, the story would actually have to be told well, the direction would also have to be better than 'phoning it in' and so on.. What is Baby's dad doing in a turd like this, I can never undrstand.
In any case, this movie plays way too loose with those rules..
Um, how is that Biff (or any version of Biff) ANYTHING like Trump?
OK, a big hotel.. that's about it.
When did Trump do any of these things?
- Bribe the cops
- Murder someone's father so he could then marry his wife
- Have his goons punch his son-in-law in the head very hard
- Make a city a nest of biker gangs, rabid dogs, unlawful happenings and crazy gun wielders that are supposed to be educators
- Change the timeline in the worst way possible
- Almost openly advocate crime and decadent lifestyle
If you listen to his speeches, he advocates for PEACE and PEACEFUL activity, even before the dreaded January event. You people have been swallowing too many mainstream media lies. Biff isn't even accused of colluding with Russians...
When did Trump appeal to 'society's worst instincts' (a society can't have an INSTINCT, by the way, which kind of shows how much thought you put into this)?
He has always been trying to stop wars, stop insanity of the lying mainstream media, told the TRUTH about the leftists and their lies and smear campaigns and so on.
If anything, he has been and is the OPPOSITE of this movie's 100% corrupt, evil and criminal Biff.
I don't like Trump, I think some of what he's saying is wrong, and his persona is certainly ridiculous, the way he says some things, and some of the things he say are certainly cringeworthy and caveman-style idiotic, but I don't see how you can compare him to this evil villain in a fictional movie.
When I see biker gangs violating the law with some crappy metal music playing all over the white house lawn, then I might reconsider.
What are you asking? How do you kill 'to' something? What does 'villian' mean, that doesn't appear to be an actual word.
I suspect you might be trying to write something like 'Is the MCU killing off TOO many cool VILLAINS?'.
However, I don't think MCU is an intelligent entity that has the agency to do anything of sorts. Also, 'killing' a character isn't reality, because it's just a character, so it was never even alive. What you probably mean is, 'are the people that make this kind of movies creating 'too many' (how do you measure this, by the way?) stories where these type of characters die?'
In any case, I can't understand how anyone, let alone so many people make this weird 'American Typo' of typing 'too' as 'to' (at least you didn't use 'two', let alone '2'), and then write 'VILLAIN' as 'VILLIAN' for some reason - not that I can understand people actually playing the class called 'Rogue' in some games, still typing their own class name as 'Rouge', holy cow! How do you even make that mistake in the first place?
What bothers me even more is that every time I check, no one seems to be mentioning this or correcting this type of brain malfunction at all, so these mistakes keep conquering internet discussion board real estate like cockroaches would a kitchen floor. If someone doesn't call the Exterminator soon, it's going to be too late for the english language.
Please correct these errors and 'American Typos' while there's still time..
To add a small sidenote about the 'two massive groups just RUN to each other and clash into random melee 1 vs 1 fights'.. TRY playing any decent real-time strategy game like that, and see how easy it is to win against an opponent that uses proper tactics, formations and so on.
I have played those 'Total War' games, and I really suck at them, but I HAVE learned that you can't win by just some random "AARGGH LET's ALL JUST RUN AND BASH"-tactic. You NEED to consider the terrain, the weather, the morale of your men, you need to know exactly where to put specific type of troops and groups and so on. You need to know where forests, uphills, rivers, bridges and so on are located to take full advantage of them.
Just to use a very simple example; archers are supposed to be in the back, cavalry is supposed to make fast strikes from flanks and maybe sometimes in the front, while regular spearmen are in front of the archers and so on. The idea is that the archers are protected, because they're ranged, so they can't handle melee very well, but they can also shoot very far, which means that it's ideal if they are on higher ground and at the back, while the more mobile groups do different tactics, while your brute melee forces are at the front.
It's a very simple example, but you almost never see even this level of formation in these movie battles for some reason. It's as if Hollyweird is completely detached from history and reality of how battles would actually happen. I might also be mistaken in how I interpret a formation should be (admittedly, I am very bad at tactics like that), but if I can understand at least some kind of basic principles of formations, surely some highly-paid, billion-dollar Hollyweird directors should, too, am I right?
There is certainly an amount of naïvete about his choices.
I mean, what did he THINK was going to happen? How can you be so clueless that you will go against the REALLY POWERFUL entities of this world, and think nothing will happen to you? The second he made that decision to start spewing truth about corporate lies and rich families getting rich by exploiting the 'ordinary people', he was doomed.
No one can tell the truth for long without the Powers attacking them. That's why they rather show us 'Superhero movies' so we don't think about what those heroes SHOULD be doing and focusing on.. they always fight some external monsters, galactic entities or thanoses, but they never turn their focus on the government and corporations and expose all the corruption to the people.
Russell didn't seem to realize the consequences of covering himself in honey and then poking a beehive while standing in a fire ant nest.
I don't know how he could think he would get away with it.. I always knew they would get him eventually, but was shocked as to how long it took. He was basically able to preach a really long time, and give the audience a few pretty golden nuggets of information about corporate and governmental corruption (though he was a bit wishy-washy about things sometimes, which seemd a bit spineless)...
Of course they would eventually get him one way or another. It's interesting that in modern times, they don't need to 'liquidate' dissenters as much as in the olden times, because they have this really powerful smearing tool available that removes any clean spots from their windshield - the social media.
Trial by social media can possibly be even worse than a normal trial, where you need actual PROOF and EVIDENCE and you are judged by your peers... in social media, allegations from strangers are sufficient!
It's a horrible precedent and spells doom for us all in the long run.. if women's pointing fingers have THAT kind of nuking power, no one is safe.
No, it's not - there's NO such word as 'nauseating'.
Think about it, obnoxious, not obnoxiating. Preposterous, not preposterizing.
Nauseous = causing nausea
Nauseated = feeling nausea
There's NO SUCH WORD as 'nauseating', why is this so hard for people to learn?
You want to say 'One of the most repulsive and nauseous people' - however, even then, your sentence is lacking. It doesn't name anyone, it doesn't have a verb, so you are basically just listing words instead of ACTUALLY SAYING SOMETHING.
Please try again, and maybe you could obey the english grammar this time, mmhhkay?
It's definitely fishy.
Someone with proof would not need to have the government send letters to corporations, instead of just going to the cops and making formal charges, having him arrested and JUDGED in court.
Instead of that, something really weird is going on, which is setting a dangerous precedent - if a government can do this much just to harass one individual based on nothing but some female fingers pointed at said individual, how much longer until we're 100% in a police state dictatorship that even the most depressing cyberpunkian stories don't dare have nightmares about..?
Patriarchy? Sure - let's see four male fingers point at a female celebrity and how much the governments will send letters to corporations based on THAT. We'll have to wait a long time..
Just to bring another point - is this a surprise to anyone?
The more his sub amount grew, the more he talked about how corporations and certain families got rich because of the pandemic, how he exposes Pfizer's lies, the more I thought 'oh no, they're gonna get him'.
I wondered why the Powers That Be hadn't gotten him, no attack, no assasination, no character smear - he was given free reign to just speaking about this stuff. It was almost shocking, how nothing happened to him although he exposed so many things (though please note he NEVER talks about the Rotschilds or the annual Bilderberg meetings as far as I can tell, or mentions by name the entities with REAL power and agenda)..
.. so now that this happened to him, REGARDLESS of what actually happened decades ago, I am not surprised at all.
The only thing I am surprised about, is how long it TOOK for them to take him down. You simply can't tell the truth in this world about important things that affect us all, if you have any signifigant amount of listeners... at least not in a way that might possibly harm the ongoing occult agenda to enslave this planet's people fully and utterly.
There should be a statute of limitations somewhere, surely.
Anyone deserves a second chance, the opportunity to change into a good human being. Even if you have done bad things in the past, should you be punished for them after you have changed into someone who would never do that kind of things again? I mean, isn't the point of a punishment to rehabilitate someone and act as a threat so people wouldn't do it?
Jailtime is a DETERRENT - don't do a crime, or you'll have to do time. But what if you would never do a crime anymore, even if you did a long time ago? Logically, a prison sentence wouldn't do its job anymore.
Of course murderers, violent criminals, drunk drives and such should not be running free, especially after being caught, but what about someone who would never harm anyone in any way? Couldn't there at least be some different kind of punishment, if the system really wants to take the 'karma issuance' out of the hands of Lords of Karma?
My point is, a good human being that happens to live in a hormone-raging teenage body that might even be inebriated (as teen bodies often do become that way) might do something bad without fully understanding what they're doing, and they would never do that thing as an adult anymore, because they now realize the implications and how wrong it is to do that thing.
Should they still be punished?
In any case, something like that (an alleged 'happening' 20 or 30 years ago) would be extremely hard to prove, so shouldn't the 'innocent until proven guilty by a reasonable doubt' be in effect?
I am convinced back then he treated women very 'casually' and 'confidently', but an actual R-word? That's somewhat difficult to believe.
I don't know about your claims, as you do not corroborate them.
However, I have always felt there's SOMETHING 'off' about him, but it's hard to pinpoint, because superficially, he does so many things 'right'.
It's also shocking to view his older videos and compare to the newer ones - it's like two completely, UTTERLY different personalities. One that pretends to be spiritual and meditative, extremely low energy, stuttering and having trouble speaking clearly, and the other one screaming and yelling with big hand movements (and impeccable speech flow).
There are so many things odd about him, I have to consider your slightly outrageous-seeming claims to be a possibility.
It could be a case where he has good intentions, but is subtly lead astray by 'unseen forces' (not necessarily anything mystical, but could be mystical as well - we're all manipulated by all kinds of 'unseen' forces, like 'obligations', 'requirements', 'expectations' and so on, just to mention a few), and then becomes a bit tweaked from the path.
The reason why The Christ had to be such a high-level entity, was so he could remain honest and be unswayed by anything powerful and seductive. Anything lower, and the message would not have remained so pure (obviously it was twisted and dirtied afterwards anyway, but still)..
It's hard to remain pure and innocent and tell the truth to millions of people with all the temptations and corporate influences hovering above you and manipulating you from every direction. It's easy to get lost in that mess.
I am not saying he is innocent, but I am not saying he's guilty, either - I just can't quite pinpoint what I even think about him, as I want to like him, he seems to be telling the truth, he's vegan (I think).. but at the same time, he wears skin jacket (disgusting and incongruent), reproduces in a world like THIS (!) and does a lot of formulaic e-begging and uses speech tropes constantly (which a spiritual being would at least try to avoid).
Peculiar..
..and get people to feel sorry for them.
Watch almost any of the 'police videos' in youtube, where they arrest women - these so-called adult human beings can act like possessed toddler-demons, kicking the cops, screaming like a banshee or worse, punching their own head against the door, screaming threats at the cops, and ALL the cops always treat them like they would a peacefully sleeping toddler. 'Aww, how cute, everythign will be all right, please give me your hand, ma'am', 'please get ouf of the car (for 30 minutes)'..
So these women can get charged with assaults, felonies, dozens of misdemeanors - what is the end result? Maybe 100-dollar fine or bail or bond or whatnot, and the woman walks the next day. A woman can be an absolutely crazy meth-head who even pleads to get help or to go to prison, but nope. They walk.
To be fair, men are also given surprisingly lenient sentences and charges are weirdly often dismissed in these videos, but I have never seen even the craziest man behave as 'demonically and toddlerlike' as the women VERY often do.
It's amazing that we still talk about equality and are supposed to think of these entities as 'adult human beings', when they can pull this kind of crap and get away with it every time.
Women have victim-status, sexual-social power, the kind men can't even dream of. It HAS to be a ridiculously strong temptation to have to resist every second of your life, when you can just send innocent men into prison by just pointing a finger, when you can beat up a cop and barely get a slap on the wrist, when you can cry and scream like a demon child and nothing bad will happen to you. Of course they're GOING to behave that way, because there are no consequences.
Now, this planet has so many problems, one of the biggest ones being 'bad parenting' and 'single mother parents', but the scope of this post doesn't quite reach.
I wish everyone would always be HONEST about victim status, 'mating psychology', power dynamics, etc..