MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
We were supposed to judge people by their character, not by a trivial, temporary bodily quality, such as 'color of a skin' or 'race' or whatnot.
What happened here? We do NOTHING but fixate on THAT EXACT THING nowadays, and judge people based on their skin color, and of course white skin bad, 'minority culture' good, and so on.
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT 'ETHNICITY' A WRITER IS?!
Wouldn't the quality of the writing matter more than the shade of the cover of the temporary physical-biological utility-mass that used a tool to get that story into a readable form?
That's why anything like 'black lives matter' is wrong.
Not to even get into the reality of 'a black life' (can't exist, since something as conceptual as 'life' can't have something as literal as a 'color' or 'shade', only figuratively, but then a 'black life' would resemble 'a dark life', and the sound of that..?), or even 'black people' (when you think about it, even black skin is extremely rare, it's usually a shade of brown at best, but even then, skin doesn't dictate the color of the WHOLE BEING, it's only a cover of a muscle/bone/vein/organ mass, etc. and those are of various colors, but when you think even deeper, you realize we're energy, we're souls, so how could a body, no matter if it WAS 100% black (hard to find such a body), can't dictate the color of me, you, us, energy, etc..)
It should just be 'lives matter regardless of the temporary body they may or may not be housed in at the moment'.
Why would some lives matter more than others? I also don't like the use of the word 'matter', as it's so materialistic. It also seems to lack a point.. matter to what? In what way?
Shouldn't it rather be something like 'deserves to exist' or 'has the same value as everyone else' or 'is valuable to the Universe' or something along those lines?
I mean, even if you hate someone, they matter to you - just in a destructive or annoying way. 'Mattering' is too vague and neutral in this sense.
It's interesting how people talk about 'equality', but this race-swapping only works in ONE direction. How come you never see races swapped into Eskimos or Albinos? A John Wayne western is never remade as some Icelandic fisherman in the main role. How about an Aboriginal? How about taking some 'black film' and replacing everyone with In.. I mean, err.. what's the term nowadays? 'Native Americans'? Heck, you could remake 'Little Women' with 100% male cast, that comprises of Mongolian bodybuilders!
It's amazing to me, how these super rich corporations are willing to lose SO much money to advance horrible, misandristic, inequality-based agendas, and take SO many chances on movies that are most likely going to flop at the box office..
..but they won't give ONE truly imaginative, original story even one million. I am sure many hobbyists could make an astonishingly good movie with a shoestring budget, if they were granted, let's say three really big 'special effects' scenes, which wouldn't even have to be anything beyond practical effects with some cheap video effect-stuff.
Seriously.. it should be about the story, not about production costs. Look at the 'Our Robocop Remake' thing, where they basically made the whole movie by taking almost any kind of 'alternative take' by hobbyists and it actually kind of works (and is so much more entertaining than the awful 'official Robocop remake movie').
Why can't movies be made like that? Just for fun, not having to cost that much, some corporation could just give some 'a couple of million' sponsorship to it, and that kind of money wouldn't even be felt by such a super wealthy entity. Why not?
So.. THAT can't happen, but they'll give hundreds of millions to a crappy remake that has lots of woke agenda in it, although it's almost guaranteed to flop. I don't get this logic..
.. although the book's story is much longer.
However, the incredible atmosphere of the 'Twilight Bark' scene got me as a kid, and whenever I watch those beautiful stars and listen to the ambiance that's NOT ruined by some silly music, I get the shivers from sheer atmosphere and evocation.
Of course a movie made in 1937 is going to look 'dated' to modern eyes, but at the same time, we can still appreciate it for various ways and realize its genius and artwork on various levels. That particular movie was never that interesting to me, but that story IS an archetype in humanity's history, so trying to just say it's 'dated' and that it needs a modern twist to bring it up to date is just so stupid and an ignorant thing to say.
It's like looking at Ferrari Testarossa and saying, that would be good, if only it looked more like a modern SUV. Then you take it apart piece by piece and replace every part until it looks like the ugliest monstrosity of a 'car' ever devised by an evil capitalist pig, and call it 'modern'. Now it's no longer 'dated'.
However, it's also no longer beautiful, nostalgic, streamlined, lean, seductive or cool, and no one would play 'Out Run' or watch 'Miami Vice' with that thing replacing the original Ferrari Testarossa.
Now, you may say my example is pretty stupid and materialistic, and you'd be right, but I am sure people can understand my point. You can't take something good, think it 'just needs a little fixing', and then transform it completely into something hideous and think it's now the best it can be.
You can't improve on a Monet painting by adding lots of 'realistic detail', for example. Those paintings OOZE atmosphere so deeply, I can't even find a comparison point beyond maybe best works of Bob Ross (I know he wasn't technically the best, but some of his paintings have very deep 'feel' to them).
Hollyweird was supposed to be the innovator, Disney was supposed to tell us original stories, or at least 'diluted versions of Grimm's'..
Basically, what that means is: 'Only modern things are good'.
There ABSOLUTELY can't be anything good made 85 years ago, let alone anything older!
I have enjoyed relatively old comic books a lot - for example, the original Tintin comics have been greatly inspiring, the beautiful artwork is timeless and astonishing to my eye, evoking so many emotions, feelings, inspiration and beyond.
I always hated the word 'dated', because it seems like a stamp you can hit anything 'older' with, although originally it was supposed to mean 'that fashion dates this movie to the eighties'. It was supposed to mean that you can easily understand when the movie was made, so its DATE is obvious. It was a neutral statement.
However, people started using it as something to disparage - oh, that's so dated, I would never watch something like that.
It's like talking about food - if it's past the expiration date, it's inedible (although the whole 'expiration date' stuff is a scam anyway).
However, stories, games, books, movies, TV shows have no expiration date. I have always maintaned, that if something was good one second ago, or eighty trillion years ago, or anything inbetween, it is still good, and it will always be good (provided it doesn't deteriorate in some way, of course).
If a computer/video game that was made in 1983 was good in 1983, it will be good in 2817 and any year inbetween.
If something was DEEMED good in the seventies, but nowadays it's just awful garbage, it NEVER was actually good, it was just stupidly SEEN that way for a reason or another.
So time doesn't really make anything worse, it only tests whether the goodness was REAL or not. That's why it is called the 'test of time'.
I think many of the old Disney Cartoons have 'withstood' that test - they were good, are still good, will always be good. I have a soft spot for 'A Hundred and One Dalmatians', for example - the story itself is nothing to type home about, not that the book is that much better..
There was one japanese story that actually spanned like 60 years or so, and showed one entity seeing the world changing all that time, and different other entities becoming friends with them... it was SO interesting to me, because not only did I get to see different eras of japanese history, but also a bit move expansive story when it comes to timespan-focus. It was not just one lifetime, it was like three generations, three lifetimes, but yet, one entity experiencing it all.
So much can happen not only to a character, but to a body, when it stays on a planet long enough, for example, a teenager can grow to an old being, a kid of next generation can grow into an adult, and so on.. these generational things and larger timespans can be extremely interesting, when done well. What a teenager goes through in a world war time is so different from what a teenager goes through in the sixties and seventies, and then again different compared to the '00s.. so many stories could enlarge their timespan-focus like this, without resorting to some stupid time travel stuff..
I mean, there are so many stories, so many ideas, they ABSOLUTELY do not need to resort to taking all these classics and 'remaking' or 'rebooting' them to fit the fema-fascist agenda. Who wants to see that, when they could be seeing some old, forgotten comic story come to life in a beautiful way on the big screen?
But sure, bring us 'Coffee Dark and the Tall Weirdos', maybe it will be really good, original story where a woman becomes a LEADER instead of finding love, because who the heck needs love, when you can be a dictator instead?
I don't mind them doing this, it's pretty funny. What I meant is, if they want to tell a good story, make audiences love them again, and just let people have FUN in theaters instead of being PREACHED this braindead, lie-based agenda crap, they could just take any of the probably millions of ACTUALLY GOOD STORIES out there, and tell them the best way they possibly can, without any agendas and whatnot.
So a man can be strong in some role, and a women can be weak. So what? If the story is good, SO WHAT? Why would the woman always have to be stong in every story? Are women THAT insecure that they can't handle being shown as weak? So basically they're saying that men are strong enough that they don't mind being shown being weak in movies?
What about stories where men and women don't even exist, or at least don't matter, because the focus is on the HUMAN factor, not the masculine/feminine side? What if all people in a movie act as human beings instead of as women/men? What, then? Can't this even be experimented with? I mean, everyone would serve the STORY, not some gender-agenda.
I don't want a movie that does this to serve the agenda of 'genderlessness', either, forcefully trying to make anyone genderless. No. Genders can still exist, but the focus could be the deeper self, the actual human, NOT THE BODY.
The point could be that we are all genderless beings anyway, because we're pure energy, souls, if you will. The body that DOES have a gender, is only temporary, so it can't define us, that can hop from body to body for thousands of years, until we're beyond any need for a physical body to house our soul when we visit this kind of lowly planes of existence.
Wouldn't it be interesting to follow a soul's journey through hundreds, if not thousands of years, showing them living in bodies of both genders? (Ok, there might be a 'third' gender in the form of androgynous body, but it's pretty rare)
Why do stories always HAVE to have such a short timespan-focus?
The name is interesting, indeed.
Please understand I am JUST JOKING (!!) ... but..
How about more truthful names?
'Mud Brown and the Seven Diversity Hires'?
'Charcoal Black and the Group of Dirty Hippies With One Midget Thrown In To Fill The Affirmative Action Quota?'
Why is Peter even in there? If there's ONE dwarf, why can't there be seven? I don't get the logic.. it would actually be more logical, if there were ONLY really tall people in there, and no midgets whatsoever, but they had, FOR SOME REASON (?!) to put one chibi character amidst their otherwise tall group? Why? Is this ever explained?
Finally a bunch of roles those 'vertically challenged' people could fill, and only ONE gets a role? WHY?! Give them the roles, hollyweird, they deserve their time in the spotlight after all these decades of oppression! At least Seinfeld tried and gave roles to many of the 'unmentionable, because I don't know the ever-changing politically correct term'-people.
Personally, I don't care what 'race', 'height' or any other attribute of someone's body is, I wouldn't mind seeing a 'Night Black Asian and the Seven Albino Robots from planet Flargaben', it could be a change of pace. Make whatever you want to make.
However, dancing around all this politically correct stuff, while taking a beloved classic and murdering and slicing it until there's none of the original story or fun left, and then trying to say they did nothing wrong, just looks so stupid and spineless. Just make SOMETHING good and get on with it!
At least be honest with the title, that's all I ask.. a movie with a Latina (why is it so rarely Eskimo, Albino, Japanese, Islandic or Aboriginal instead of Latinas and whatever-the-current-word-for-darker-skin-people-is-now?) as the lead, and tall people as the group, can't in all honesty be called 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves'.
In my opinion, they should just STOP taking some classic and mutilating it - there are SO MANY good stories out there.
I think one of these hollymonsters said something like 'it's good that there's no love'. I mean, when you stop to think about that, it's a pretty horrible thing to say. I know they meant 'the stereotypical love story', probably. But that's what this story IS, why change it just because you think 'woman leader' is more important and interesting (it isn't)?
Basically they want to remove love, they want to remove humanity, they want to remove what people want to see, and replace it with brainwashing, programming, agenda, etc.
It's no coincidence that television shows are called 'programs' and 'progamming', because that's what it is. It's just that the program has gotten stupider and stricter lately..
To me, the logic of 'it was made 85 years ago' and 'it's not 1937 anymore' makes no sense.
Does this mean people had more freedom back then, that we just CAN'T have anymore?
Does this mean we can't have original stories that do not bow down to the fema-fascist matriarchy anymore?
Does this mean we HAVE to make everything the same, repulsive mush for it to be acceptable these days?
Because that logic makes me seem like we lost a lot of freedom and nowadays we ALWAYS HAVE TO incorporate certain 'elements' into stories, or those stories won't be 'acceptable'. This logic sounds very 'let's murder freedom of speech and expression' to me. It sounds very dystopian that you have to 'upgrade' EVERYTHING to conform to an artificial standard that's based on misandry, false image of what human beings and especially women are, or your movie/story can't be made/appreciated, etc.
Wouldn't it be better if it WAS 1937, if that's the case? Wouldn't it be better if people COULD express themselves freely and not have to cowtow to the fema-fascists just to be able to create a story? Because it's not 1937, certain things can't be said, told, made or written to a story anymore, everything - EVERYTHING - has to follow the same, strict, stupid guidelines so everything becomes essentially the same?
So no diversity allowed anymore in storytelling.. women always have to be not only strong, but physically stronger than men. And yet there's no excuse to hit a woman. Doesn't anyone see the incredible hypocrisy here? Stop violence against women, although women are stronger than men. People seriously believe both of these simultaneously.
In any case, the logic behind these 'it's the modern times, so movies HAVE to be like this' is pretty darn oppressive, and at some point, I hope people will break free of this oppression and write WHATEVER they darn well please. Words have no power unto themselves, so no words or stories should EVER be banned/forbidden/agenda-diluted forcefully.
It's so funny to me to watch them take the name of something, then remove all the content that made it popular/celebrated, then replace it with the modern, dull, grey, agenda-ridden stupidity and then wonder why they lost money on the project.
I mean, it couldn't be funnier - the movie is called Snow White (nothing like this in this version) and the Seven Dwarves (only one in this version), so they even go against the title of the movie.
Why make a remake of something if you are not going to appreciate that something, but you rather replace everything that made it that something? If the not only 'whiteness', but SNOW-whiteness (indicating extreme one, as in albinoism maybe?) is a problem in a story, then why remake THAT story, why not remake something like SHAFT instead?
Oh yeah, that already did get remade a long time ago.
My point is, it's a really weird logic to take a BELOVED classic that has a very specific bunch of elements, and then REMOVE those elements and replace them with 'modern agenda' elements, but yet you still call it the same thing? It's NOT the same thing, so why do they call it Snow White and the Seven Dwarves?
It's like doing a remake of Dallas, but placing it in Sweden, and making it about robots fighting over a frozen lake. What kind of sense would it make to still call it 'Dallas', and expect the same audience to appreciate it?
You can't just take some classic and 'update' it to 'modern standards' (as idiotic as those are), and expect people to cheer.
People that love the old one, would never loved a completely mutilated one.
People that never heard of the old one, wouldn't care either way, so why use the name of the old one?
People that WANT to see this kind of agenda-ridden trash with no vision, no story, no imagination, no passion, would see ANY crap you make that follows this line of garbage, so there's no need to even use the name of the old one.
I mean, who is the audience supposed to be? I don't get the logic.
I think I've seen that movie. If I remember correctly, it was pompous, boring, dull, dry, bureaucratic and focused on how scary computers are / can be.
This movie is way more interesting and entertaining, even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Things like 'security' weren't a big priority back then for many governmental entities, corporations, phone companies and so on. Things were not very digital back in the day, so all these analogue signals and all the other very cheapest things the corporations could make work, were easy to phreak into, as they were so widely used.
If you research what phreaking was, how it started, watch the interviews of those people, maybe view some 'HOPE seminars' and such, you might start to get a pretty clear idea that it was actually SURPRISINGLY easy to do things like these, and many others this movie wouldn't show, because it would've looked too ridiculous.
If you were skilled, you could actually WHISTLE certain tones so the phone call would become free and so on, because it was all about tones and frequencies back in the day.
Though it is pretty ridiculous that a judge and jury actually BELIEVED Kevin Mitnick could whistle nuclear codes into a payphone and start World War 3, but that's how ignorant people were - and reading this board and these posts, people still are, sigh.
Please learn already, please?
A 'system' can't be 'highly encrypted' (also, what do you mean by 'highly'?), only data can.
Second, what you claim 'we all know' is wrong. David did not want to 'hack into' any system, secondly, the system was PROTOVISION, a game-making corporation. He wanted to PLAY those games, not HACK. Even if he HAD to eventually hack at some point, (which meant something different back then anyway), it was just a tool, a side effect, it was not his goal, it was not what he WANTED. His want was to play.
No one mentions Pentagon in this movie, by the way, and plenty of people have hacked into these surprisingly lax-security big tech, government and corporate systems WITHOUT PROBLEMS.
Also, even if you were right (and you aren't, because they didn't even think of 'encryption' that early, at least not too much, as it would also have taken so much computing power for basically nothing but more 'beefed-up security', which, again, most corporations and governmental entities didn't care or know much about back in the day), a proper hacker wouldn't just try passwords anyway (which actually are not 'laughable', they are actually surprisingly common - it was VERY, very common even in the nineties and '00s to not change the default router/server password, or to use 'password' or the username as the password - what IS laughable, is that there's only one logon, not 'login and password').
A proper hacker would use all available methods, which include things like SOCIAL ENGINEERING, which is still the weak link in many corporations and probably governmental entities as well. All this 'social stuff' always makes the beefiest security incredibly weak, when the secretary can just be charmed to give a tiny piece of seemingly useless info that can be used to gain a bit more importan info from someone else, and so on.
PLEASE read Kevin Mitnick's books and watch his interviews to realize how full of - no offence - manure your post is.
Your point is correct, but your spelling isn't.
Please write it right - you can hopefully still edit your post. It's not 'Deja Vu'. It's 'déjà vu'. The 'vu' is not capitalized, but you capitalized it in the topic, although you wrote the 'vu'-part correctly in the post itself.
If you are going to write about something, the least you can do is spell it correctly, especially since your post is extremely tiny.
If you are going to write about something, perhaps you could at least elaborate a little bit more - more intelligent people than both of us have ALREADY talked about this part to death, so there's no need to create YET ANOTHER POST about it. How old do you think this movie is? Don't you think many people have pointed out that déjà vu is not something you see or experience twice, but a strong feeling you have experienced the moment you are experiencing before?
'RV' is no masterpiece, but at least it has some heart to it, and Kristin is even more lovely in that movie, even though she shines here, too.
It's weird how these two movies are so different, and yet so similar. It can't be just because Kristin is in both movies, but it definitely is a factor.
Some day I wish to see a movie that pleasantly surprises me.. this wasn't that movie.
I don't know about 'the worst movie of all time', because at least this movie wasn't that boring, it did have one likable character, but that could be because the actress is pretty darn likable (the blonder Kristin that I really loved in the movie 'RV', where she plays a 'literally perfect wife and mother').
However, my main problem with this depressing, unfunny, joyless, miserable mess of a movie, besides all the things that don't make sense (which my memory is actively trying to suppress), all the groan-inducing, predictable stupidities (I saw the 'who's your daddy' coming so very long before they tried to shock me, the 'sleigh ride'..
(why not play the SLEIGH RIDE song here?! So many wasted opportunities, there was a really good potential for a message in the end, Matthew gave the WRONG answer, when the kid asked if we can do this again next year! He SHOULD have learned the importance of being impulsive, and thus said something like 'No, it's better if we just wing it and see what happens and adapt to that when the time comes, because things like these can't be planned'. He didn't give up his planning, like he was supposed to learn to do by the end, but just INCORPORATED a new thing into the plan?! WHAT?!)
..SO clearly had just some completely different-looking stuntman in the wider shots, and the green screen with Matthew looked ABSOLUTELY garbagial (I hope to coin a word here)!)
The movie 'doesn't know what it wants to be', so it dabbles in everything with no commitment to anything. You don't know if you're supposed to root for 'Buddy' (why always these unimaginative names? WHY?! Every movie has someone named 'John', 'Buddy' or 'Valentine', prove me wrong!) or hate him, you don't know what to think about the kids or the wives, except that the wives are 'perfect angels', because women are not allowed to be realistic... the story is all over the place, the character motivations make you scratch your head, and so on.
Even if they were not biologically identical twins, they were identical twins in a very real way: they both look SO GENERIC, you can't remember their faces two seconds after you look away.
How can anyone look so 'faceless' and still have a face, is beyond me, but that there are TWO people can look like that, basically blows my mind (figuratively typing).
..just to do a crappy crossfade just when you'd start seeing something recognizable, only to arrive a weirdly NIGHT-time photo of the area, which, for SOME (?!) reason, doesn't show their house.
Now, if it can show A house (and you could see the street and everything, WHY wouldn't their (by the way, MASSIVE) house be shown?), it can show ALL the houses on the street. The house size difference is not as relevant as the altitude/elevation and zoom factor, the camera/map resolution and such.
Also, why the heck would anyone think it's a LIVE camera, when it's just some satellite/plane/drone photo that might have been taken YEARS ago? Google Maps doesn't show you in REAL TIME what's going on, and you could ALWAYS see houses from the very beginning, it's just that the resolution and photo quality wasn't always there, so it would've looked blurred, but you could still see it.
All you'd have to do is just WAIT a while for them to get better cameras and better quality systems to make the maps show more detail, BAM! problem solved.
I kept waiting for the movie to tell me the REASON their house can't be seen.. and for them to try OTHER map systems, there are many competing ones, you know. It's also weird that they didn't use Google Maps, as it was already announced on February 8, 2005, and was online the very same year.
To add, NONE of the houses on this planet can be 'seen from space', so the whole 'space' thing is PURE HOKUM! Just because a satellite can ZOOM IN and then take pictures that show houses, doesn't mean your house can be 'actually seen from space'. Even 'The Great Wall of China', supposedly can't ACTUALLY be seen from space, but whatever - I guess it depends also on the definition of 'space'.
As I mentioned, many such photos are obtained by using airplanes and such methods, so they're not necessarily even photos taken from space, so there's that as well.
This one detail bothered me throughout the whole movie - what were they thinking?
When you think about it, this is basically 'The Cable Guy' without Jim Carrey.
That movie wasn't particularly interesting, the story was all over the place with mean streaks to it, and the only thing that brought it somewhat to life was Jim Carrey's eccentric performance, as expected.
Matthew's character is just as unlikable, terrible, joyless, depressing thing to look at, as he's character in this movie is. Who the heck wants to watch THAT, when we could be watching David Lightman or Ferris Bueller?
Heck, Cameron is more interesting and less depressing to watch than Matthew's 'adult characters'!
What the Lichtenstein happened to Matthew Broderick? How can he go from playing the most interesting and cheerable socially superpowered characters to these wimpy, soulless, depressed adults that wallow in their own misery, chores, adult life's sad and worrisome side...?
Danny DeVito has also been so energetic and funny in other movies, you have to wonder what the heck happened here. He is SO unlikable in this movie, you want to punch him. He is not funny, even accidentally. Not even once. It's terrible to look at someone genuinely amazingly talented to waste all his talent and not be funny, when you KNOW he can be hilariously comedic in a very powerful way.
It's almost like that movie doesn't know what to make him - at one point, he's a 'typically bad dad', at another point, he's 'super skilled car salesman', and then he becomes suddenly obsessed about... LIGHT BULBS?!
The only part where I noticed a typical 'makes no sense' moment, was when they never explained WHY his house can't be seen 'from space' (as if the 'space' part was important - they DO know how Google Earth/Maps photos are done, right? Some are taken from planes/drones, only SOME are taken by satellites).
I know it wasn't really Google Maps/Earth, but come on. All these 'map' things work in the same way. There's also no need to dive in all the way from 'zoomed-out Earth'..
Just to add a thought - after some consideration, I can think of one plausible reason why he'd be at least somewhat excited that reality conformed to his previously theoretical-only numbers and calculations. He's like a math kid that isn't sure if he understood the math, and overly happy, when it turns out he got some complicated calculation right after all.
It's almost as if Doc cares more about whether his identity as a mathematician is intact than that his invention actually travels through time. It's a very nonsensical scene, Doc's ego can't be THAT fragile and THAT dependent on whether he did some mathematical calculation right or not.
It also showcases how crazy Doc really is, endangering a child's life just to prove he can do math correctly, and then not being even relieved that he didn't commit a murder-suicide, but just relieved his god damn MATH was correct!
Time travel working? Who cares. Not having actually murdered a kid while committing a suicide? Not very interesting.
Getting some math calculations correct? THE MOST HAPPY AND EXCITINGLY EUPHORIC THING IN THE WORLD!!
Doesn't make any sense..