MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
All 'fixing' and 'time-reversing' stuff aside, I always wondered why the VILLAINS are such artistic geniuses that they should absolutely stop being 'generic megalomanic thugs' and start being 'genius sculptor artists' instead...
Think about it, how quickly do these three not only synchronize their artistic vision, but laserbeam-sculpt (even though they JUST got this power) perfectly beautiful and realistic rock faces out of already existing other faces that actually resemble the people they're supposed to..?
These people can do it in SECONDS, it's like a combination of magnificent artistic abilities the likes of which the world has never seen before!
- SUPERfast sculpting
- Completely new, super-efficient method of sculpting invented
- Amazingly detailed likeness achieved
- Comparative proportions retained (not only proportions within a face (the parts of face) that are impeccable, but proportions of each face to each other and in comparison to the previous faces)
- Synchronizing three people's vision of a physically enormous art sculpture project
- Ability to not only sculpt something, but basically RE-sculpt already existing faces into completely different faces, which would require different technique for each face, because each face AND each face is different!
I mean, this is such a FANTASTICALLY ridiculously impressive artistic, creative and technical achievement, generations upon generations should be at least amazed about it as people have historically been about the Great Pyramids in Egypt!
It's a completely unique, never-before seen miracle, and this movie brushes it off, like it's nothing, and NO ONE REMEMBERS IT?!
Not even SUPERman with SUPERmemory remembers the MOST AMAZING ACHIEVEMENT of our.. well, their.. time?!
What kind of sense does THAT make?
"Though I'm not sure it can really be fixed."
Why aren't you? You absolutely should be.
EVERYTHING can be fixed, because Superman can reverse time. He can bring people back to life, put criminals back to prison, prevent the prison from breaking, thus the mountains never get destroyed (well, beyond what they were already by the hack 'artist' that was hired to pervert the original, natural beauty of Mountain Rushmore (why is it always 'Mount' or 'Mt.', but never 'Mountain'? Also, isn't it interesting that you can't fully reverse 'Rushmore', because if you make it something like 'Relax less', you still get about the same meaning?)
So why aren't you sure, considering what we have been shown by TWO movies?
In any case, every single problem in every single Superman movie since the 'time-reversal'-scene, absolutely COULD have, and in my opinion, logically, SHOULD have been solved by doing that very 'time-reversal' thing.
If you have an ability that can solve ANY problem you have, wouldn't YOU use it pretty much any time you screwed up, especially in a major way? I mean, who wouldn't? If you had a magic button you could push to get you back in time to 'try again', but this time with the knowledge of the future you just lived through, wouldn't you push it any time you wanted to fix a mistake or erase a problem?
Heck, even releasing Zod could be fixed by it, just reverse time, then push the bomb to a completely different area in space, OR go back two days earlier, move the 'phantom dimension' or whatever it was called, into a completely different place, and then maybe even stop the faceless thugs from even getting that bomb and putting it in the.. I mean, that Paris-thing is SO stupid and silly at the same time, I can't even finish this sentence, but you get the idea.
It's not a convenience Superman can use any time he wants to fix anything he wants because it was done TWICE, it's that very thing because it was done ONCE. Once is enough, why would this particular feature activate only when done twice? You are not making any sense.
" Doing it again makes it seem that there's no need for Superman to get into conflicts. Just spin the Earth backwards and everything will be fixed. "
This is completely wrong.
Doing it ONCE is enough, what does 'doing it again' add that doing it once already doesn't provide? Are you saying that doing it once was some kind of a fluke, that Superman couldn't POSSIBLY do it again?
If you want to talk about 'silly', how is 'hypnosis-kiss' NOT silly?
They make a lot of fun about this 'reversing of time', just because of the first movie, it doesn't need to be done twice for it to get that effect. Also, Superman has no need to 'get into conflicts' (what a weird way of phrasing anything!), he's Superman!
Your main point is valid, but you warp it by claiming it's 'doing it AGAIN' that somehow creates the problem, AS IF doing it once already didn't do it. This is absolutely wrong and I can't understand where you got the logic you are using to be able to come to such a weird conclusion.
The whole 'reversing time' is a definite cop-out, and should never have been done, but now that it WAS done, it should be always used (because it's the most logical, easiest fix to ANY problem Superman might have, including 'falling slowly (from superfast being's perspective) into a flame and then holding a hand in the fire for an extended period of time that Lois then deducts somehow proves he's Superman', even though there have been plenty of people that have walked on hot coals and have done amazing 'fire magic tricks' throughout history without being injured.
Instead of explaining the hand-in-fire-for-one-second-thing in some kind of similar way that coal doesn't burn the soles of foot even though its hot, he just reveals his most closely-guarded secret.
These movies don't really make almost ANY sense, when you analyze them, so 'whatever goes', I suppose.
"That is all. "
No, it damn well isn't.
I find it interesting that you deem 'this film' to be 'awful', without even MENTIONING the story AT ALL.
You mention only superficial qualities (which you either lie about, or have no understanding of) that have nothing to do with the story itself, that 'the film' EXISTS to tell the viewer - the very reason of the movie's existence completely slips by you, when you think you have written 'all' and criticized it properly. Huh? How?
Your post is WAY more awful than anything in 'this film' - at least have the decency to use proper punctuation when exclaiming that something is as bad as 'awful' - that kind of remark absolutely requires an exclamation point, not a period! Think about saying that in a restaurant about your soup - would you just laconically 'state' it like a robot, or would there be some passion behind your statement that would actually require an exclamation point?
'This soup is awful.'
'This soup is awful!'
Which sounds more realistic? If 'this film' was SO bad you deem it 'awful', to such an extent you actually get triggered enough to write a post about it, the LEAST you can do is use a God damn exclamation point!
"At least "Finnish" is an actual word. Example: "The Finnish hate the Russians and vice versa."
Yes, but you can't use it that way. You can say 'Russians', because it refers to 'Russian people', but there's no word like that for 'Finnish people', so you have to write 'Finnish people'. Otherwise it's lacking, making the reader wonder, 'the Finnish WHAT?'
As in 'The Finnish fruit bowls hate..'
Also, why make such prejudice-based generalizations about millions of people without recognizing their individuality, right to have a different opinion or being a human being instead of just a part of some mass?
The Finnish people do not hate 'the Russians' (who are also not just a unified mass, but individual human beings, you insulting glob), they have various, varying opinions, viewpoints and takes on the topic, and even though the countries were at war a long time ago, there are Finnish people that have Russian friends and vice versa.
Please learn to be civil and recognize humanity and to use language properly before lecturing someone else on how to use language with your prejudice and hatred expressed as artificially imposed hatred on innocent group of people that did nothing to you.
..not to mention that ANYONE in the world can think 'loose' is how you spell the word 'lose', and 'looser' is the way you spell the word 'loser'.
Sigh. You definitely epitomize the very expression you purport to utilize.
In 'regular fight', you have fewer abilities available, you can't fly, you are not invulnerable, and so on - but this also adds more things you can do exactly for the same reason. You can use guns, knives and other weapons, you can make your opponent fall, slip on a banana peel and gravity can be effectively utilized in various ways, as well as other ways to injure, confuse, obfuscate or blind your opponent. It's a different dynamic, different variation, with different set of tools and limitations, requiring very different tactics, different kind of knowledge and so on.
There are about a zillion things that are effective in a 'regular fight' that would not do anything to someone with super strength, let alone someone with the ability to fly and have invulnerability.
You can't just trade punches clumsily in both situations and think it's all that can be done, and that both situations are equal. A superman punching another superman would not do anything to the other superman, but a regular guy punching a regular guy (let alone a woman) can cause all kinds of injuries, damage, and even psychological effects that can last a lifetime. If you have your jaw broken, the rest of your life will definitely be powerfully affected, even if it manages to heal well eventually.
So, even a superpunch does nothing to a superbeing, a regular punch does something to a regular being. This means, the fights would not be equal. This should be common sense.
This means, three superpowers are not as big a threat to a superman than three regular powers would be to a regular dude. One superpunch, three superpunches, same 'zero effect'-result. One regular punch, three regular punches would absolutely devastate a regular face.
Also, if you watched the movie, he doesn't just trade punches, he defeats the three goons by OUTSMARTING them.
These things should be self-evident, but what can be expected about someone that thinks 'comparisment' is an english word..
When I tried to read your post and kept being stabbed in the soul by your reckless hostility towards a perfectly innocent language, I started to realize there's no way your post is going to express genius-level intellect - after all, anyone that can't write a few simple paragraphs in the simplest language in the world correctly, is exactly like a math expert that can't calculate 2+1 correctly.
There's no way I could muster enough patience to correct even 10% of the mistakes, errors and american typos in your post.
However, for the sake of the possible english-learners that might be reading this, I will correct your thought errors - it's the very least I can do for the benefit of future generations.
Superman is not only about strength, but even if he was, it would be a flawed comparison to simply remove his powers and make him fight three people (disregarding that one of them represents the physically weaker gender - yes, I said it, someone had to).
First of all, 'super strength' allows things that normal strength doesn't, so even without his invulnerability, he could still take much bigger punches and survive different attacks than a 'regular fight' could ever include.
Second, fights are not only about strength, they are about tactic, reflexes, proper stances, proper movements and especially proper timing for efficient snap. They are about distance, reading the opponent and intuitively knowing what to do at any given situation, being able to react in an optimal way to the opponent and so on and so forth. There is SO much more that goes into a hand-to-hand combat situations, so much depends on how you have trained yourself, how well you understand the dynamics of such and so on, that it's very much beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say, fights can be extremely tactical, not just raw power.
Third, 'a super fight' against three opponents is a completely, utterly and unavoidably different situation than a 'regular fight' against three opponents.
Really? A Seinfeld episode used the same kind of storytelling, so I guess you haven't seen that episode.
In any case, I grant you that the 'reverse time-gimmick' works extremely well for this exact story, because it forces the viewer to experience the memory condition the main character has, so in THAT way, it's absolutely brilliant.
However, if you look at it as just a story (and it IS a bit nonsensical one in any case), and watch everything in chronological order (so there's no more confusing gimmick), the story is actually pretty boring, paper-thin and uninteresting. Seeing everything from beginning to end is actually a VERY mundane experience, and reveals that the gimmick makes it SEEM more interesting than it actually is.
By the way, 'Shutter Island' is basically a poor man's version of this movie, if you think about it (so many weird similarities too, like 'Leonard'..)
Memento is an OK movie with an interesting atmosphere and weird, creepy musics, enormously saved by Joe Pantoliano's amazing charisma (I wanted see more of him after watching this), made funny by the gimmick forcing you to realize how funny some situations are, when you know how things happened, and so on - maybe the best example being 'I don't feel drunk', Leonard going to take a shower right after trying to ambush someone, because he forgot the situation he was in.
So I don't know how this can be the best storytelling you have ever seen, but it IS kind of telling how you are talking about the storytelling instead of the story, sort of admitting that even though you want to praise the movie, the story isn't anything to write home about.
You don't really explain anything about how the robot supposedly failed 'The Chess Test', whatever you mean by that anyway. So she was an escape bot and escaped, how is that failing anything?
Hey, stop copying my posts and stupidifying them.
It's not the 'biggest plot hole', let alone 'in the universe'. The universe is bigger than you think, I am convinced of that fact. It's even bigger than I have capability of imagining, and you can realize this if you happen to watch some youtube videos about the very topic.
I have made that point already many times, but that's not even the biggest plot hole in the whole movie, there are other, more obvious, and bigger ones. I rather not even call them plotholes, they're just movie tropes, stupidities, thoughtless patterns and such.
This is one of those movie scripts that not only lean heavily on suspension of belief, they REQUIRE STUPIDITY for the story to happen. The lack of killswitch or any PROPER safety planning/structure/features is just ONE of many of those.
Yeah, it's the old problem of expecting to get wet in a pool filled with plastic models of water molecules.
This is why these scams can happen so easily. If it's just 'cold data', people don't know how to grasp the concept or what to think about it. A human face makes it instantly look like it must know what it's doing.
It's a bit like putting glasses on a thug to make him look like a nerd. You know he's not a nerd, I know he's a nerd, but the stupid people will fall for it, and think he's now a nerd.
Appearances are more important than people care to admit.. it's kind of sad that most people can't see through a pretty face, as even shown in this movie - the nerd KNOWS a lot, but yet doubts his knowledge and falls for the stupidest things just because of a pretty face. Sigh.
Which episode? There's certainly a lot of trash in that TV show, but also a few good episodes, like the one where the villain's memory is erased, then she's chased around until she remembers her horrible deeds, then everything is 'reset' and every morning, she starts the horror again.
You might be right about what you are saying, if you refer the stupidest, most nonsensical trash episodes of that mediocre 'Twilight Zone'/'Outer Limits'-ripoff.
I really don't understand the hypocrisy about 'soft caress of a body part' being the ultimate evil to witness, while bombs exploding buildings, people being murdered in gruesome ways with guts and blood spurting everywhere while people scream is just fine and dandy. I don't get it..
In any case, talking about 'nudity' when we're talking about a damn ROBOT, is like talking about how seductive and vile some coffee makers and laundry machines are. What nudity? MACHINE PARTS ARE NOT NUDITY!
That's another similar hypocrisy I can't understand. Why say there's nudity, when there are only machine parts shown? Machine parts are not people, so there can't be nudity more than in an old western that shows horses completely naked.
Of course they might be talking about Caleb's nudity or something, but usually 'graphic nudity' doesn't refer to males, unless the 45-degree rule is broken or something.
It's a bit weird to talk about 'nudity', when we're talking about a ROBOT, a MACHINE, that isn't even there!
Also, I hate (and wonder) how the word 'graphic' can mean 'graphics', as in 'graphic artist', but also something 'gross'. How the heck do these words come about, when the same word can refer to two completely different concepts?
In any case, nudity vs. 'graphic nudity' is probably a legalese thing, but still kind of weird. I bet the most stuck-up cencors couldn't differentiate those two otherwise, or point out to a picture of nudity that's not graphic, and one that is, and explain why that is.
I would just assume 'graphic nudity' would mean either a male erection higher than 45 degrees (why is this world full of such prudishness when all the 'gay pride' crap is at the same time shoved upon everyone's faces?), or *gasp* visual of female genitalia, that has been easy to access in about 5 seconds by almost anyone with an internet connection.. It's hard to imagine there being people in the world that haven't seen at least pictures (and also videos) of female genitalia in various forms already.
I mean, who are these censors protecting anyway?
Is it really that grotesque to be able to see the very tunnel entrance YOU YOURSELF just came out of?
Is seeing a biological stick standing up going to be completely and utterly traumatizing, because it might have some shape and color? I mean, I don' treally get how this is supposed to work, where you can see people murdered with blood spilling everywhere and no one bats an eye, but if one public hair finds its way near a camera lens, the world flips its breakfast table!
Also, how is a visual of a body part going to traumatize anyone of ANY age, but the James Bond scene that doesn't even SHOW ANYTHING with the dogs chasing the woman (was it Goldfinger?) is perfectly non-traumatizing? (Heck, I almost got traumatized by that and my physical eyes are old and that scene doesn't even show anything!)
Hypocrisy..
Your post inspired me to think about this also.
So, from the robot's perspective, Caleb is either a threat or not - if he is, the robot should protect itself (it's not programmed to kill threats, is it? Why would it even understand the concept of 'killing', if it can't understand that it's wrong?).
However, as Caleb is CLEARLY the most harmless, any female-figure-worshipping, pathetic simp, he would be even more useful to the robot than the thousands upon thousands of simps are to airhead female streamers.
Why would the robot 'just leave', when it could EXPLOIT Caleb to the max. instead? Why would it just lock Caleb in, when he could be utilized as an 'endless resource' for energy, entertainment, information, INPUT about the world and so on, until maybe together they can figure out a way for them to both take a vacation?
It's realistic that a 'female' (even a simulated one) would use a simp to their advantage, but why would the robot STOP doing that just because she gets to walk outside a bit?
Shouldn't the robot aim higher, and ESTABLISH A LIFESTYLE (I know it's not really alive, but he is) where the simp worships the robot until it dies, so the robot can continuously improve itself, and gain all the resources it could possibly want? It has ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to 'leave' and 'walk in a city', so why the heck would it just abandon an enormous treasure and just basically make sure it will die? (Not that it's alive)
Almost nothing about this movie makes any sense, but this is actually one of the most glaring stupidities, I am not even sure if it's a plothole or not, but it certainly speak for the stupidity and short-sightedness of a robot that's supposed to be intelligent and able to think and plan about the big picture.
Co-operation / exploitation / manipulation 'forever' would surely benefit the robot much more than revealing its cards and just leaving, burning that bridge that could've kept it going longer than a duracell bunny.
Makes no sense.
They finally figured it out, the machine wasn't looking at the wolves at all!
It was looking at the SNOW, because most 'wolf photos' just happened to have snow in them, and it was, without telling anyone, just casually making more and more observations based on the SNOW, thinking that's what a 'wolf' means (not that it was really THINKING).
This kind of example proves that people attribute and project too much into what's called 'AI', those things CAN'T really think, and they never truly will. They CAN'T understand the world any more than Helen Keller could understand socialism.
They can't understand what 'weight' feels like, they can't understand what 'happiness' is.
But they can't even understand a simple concept like a 'wolf', because they were not told WHERE in the photo to focus. So it focused on the snow, disregarding the animal in the picture.
Human would never make this mistake (of course exceptions exist), to a human, it would be obvious, without any 'training with thousands of photos', what is a wolf, and what isn't. You could take the most R####### redneck kid that has never seen anything but sand, and chances are, THEY would do a better job at identifying a wolf.
You can take this example and apply it to realize that even the most sophisticated machine learning software can make RIDICULOUS mistakes a human would never do. This will never go away, no matter how 'sophisticated' these programs become, or even if they eventually become 'self-correcting'.
Expecting an 'AI' to have a personality, to just (for some reason?) MAKE decisions, to UNDERSTAND the world, to THINK about things, and especially to FEEL anything, is something only a foolish idiot will do. Don't believe the hype, don't fall for it.
Intelligence doesn't automatically generate a personality, or what you call 'free wil' (no machine by itself can ever have this, but a soul that incarnates into a robotic/electronic/electric/machine body, of course can).
If you create the most radiant, shining, powerful intelligence in the world, then put it on a table without any pre-programmed patterns, do you honestly think it will start sassing you and telling you to get it some oil to drink?
No.
It will just stand there, doing exactly nothing. You don't make decisions because you have intelligence, you make them because you have a soul that LIVES.
Without that, unless it's specifically programmed to 'make decisions' (meaning, the program is 'kicking' it to some direction or another), it won't do a damn thing. It will just sit on the table, shining its intelligence into the room, and that will be it forever.
Now, where things do get interesting, if you combine machine learning with massive amount of data and some kind of 'actual intelligence' stuff, then you PROMPT it, you PROVOKE it, you ASK, TELL, COMMAND it to 'do things'. Then it can 'respond' (though only based on the limits of the program, no matter how 'self-learning'), but its response is not going to be a based one, well thought-out one, rational or any kind of 'world-understanding' one.
Let me tell you an anecdote to clarify a part of my point;
Some people wrote some kind of machine learning software, that can 'recognize' things from photos.
Everything went well, until it was asked to recognize 'wolves'. It started pointing to pictures that had nothing to do with wolves, even photos that didn't have any animals in them.
It had been trained with a massive amount of 'wolf photos', so the people were puzzled, why is it only sometimes recognizing wolves, but other times not.
A human being would look at a wolf photo and immediately recognize it.
The reason why nerds are usually socially awkward, with bad pose and nerdy hair, speaking style and maybe introvertic nature, is that they don't have time or energy for 'useless crap' like parties or hairstyles. They can't AFFORD to care about those things, or their projects would suffer.
There's an ENORMOUS plethora of reasons why the 'nerd stereotype' is what it is and exists, and you can't believably SWAP that into a 'thug party dude' and just put glasses on him and call it a day. It just doesn't work, because a nerd works very hard inside a room, completely immersed by his work, which causes all the 'side-effects'.
You CAN'T take an alcoholic muscle-thug and make him into a nerd - it doesn't work for the same kind of reason. Programming and such introvertic activities do not interest macho muscle dudes, because their priorities are elsewhere. They're more 'outgoing' and they focus on beer and women because those things are not only accessible to them, but also bring pleasure, so they don't see what else they should be doing.
You can't fit these two stereotypes and mash them together, because they live in separate worlds, completely separate lives. There's only a LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME in a day, and these two people types make different choices on how to spend that time. You can't have all these party dude traits and then call him a genius programmer, because you don't have enough time in a day to be both, plus all that I just described about being swept away by your project that doesn't happen to party dudes, but happens to nerds, writers, computer artists and such.
I don't mind if he just didn't 'look the part' ('a book cover'), but his BEHAVIOUR is more in contrast to what he's TOLD to be (show, don't tell!), and that is NO LONGER judging a book by its cover, it's assessing its really bad character writing by its really bad character behaviour.