MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
It's scary, because I have painstakingly learned 'skills' that I can only use as long as those kind of things remain in my possession. If .. err, WHEN I am whisked to a completely different world, it's all going to be for naught, and I have to learn comparable skills all over again from scratch.
For example, if I learned how to create music in a very specific, non-mainstream way, then suddenly I have to live on a planet that doesn't have that, I have to learn to do it in a very different way, and it's going to take years.
Anticipating this makes me sad and frustrated, maybe even a bit angry - it means everything I have painstakingly learned will be flushed down the toilet, and I have to start from zero and probably have to spend years learning different methods and ways to do those things (Creativial [sic] people have to be able to create, or they will go crazy).
However, MacGyver made me realize, I have been clinging too much, and making 'happiness of creativity' CONDITIONAL, so now it's no longer free. I should be able to always find ways to be creative, because I am me (hurrah! .. anyone that gets this reference, I want to draw a pixel art cookie for), and there are always ways to create, even in different worlds.
If THIS wretched garbage dump of a planet has ways to create that fit my peculiar soul, I am sure better worlds will have them, too. I mean, even cavemen were able to scribble something on the walls, and it's considered art. Sure, they couldn't do pixel animation (or maybe they could, after all, there were highly advanced bases underground back in those days), but at least it was something. If I can't compose music with computers, maybe I can just whistle with people and improvise melodies.
If I can't animate little sprites running all over the screen, maybe I can become a thespian or a playwright or something. Perhaps I can learn notation and compose anyway.
Letting go may be a bit sad, but MacGyver has shown us that we CAN do it!
But when it comes to your car - whether fully paid or not -, your house, your knick-knacks you hoarded your house full of, your gift cards, game accounts, numbers in a bank's server's hard drive, gold, paintings, rugs, toys, electronics, analogue synthesizers, or even people, pets, trees, family heirlooms, your ranch, tractors, private jets or your favorite couch..
..you can't.
You have to - you _HAVE_ to - let it ALL (!) go. There will be a time, when you not only MUST, but WILL be separated from every single material possession you now have, or will have.
No matter how hard you worked, no matter how long a distance you traveled, no matter what planet you lived on previously, how how many UFOs you saw - you have to let go of everything external ANYWAY at some point, because you can't remain with your possessions forever. Oh, sure, you might be able to CLING to something for decades, if you are desperate and insane enough, but eventually, it will rust, break, transform.. eventually, your physical body will disappear and you will be living in a completely different world, where none of that stuff can follow.
Then all you have is YOU. You can't bring your hard drive full of your granddaughter's baby pictures with you. You have to become a MacGyver, you have to learn to make do with what you ARE, not with what you have, because you will have nothing - and you will be happy (ironically spiritual statement from that fat satanist, just as a sidenote).
To me, this kind of thought used to be a bit scary, because I found the kind of treasures that aren't duplicable, because they're not made anymore. Some handmade electronics stuff that no one makes anymore, for example, that does an extremely interesting and creatively useful thing and so on.
What do you expect?
You can always trust Disney to rip off all meaning of a story, then replace it with useless romance, action and sugarcoating every message that still remains, and then twist the resulting mess to fit their agenda, and profit.
It's amazing how faithful some movies are, though, considering all this. For example, "One Hundred and One Dalmatians" (1966) (NOT '101 Dalmatians', by the way!), is in some ways even better than the original book, which has a lot of useless stuff and goes to weird and wild directions sometimes.
It's not even all that 'cutesy', when you think about it - and it has an amazing atmosphere in some points, something that has been lost a long time ago. Just look at the 'Twilight Bark' scene from beginning to end, and admire the silent beauty of the starry sky. Nowadays, this kind of slow-paced atmosphere would never be allowed anymore, no one has time to admire the stars in silence (relatively speaking, anyway - there's no music constantly bothering you).
In any case, Disney always mangles the originals, removes important messages, and especially turns 'sad endings' to 'happy ones', because that's profitable. People don't want to go to movies to feel bad, they want to feel good. In this kind of a world, who can blame them..?
Maid Marion is a princess of sorts, so Robin has to be called 'PRINCE of thieves' - Prince!
Then we have Spaceballs with a 'secret prince' (groan), and of course the original Star Wars movies can't have a female protagonist without her being a PRINCESS! Holy cow, when will it end?
Of course no one seems to care that Leia CEASED to be a princess the moment the planet Alderaan was destroyed. How can you be a princess if you don't have a kingdom? WHAT MAKES YOU A PRINCESS?
This question is so important, and yet, it's never answered in these movies. Someone JUST IS a princess, and that's that. No explanation, no exploration or examination of the kingdom, no questioning of whether a king has any right to even BE a king, considering any form of government derives its power from the consent of the governed, or as Monty Python once put it, 'mandate from the masses'.
These 'power structures' have been abused throughout history, and I don't think there has ever been a 'benevolent king', because such king would be quickly murdered and his throne usurped by the megalomanic, power-hungry cabals that always slither around any position of power, sometimes in deep shadows.
So when you consider a princess, you have to IMMEDIATELY take away ANY HOPE for equality - a princess can only exist if there's a king and this means a kingdom, which means OPPRESSIVE, UNLAWFUL SYSTEM of government where the masses did NOT give their consent or mandate to be governed by!
(They try to ridicule the Freemen of the Land, but when you honestly research that stuff, you might become deeply disturbed as to how sneakily the masses (most people) have been duped by using their own consent against them, the only way around the supposed protection of the constitutions, but this is a massive topic, impossible to explain in a single post)
My point is, where there are princesses, there is cruelty, oppression, injustice, wrongful government and peasants endlessly exploited and hoarders of gold and luxury..
Isn't that what princesses ARE?
I mean, think about any real-world princess; they have everything brought and made for them, they are served and pedestalized in multiple ways for all their lives, they are told they have 'subjects' (no equality there), and they are to be worshipped.
What else can you become but egotistical, materialistic a-hole in such an environment, and being born to the female gender doesn't help, either. Women love shiny things, and they think it's perfectly normal for a man to buy them a REALLY expensive ring (if man makes a million bucks a year, women expect a quarter of that to go to a dang ROCK... I can't understand this mentality or cluelessness, and this is not even princesses, just regular hags on the street - there are shocking youtube videos about how clueless, materialistic and greedy women are when it comes to men and wedding rings, and the female expectation seems to know no bounds)..
..instead of spending that money on something useful, like an electric car, a thousand meals for the homeless, starting a campaign or a small startup to help this planet in some humble way. No, it has to ALL go to a damn rock someone found in the ground.
How could anyone expect princesses to be any better?
By the way, why are there SO MANY PRINCESSES? Why is every female protagonist a PRINCESS?
I mean, men don't dream about princesses, but women do dream about BEING princesses, as well as being married to princes. Why? Power, wealth, money, control, dictatorship or oligarchy over 'peasants'.
Women always want to be seen as being above the masses, the regular people don't interest them. Hence, Disney offers women exactly what they desire; princesses, kingdoms, princes, money, power, subjugation of millions of people, above which the woman floats like an evil goddess.
What else are princesses all about? I am so sick and tired of every damn damsel in a movie being a princess, either secretly or for real. Even comedies can't get rid of it...
"..they preached messages designed to keep girls who came of age in the 1990s dumb, shallow and impulsive."
Always worried about the females, right? Men get slaughtered, injured, beaten up (often for just saying something 'wrong' to a female), and no one cares. But a girl gets a 'message', and it's the end of the world.
First of all, why would they do that, who would benefit?
Secondly, have you looked at the world, and all the stupid people lately? Newsflash; women ARE dumb, shallow, materialistic, impulsive and entitled.. among a thousand other ridiculous and egomaniacal sosiopathic things.
Women have so much socio-sexual power, they can basically do anything and not even get a slap on the wrist. They have more social interaction, attention and sex than they can ever dream of, and then some, while men are in abject poverty and forced abstinence when it comes to those things.
Women don't have to strive or struggle to get anything, if not simps, then governments and corporations give women so much freedom and free stuff, the glass floor will never break under them. Men have no such luxury.
Yet, your biggest problem is that a movie gives some kind of 'message' to females to be dumb. Err, does someone become dumb because a cartoon has a message that they should be? That's not how wisdom works (dumb = lacking in wisdom, stupid = lacking in intelligence, ignorant = lacking in knowledge, so did you even choose the right word here?).
Maybe you are barking at the wrong tree - perhaps women do not become dumb or shallow or materialistic because this cartoon tells them to become that - as a sidenote, did you think women were perfect angels before they watch a Disney cartoon, then become what you see around you? - just think about the origins of the word 'materialistic' or 'matter'. Yes, it comes from 'mater', 'mother'..
Also, you seem to think that females ARE those things before they 'come of age', and this cartoon just KEEPS them that way (by 'messages'?)..
"Should they reboot Indy as a Chinese-African disabled Communist lesbian with green hair?"
BTW, why capitalize the word 'green'? It's not a name. Also, adding things to your question after you already used the question mark is just wrong.
To answer your actual question:
I know you are being sarcastic, but actually, I would want to see that movie..
By the way, I take it that you haven't seen Plinkett's review of the Star Wars 'prequels', or you'd have realized the implications of using two sixes anywhere.. (let alone in your own name, geez!)
..when you can look at so many interesting and inspiring things all around you - heck, if nothing else, you can always view a few Monet paintings and get 'the feels'.
But what is being shoved into our faces by these soulless corporations is always so grey and lacking in anything that could touch us in a meaningful way. Movie posters used to have energy, excitement, intrigue and inspiration to them, quirkiness and some kind of visionary radiation about them. Just look at the humorous but at the same time, exciting 'Back to the Future' poster. You immediately want to know more and get excited about the movie.
Modern movie posters couldn't make the viewer yawn more by comparison.
It's so obvious when a corporation, group or entity doesn't have imagination.
Look at musk and anything musk has 'created' and owns. Tesla was not his invention, and thus it has the most imaginative name, but even that's just a exploitation of a historical genius.
If YOU were going to conquer the universe by traveling into the stars, wouldn't you come up with something more imaginative than 'Space + masonic X'? They just took the word 'Space', and added the most masonic letter, and said, 'perfect!'.
Why not 'Cosmoration' ('Cosmos Exploration') for something more unique, just off the top of my head? Why not at least SOMETHING more imaginative than taking a regular word and adding an 'X'?
What about 'Boring Company'. I realize it has a bit of potential for a 'pun', but really? Just taking what it's supposed to do and adding 'company' - not to mention, it looks like that name is already reserved for another corporation or something!
This goes with every single thing they have ever named that I am aware of. Hyperloop? You just take 'loop', and add 'hyper' to it - WHAT IMAGINATION!!
Not to just rag on that guy (even if you can be a bit shocked as what he has gotten away with if you watch some 'Thunderf00t'-videos of him), this lack of imagination seems to permiate all over the place.. no one seems to have imagination anymore.
At least the Názi organization called 'NASA' sounds unique and interesting, even though 'Never A Straight Answer' seems more apt description of them.
When these corporations clearly function from greed, control, agenda ad dictation from the owners of them instead of vision, good story, excitement and inspiration, the end result will, OF COURSE, always be lackluster, uninspired and unimaginative.
It's sad to see this, when you can just so easily look at nature and see true creativity in the form of a simple tree, let alone the actual diversity of nature in so many amazing forms, when you can look at Hubble Deep Space photos..
In the end, I don't really care what 'ism' any social group in history properlly or inaccurately represented or didn't.
Socialism, communism, capitalism, or some completely different system could ALL work absolutely perfectly and create the most harmonious, utopistic happiness for the people of this planet, IF the planet was filled only with good people anyway.
With good people, almost any 'ism' or method would work and be wonderful, because no one would want to do anything evil.
With evil people, almost any 'ism' or system is doomed to failure, because the most evil psychopathic dictators and control freaks will always end up having the handle of power, so to say. Things like corporations are soulless sociopaths that have all the rights of people, but none of the responsibilities, and can suffer no proper consequences (100 million fine is nothing to a modern corporation, for example).
So it's not really about the system, it's about what kind of people we have - the most humane system would rot and turn to evil with evil people corrupting it, and the best possible system will turn evil as well, with evil people controlling it.
Capitalism and Communism are both basically evil systems, both with a 'well-meaning core'. In Capitalism, CAPITAL is more important than people.
In Communism, you have no rights, because community is more important than individual.
It'd be better if there was no 'ism', but this world is so crazy, and its people so evil, ignorant and stupid that I don't know if ANY system would work in the long run. Capitalism has had a pretty good run, relatively speaking, but look at what the corporations are doing, look at what's more important, oil or people's lives when the drones keep murdering children... it's not the system, it's the people behind the system.
I have to keep myself from unleashing a torrent of sarcasm in your general direction.
Why do people focus on this kind of things? It's like catchphrases, tropes, 'expected things' are more important than actually good story, good movie, good storytelling, good worldbuilding.. NO WONDER hollyweird gets away from pushing the stupidest trash in people's faces.
Which movie would you rather watch?
1) Crap movie with logo done exactly as in every Indy movie opening
2) Excellent movie without anything done with the logo
I mean, what's wrong with people when they focus on this kind of things as if they're the most important points they can think of? Didn't the fourth movie begin 'properly', and yet it was trash anyway? Wouldn't it be a REFRESHING CHANGE if the movie began some other way?
Would it be more interesting to see something you have never seen before, than have your every expectation and desire for a stupid trope fulfilled?
Just to nitpick a little bit; you don't have to PLAN to not do something, because 'not doing' is already your default mode. You wake up 'doing nothing', then you decide to DO things.
People function that way - they only plan for things they are GOING to do, which is why asking 'why not' is illogical and somewhat insane as well. No one decides NOT to do something every day for every single thing they could theoretically be doing, otherwise, there'd be no time for anything else (and you couldn't finish that list in a day anyway, let alone every day).
I don't have to plan to NOT watch something, to end up not watching that something. All I have to do is refrain from making a plan TO watch it.
"I don't plan to watch it" is VERY different from "I plan to not watch it".
You can just passively 'not do' something, but your way requires actual EFFORT of planning, even though the result is the same.
Have you ever heard the saying that only insane people work very hard, wise people get away with extending much less effort? (I am paraphrasing)
It's better to just not do anything about it, it'd be downright stupid to plan to 'not do' something, as this 'planning' already requires doing at least something. Not planning to do anything is effortless, as you don't even have to plan to plan to not do something.
Just be. It's that simple.
Nice trolling! I mean it without sarcasm, it's well done and almost believable!
Look, people ALREADY focus too much on the physical and the external.
Which would you rather watch?
1) A wonderful, well-written movie where villains wear glasses, but which has an amazing, unique story
2) Same old cliché trope-filled remake-crap you've seen a thousand times already, but villains are glasses-free
I'd rather remove all masonic symbolism, like eyepatches and skull and crossbones and all that crap rather than glasses.
Glasses are a realistic, random feature on anyone, regardless of if they are a villain or not. Why can't a villain have a 'disability'? Are you saying villains have to be physically perfect specimens? You are not making any sense. Why can't villain have ANY physical attributes regular people have? PLENTY of people wear glasses, the chance that a villain wears them are actually pretty high, realistically speaking. A villain wearing eyepatch is WAY more annoying, because it'd be statistically much less realistic or likely, and I have never known ANYONE who wears one. Even one-eyed people usually have a GLASS EYE instead (watch Columbo, for example), and even that doesn't have to be a big deal.
If you noticed, even Indiana Jones has been known to wear glasses from time to time, why not?
Only good guys wearing glasses would be absolutely ridiculous and focusing on the WRONG THING again.
Stop focusing on PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES and start focusing on the good story, good atmosphere, good acting performances, good locations, good dialogue, good immersion and so on instead, ok? PLEASE?
What do you have against Japanese, are you a racist?
I mean, Japanese still exist, for crying out loud, and they are people just trying to live their lives in a certain country.
Nazís were a POLITICAL GROUP hell-bent on racistic WORLD DOMINATION. Japan only did the atrocities, not because they planned to, but because circumstances drove them towards that direction and they didn't know how to put on breaks at the time.
They are NOT the same people that current Japanese are, so doing this kind of thing would be incredibly insulting and racistic. WHAT country hasn't done atrocities in history? Your kind of thinking is just like always talking about black slavery and blaming current white people for it.
I know many japanese people, and they're great human beings, for crying out loud.
Don't use history as a weapon and an excuse to be a racist, hmmkay?
What's wrong with Nazís?
I think you mean what's wrong with USING them as the enemy in a movie.. I SERIOUSLY hope that's what you mean.
In any case, it's wrong because it's the LAZIEST thing you can do for a villain or enemy in a movie. It's the 'historical bad guy' (after all, the winners write history), Hitler is thought to be the most evil man in all history, the Nazís the most evil group in history (although looking at Mao and Communism.. but we're not allowed to mention that), so it's not exactly CHALLENGING or expression of creative writing to utilize 'those guys' as the villain.
It doesn't require any thought, everyone already hates Nazís, so you don't have to do any character building or worldbuilding, it's all premade. It's like using stock footage or writing only tropes and clichés, or some premade texture pack that everyone uses.
It's not completely wrong, of course, but it's just so incredibly lazy, that unless you use it well or have something new to say, a new angle to the whole thing, or are able to make good comedy out of it, it's just so obviously lazy, it should raise an alarm in anyone wishing to see a good movie with good writing.
All this diversity and tokenism... I have a couple of things to say.
1) Isn't it the MOST RADICAL, wild idea, to have not only actual white people in a movie, but an all-white cast? (Though I don't like that term, I am too lazy to always explain it properly) I mean, what could be more 'edgy' in the modern times than defying the norms that strongly?
2) It's kind of hard to make Nazís any other race, exactly because of that they were and what ideologies they supported. To talk about 'Aryan race' being superior to other races, it's kinda hard to then suddenly turn 180 degrees and start being very inclusive. Has anyone ever seen a black or asian Nazí in a movie? I mean, it'd not be AS outrageous as a black queen of England in a historical drama or black Cleopatra, but it'd still be hilarious.
I guess the makers of this fantasy movie with time travel wanted to take history seriously or something..
For Indy to have aged visibly AT ALL, it would have to mean HUNDREDS OF YEARS have passed.
How old was the knight in the third movie that drank from the cup? Indy drank from the Holy Grail, so he essentially has drank from the fountain of youth - 'every man's dream' - so ANY visible aging, as well as any masonic eyepatch-symbolism makes NO SENSE at all.
After all, it's not only about slowing down aging, it also HEALS WOUNDS instantly, so he basically shouldn't be able to lose an eye or injure it enough to need a masonic eyepatch.
So now Indy has become E.T. and Back to the Future.. aliens and time travel, instead of keeping Indy actually the Indy he was back in the day - a separate franchise.
It's interesting that he doesn't believe in magic although he has seen pretty darn magical stuff in those movies. Who would SAY that after witnessing all that?
He should also be under the influence of divine magic anyway, since he drank from the Holy Grail, which has the power to heal injuries and wounds instantly, but also the power to slow down aging considerably, and yet we see Indy has aged - this makes no sense, of course, but since when do people in hollyweird understand even their own movies..?
Because they already added time travel into the story, that could be the ONLY saving grace that would make 'aged Indy' possible; Indiana Jones coming to 1969 from 2369 or something would make sense, by THEN, he'd have aged visibly, I reckon'.
But just Indy aging without that kind of explanation makes no sense, as we should all remember the character DRANK FROM THE CUP OF CHRIST, so he should be basically aging EXTREMELY SLOWLY, but he seems to have aged exactly the same speed as Harrison Ford did... what a weird coincidence.
There shouldn't even BE anything else than a 'young Indy', because Indy DRANK FROM HOLY GRAIL, so he shouldn't be able to AGE (at least visibly).
At least visually young Indy, is what I am saying.