MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
It's not a ''leftfield sequel' (such terminology doesn't exist), it's a SPIN-OFF. Try to learn the terms at least, especially if you think leaving a 2-word comment is adequate communication for a discussion board.
Also, completely disregarding all that, you don't explain at all why you think they _HAD_ to 'modify' ('completely change' would be more accurate) Evan's character. What the heck do you mean they had to? Who forced them? They could've done anything they wanted, they didn't have to do ANYTHING they didn't want to!
My point is, if you _HAVE_ to change some character, then why not just make a completely new, different character? This kind of movie could've worked just fine (or better), if Steven had been a completely different character! This movie didn't have ANY kind of need to be connected to Bruce Almighty's world in ANY WAY, the story doesn't require it!
Then again, everything about this movie baffles me about as much as your thought process when you thought it was a good idea to write that nonsensical comment, no offence.
Yeah, I wrote some criticism already, but you reminded me of the 800 additional criticisms that formed in my mind watching this absolute, utter garbage.
One of my criticisms is that this character, even after about two or five minutes into the movie,
_ABSOLUTELY_
is not Evan Baxter. This is _NOT_ the same character! This is Santa Clause Tim Allen trying to be Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey in Michael Scott-kind of way, and it doesn't even work as a Liar, Liar-type hard-working, family-neglecting dad.
How do these brilliant actors choose turds like _THIS_ instead of something innovative, original and creative? There must be 8000 much better stories in friggin' Batman fan-fiction alone, let alone if someone really went to search for good stories!
Heck, I probably have about 20 stories or buds of stories in my cupboard that would've made movies that could be described as ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, at least compared to this one, even if a lot of it was botched.
Holy cow, it never ceases to amaze me, because it's MIRACULOUS that so many HUMONGOUSLY VAST superSTARS [sic] agree to do these movies that are just absolutely same quality as pig feces would be as gourmet food.
How does this keep happening? It's not just one or two crazy actors, it's almost ALL of them - just take any 'big superstar' from this kind of era that has appeared in some really good, popular movie or TV show (like The Office), and then check all the garbage they have appeared in.. you will be surprised and shocked as to how LOW quality crap (even as crap, it's low quality) they have appeared in.
HOW? Is it blackmail? Does hollyweird have THIS strong hold of its actors? What's going on here? Also, WHY DO THEY KEEP CHURNING OUT THESE AWFUL SPIN-OFF MOVIES?! WHY?!
You should say 'have seen' instead of 'saw' in this context.
Also, 'a lot' is wrong with things that are quantifiable. You can say 'a lot of water', but you can't say 'a lot of movies' and be correct. You have to use something like 'many'.
I agree about the movie, almost - it's not the WORST movie I have ever seen (might not be a 'film', byt he way, but I will let that slide for now - people still use words like 'film' and 'record', even though there is NO film involved, NO records were used, etc., and I can't understand why), but it's definitely not even 1% as good as 'Bruce Almighty', and I pretty much hate that movie.
One point I'd like to make that I forgot; so the whole thing is, because God is involved, he must, instead of something NEW and CREATIVE, do something REPETITIVE and BIBLICAL, and force someone into a Bible Character's role.
It's like.. I would say you can't make this up, but someone not only made this up, but thought it was GOOD enough an idea to be made into a movie! HOW?
Also, there must be like 80 000 REALLY, really good, original, wonderful movie ideas, premises, stories and even fully-fledged novels, great fan-fiction, amazing creative writing that NEVER, EVER gets made into a movie, but hollyweird has NO PROBLEM shoveling this crap into our faces.
This is the most frustrating part that I can never understand.. why can't I stumble upon something creative and original when I browse the bargain bins? It's always garbage like this or worse, holy (pun intended) cow.
You don't know how to write simple english correctly.
You don't know what 'capital letters' are.
You never even heard of punctuation.
Your reasoning skills are nil.
You don't know how to write more than a few lines, probably with your thumbs, too.
You found this movie good and funny.
It all checks out, it makes sense.
Jesus the Christ was and is not any 'eastern'. He is a DIVINE BEING, and was already third-level entity when he agreed to help this wretched planet by incarnation.
Remember that Mary was a virgin - she gave BIRTH, but she was never inseminated, never copulated, there was no coitus. How do you think this was achieved? By some 'middle-eastern' thug? No.
Mary was artificially inseminated by seed that can HANDLE the higher vibrations and stronger energies of a Messiah-level entity that would simply DESTROY regular body or at least kill it. A high-level entity entering the physical realm requires a MUCH more robust and stronger body than a mere regular dude from the time can provide with his seed.
This is the REASON why Mary was a virgin, because the seed had to be gathered from a much HIGHER-level entity, which means his body was definitely not 'middle-eastern' in origin no matter HOW you slice it, and the mother's genes were not incorporated as much. Was Mary 'middle-eastern' as well? Were 'races' the same back then?
In any case, as the seed for his body came from a higher being, not mere regular dude, that being's skin color is probably what would dictate Christ's skin color.
To add, why would the skin color always matter so much these days? WHO CARES about the skin color, isn't the MESSAGE more important? Also, this is not really a movie that has any accuracy about almost anything ANYWAY, the Ark doesn't mean 'boat', God is not supposed to tamper with free will but FORCES Baxter to be Noah, and so on and so forth. Why would you even make this kind of post?
To add, even IF the Christ's body's (not his, but his TEMPORARY BODY's!!) skin color was something 'unfair', wouldn't it APPEAR to be 'fair' anyway due to Messiah's high level radiance that's depicted in old paintings by a round shine around his head? I mean, no matter what your skin color is, if your soul radiates PURE LIGHT, wouldn't that make the skin appear 'bright and glowy' in any case?!
You LOST!
The thing is, if you go down THIS road, it's an endless 'hollyweird doesn't know anything'-bash. It would probably end around the year 182771, but it would certainly feel endless.
I mean, movies make this kind of 'mistakes' all the time, because they don't care to research, they don't have the intention, budget or interest in depicting anything too realistically, and so on. Movies are meant to tell a story and be ESCAPISM, not to bring you into the most realistic thing that you might as well just watch out your window.
Movies are MEANT to be unrealistic, because they're supposed to take you into the world of entertainment, give you something fun, after which, you can return to the dreary realism that you wanted to escape from in the first place.
There's no such finnish name as 'Rava', and finnish accent is nothing like depicted in that Seinfeld episode. Yet no one cares, because it's just a funny comedy show.
Japanese spoken in a completely atrocious accent and no one in the movie seemingly notices? Complete gibberish lines used to depict chinese hanzi or japanese kanji? Heck, just watch 'Tokyo Breakfast' to see how messed-up cultural depictions can be (there's so much chinese stuff in a supposed japanese show, it's mind-boggling).
No one cares, because it's not the point of the movie/show/whatnot.
Colombia not being exactly like it is in real life, in a movie? HOLY COW, get FBI and CIA and ARREST THOSE FILMMAKERS IMMEDIATELY!! That palm tree leaf is the WRONG SHAPE and it's ruining my breakfast!
"I may have to live in a third-world toilet, but at least the movies DEPICTING this country should be accurate!"
It's like, really, if you live in a place that is so pleasant and good you can actually afford to nitpick about movie details, maybe your life is so good that your posts come off as first-world problems.
Why would ANYONE care if something is 'depicted wrong' in a movie? This together with 'cultural appropriation' means no one can soon make ANYTHING.
Americans.. isn't Colombia also in America? I mean, USA is not the only America, there's north America, south America and even Canada is probably on the 'continent of America'. The original 'America' label pointed towards a completely different place anyway, so WHAT exactly do you mean by 'Americans', and 'dumb american way' (why capitalize the 'Americans', but not 'american'? At least have consistency!)
" Obviously movies are going to focus on things like that, because it wouldn't be much of a movie without conflict."
Why do you think this is so obvious?
Why do you think you can know THIS was the reason?
Have you ever seen Koyaanisqatsi, made way before this movie? I would consider that a 'much of a movie', but it has ABSOLUTELY no conflict.
What gives?
"Just to quote some there's the Harrison Ford movie, recent Mr. & Mrs. Smith... you know there's a lot."
I suggest you research what the word 'QUOTE' actually means. You weren't quoting anything there.
Furthermore, you point to TWO things, one of which, you don't even mention the name of, and you say 'there's a lot'?
To add, what you are talking about is quantifiable, so you can't use 'a lot' (although I have to commend you for at least typing it correctly, instead of 'alot', which is an error you see.. well).
You need to use the word 'many'. You could use 'a lot' when talking about non-quantifiable things, for example, liquid, gas, energy, interference, or some kind of abstract flow.
So before criticism a movie for depicting something wrong, perhaps you could correct your own representation of the english language, first.
"That scene with the Grateful Dead pilot was also kind of dumb. "
Your first point is .. well, on point.
However, this one would need an explanation - what's so 'dumb' about a drug-smuggling pilot crashing in the jungle?
That no one would've found the plane (with so much money at stake, people would definitely have been searching for it)?
That those two goofballs found it SO easily (so anyone should've been able to find it back when it crashed, so there wouldn't have been any drugs in there)?
That animals wouldn't have gotten into the plane and ravaged all its 'treasures'?
And so on..
I don't see what's particularly 'dumb' about that scene.
The 'THE Joan Wilder?!'-scene is ridiculous, because it's not only idiotic and EXTREMELY unlikely, but also unrealistic and worst of all, AWFULLY cartoony. So any criticism towards it is warranted, and the scene is so obviously over-the-top goofy unrealism, you could never escape that situation that way in real life - it's easy to understand and obvious why someone might not like that scene.
But the crashed plane scene is NOT obviously cartoony or weird. In fact, it's downright subtle. What's 'dumb' about it escapes me, and is definitely not obvious at all. So this one requires an explanation, if you want anyone to agree with you. Compared to so many things in the movie, I don't think THAT scene deserves almost any criticism besides the nagging stuff (which, sadly, is realistic).
"Many dictators, drug lords and such have strange likes and past times"
Um.. PAST times? Really? Honestly? This is the best you can do?
Do they really carry around past TIMES in their pockets somehow? Do these dictators have access to some kind of time-traveling pockets or how the heck do they just have 'PAST TIMES', maybe as collections on their 'time-wall'?
Please, please learn to write correct english so I don't have to push your head in the embarrassing turd you somehow scraped together and make you sniff it until you realize how it stinks and maybe you'll learn to think a couple of times what you are actually typing before so carelessly clicking the 'add reply'-button.
It's "pastime", not 'past time', for crying out loud!
People should also learn 'a lot', 'every day' vs. 'everyday' and such, but one thing at a time.
Also, dictators having weird tastes does _NOT_ translate to their personality doing a 180-degree turn just because the author of some book is there, and them becoming EXTREMELY CHILDISH with bubbly excitement.
Even if an evil dictator with blood and drugs on their hands WERE in a situation where they suddenly meet an author they respect, they would still treat them with suspicion and evil demeanor, even if they were to extend a 'friendly posture' towards them. Remember, these are people of power - no matter how weird, they are STILL not a DAMN CARTOON CHARACTER, which, I think, was the whole point of the original post.
The whole sequence is just so stupidly cartoony.
What bothers me more, though, is 'Lupe's Escape', which is like 10 cm deep, 2 meter wide 'river' that anyone could EASILY cross, with or without a car. If you are going to create a moronic thing like that, at least make the river look wild and un-crossable without a bridge or a skilled canoeist (?).
That's the wrong question.
"Anyone know if the snake was really killed?"
Yes, someone knows.
That's the only answer to a question like that.
But there's more! It's not about 'if THE SNAKE was really killed', which implies no props could've been used, there was just 'THE SNAKE' and it was either killed or not.
A better question would've been, whether they actually KILLED A SNAKE or just 'hit a prop'.
Your logical thinking needs a lot of work, but then, that's probably why you can't figure out this kind of things for yourself, and have to come to discussion boards to ask inane questions instead of exploring some insight about the movie or how it depicts the world or whatnot.
"Did they really kill a snake?" would've been a better question. 'Anyone know' is bad grammar anyway, you should've asked 'Does anyone know' to even create a proper question.
To even include the word 'anyone' is redundant, since anyone CAN answer a question, so you could've just asked a question instead of uselessly adding a word like 'anyone' in there. Why add that? What does it change? Now that you added it, ANYONE can answer, but if you hadn't added it, only some people could answer?
So you are not even asking about the snake, you are asking about some mysterious 'anyone''s KNOWLEDGE.
People are answering the wrong question here, they should only answer about this 'anyone' and their knowledge base, not about the snake. The question is about whether 'anyone KNOWS' a certain thing.
"Does that entity know this thing or not?" <- THAT is the question people should be answering here. I don't know why they are answering the wrong question about some 'THE SNAKE', when there could've been multiple snakes on the set anyway, some of them real, others not.
I have no hope for humanity, communication, people's thinking, logic or english skills... how do you people live with yourself, sleep at night or look yourself in the mirror without wanting to hang your head in shame?
Women can do any job (at least legally speaking nothing stops them from being a sewage worker or a fisherman in high seas if they want to), women have all the human rights, heck, women can wear PANTS, but men still can't wear DRESSES.
So who has more power in the world? Man slaps a woman, and 1875 simp-men will INSTANTLY attack the man.
A woman slaps a man - absolutely NO ONE will attack the woman. Not even other women!
Women are already more powerful than men (seriously, this kind of articles exist), and somehow yet they lose to 'trans women' every single time.
Women are already more protected and privileged class than children, and yet they want and need more power?
Who controls a man-female-relationship? Tell me, who decides things in the family these days? WHO HAS THE POWER ALREADY?!
Why would you need female empowerment? Wouldn't it benefit EVERYONE, even women, if simply HUMANS had power, and neither gender could just conquer the other easily?
Women have ALL the cards now, when it comes to reproduction, mating, pairing, having sex, selling sex (look at all the Onlyfans millionaires), having kids, etc... women have all the power in the workplace, you can't sexually harass a woman, but you can harass a man.
What power do women still want but not have? Do ALL women have to be CEOs since birth before this femafascist sickness ends and all these stupid lies are stopped?
What will have to happen that people stop encouraging 'female empowerment' and can say 'now women are powerful enough'?
What's the reason for celebrating 'female empowerment' in a world where women already have all the power, and men are the oppressed class?
There's no excuse to hit a woman, but plenty of excuses to hit a man.
Stop violence against women, but not against men.
These are the PREVALENT messages everywhere, you go, girl, but never 'you go, boy'. So why would you want to pour more gasoline into that dumpsterfire? 'Good rich people enrichment'? REALLY??
I think Monty Pynthons' 'battle re-enactments' would be pretty darn accurate, except way more entertaining than the teddy bear fiasco in this movie.
What if there is a bit more traffic? Imagine approaching this thing and there's already a spacecraft on the platform. Where does that go? There IS nowhere to go!
On a normal airport, airplanes can taxi into all kinds of places to get away from an approaching airplane, they can roll into hangar or terminal or whatever. This platform has limited space, and who wants to be or park their craft on the edge of this tall structure anyway? This design makes NO SENSE from any point of view I can muster!
Why couldn't they look at a normal airport and copy that and then expand it into a SCI-FI-version of that? Instead, they create this ludicrous, impractical, dangerous toy platform that's elevated for WHAT REASON, when it's in a valley, surrounded by really tall trees, hills and that massive dish?
Wouldn't it be a better option to just find the most elevated ground, then clear it of all obstacles, make it flat and then create hangars, terminals and other stuff so your craft can't at least fall off, and passengers can get in without being blown off or being rained upon? Where spacecraft could taxii into multiple different locations to keep the actual runway / landing area clear?
What about spacecraft that DO need a bit of runway, how are they going to take off or land? Even if those are non-existent, it would be a safety concern just in case there's an emergency and the craft can't stop in time, etc., to have some kind of longer, actual runway system.
Then there's the whole 'WHY bring weight considerations when you don't have to'-issue. An ordinary airport doesn't have to care how much some plane weighs, because GROUND can take all kinds of weight - heck, it can take mountains without crumbling, let alone some heavy building projects, let alone some aircraft or even spacecraft.
But this platform absolutely can't take as much weight as ground can. It can take considerably less. So there has to be a WEIGHT LIMITATION, that EVERYONE MUST KNOW before even approaching Endor.
This is a cumbersome, bureaucratic thing added for NO reason whatsoever, except that we rather use this impractical slab of cement than actual, proper, ground-based spaceport.
Then there could be someone that didn't get the memo, trying to land here, and CRASH, everything becomes a huge forest fire, goodbye, landing platform.
In ANY case, all it takes is a drunken teenager stealing their dad's spaceship and miscalculating the distances and whatnot. It only takes ONE unruly wild card that breaks the rules, and the platform is either seriously damaged or completely destroyed, together with any other craft that had to be on the platform because there's NO HANGAR for them.
Seriously, there are SO many bad points about this thing, including that it only stands on two feet, which is a very weak design, no matter how strong the actual materials used or whatnot. Something that HAS to be sturdy, should be DESIGNED to be as sturdy as possible, so at least have it 'stand' on three or four legs, instead of only two, for crying out loud!
I mean, you can look at this thing, consider the reality of landing on it - I don't care what you use to land on it, all problems are still valid - and it's just a disaster waiting to happen, a myriad of problems manifesting into the stupidest platform I have ever seen.
Who approved this, really? It makes NO SENSE!
"Do NOT take pictures of my house!"
OK, Barbara..
So by your logic, we should stop talking about The Borg, but we CAN talk about 'talking about The Borg', which is what you are doing in your post..?
Using a word like 'alien' is hostile.
I prefer to use terms like 'extra-terrestrials' or 'otherplanetary people' or maybe 'higher civilizations' or 'people that live in a good world' or 'space-farers', perhaps 'good human beings' or 'actual human beings'.
Why call anyone an 'alien', when it's an alienating word to use? Would you like to be called 'alien' when you visit some world you thought was friendly?
There are some good and interesting answers here, well done.
I'd like to think it's because of the implications.
Think about it, if Q start doing something about the Borg, limiting them or destroying them, then what? Now they have directly interfered with the natural order/progression of things. They would have to become the COSMIC POLICE.
This one act would lead down to a path where the Q would become some kind of authority that has to start messing with all kinds of trivial, uninteresting and mundane things, dictating policy and creating some sort of super government. I mean, if they interfere with Borg, why not interfere with Klingons and the Ferengi and everything in existence, until they control every atom in the existence 100% of the time?
They don't want to go down that path, they don't want to start policing the Universe and what goes on in it, that would lead to so many moral decisions they'd have to make, they'd have to be the sole source of what defines 'good' and 'bad' and 'unwanted' and 'wanted', they would have to mess with all kinds of developments, evolutions and frankly, it would be a lot of work even for the omnipotent entity group (though a group can never be omnipotent, because there can't be even two omnipotents, they can't share power like that without just becoming one entity - I mean, if I want a molecule to be blue, but the other entity wants it to be pink, and both are omnipotent, what will happen when the wills clash?)..
Of course they could just 'will' the Universe to be exactly as they want it to be, so maybe it's just more interesting to let everything just happen the way they do, Borg or no Borg.
Also, Borg being scary to Q would be like a grain of sand being scary to a military. WHAT? Who could ever think this could be the case?
"What John DeLancie looks like, totally fits Q's personality."
This is a brilliant point!
I also like to think about the end speech in Kill Bill Volume 2, where Bill talks about why and how Superman chose the 'Clark Kent' form - another very powerful being choosing to look 'flawed' (this time, nerdiness, eyeglasses, being clumsy and dressing unimaginatively).
Of course I don't think anyone really thought about this stuff when casting Q, I am sure the actor's personality and ability were the REAL reasons why Q looks like he does.
"Definitely not horrible looking."
You can always trust people on this board to miss the point completely.
No one claimed he's 'horrible-looking' (I think this needs a hyphen, or it means he's not very good at 'the activity of looking').
Whether he's good or bad-looking is still not even close to the point (and it'd be subjective anyway).
The point is, he is FLAWED in his appearance, and if we imagine a 'perfect, divine being', I don't think ANYONE's mind would jump instantly to what Q actually looks like.
Logically thinking, Q should look 'PERFECT', maybe even glowing in a divine way. Q looks so 'common and flawed', like a regular human being. Whether you like his looks or not, is irrelevant, the point is that a SUPER OLD AND OMNIPOTENT ENTITY could look like absolutely anything, so it needs a good explanation as to WHY he chooses this particular form instead of just appearing as 'as perfect form as he can muster'.
The actor looks fine, but as an omnipotent, divine entity that chooses a material form to appear in the front of 'inferior entities', choosing THAT particular form is certainly puzzling, and needs an explanation.
My theory is that Q wants to MOCK the 'humans' at every turn, so he does this by appearing as a 'flawed, middle-aged dude' instead of 'the perfection of the human form' that he easily COULD have appeared as.
The lisp is a nice touch as well..