MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
"srsly"
You have only 15 people that speak correctly..? Do you have any people that WRITE correctly?
There is light everywhere. Have you ever heard of something called 'stars'? Ever noticed that there is one even near the planet you are probably located on right now? It exists in SPACE, and yet, against all of your illogical logic, it does provide LIGHT ...
Every planet in the Universe also exists in SPACE. If there was no LIGHT in SPACE, there couldn't be light ANYwhere.
Yet, the opposite is factual - light exists EVERYwhere. There's a spirit 'beyond atoms', and yet, within every atom. This divine spirit of the Creator could be called 'light' as well.
How do you think there's no light in space? Where do you think light exists, if not in space, where everything is? YOU are in space, every time you flick on a light switch, you are doing it IN SPACE. Did you forget?
By the way, it might be a good idea to reduce redundancy in your posts - it's hard to imagine you being a brilliant writer of stories, when you write 'in my story' twice in one sentence, and think there can be 700 billion people in a ridiculously small area.
However, even if we DO agree with your illogical and truth-hostile assesment that there 'is no light in space' (holy cow.. ever seen Hubble photos of galaxies, nebulae, or the deep space photos?)..
..couldn't we take it as a given that in such a case, navigation systems would ADAPT to this, and generate and light amplify and do all kinds of stuff to show you what's out there? If you can't DIRECTLY see with human eyes (there are animals that can see much dimmer light than human eye and so on, of course, so think about that as well), doesn't mean you can't see it at all. Just because the light might be relatively dim, doesn't mean it isn't there, and so on.
It could also be that in this Universe, everything emits a dim glow, so everything is always 'lit' that way (use your imagination, you ARE a writer, right?).
There's absolutely no reason to assume they shouldn't be able to see anything. Look at stars, in real life and Hubble photos,please
Realistically, you wouldn't need any 'inertial dampeners' (a silly idea anyway, especially in a show where you have to pretend to be falling down when someone shakes the camera - they should've either gone with the 'inertial dampeners', OR kept going with the crazy 'being flung around'-trick, but not both).
I mean, a planet has its gravity, but it's a relatively weak force. If you can generate your own gravity to a spaceship, and introduce an energy field around it (think of the crazy movements so-called 'UFOs' are known to be able to do historically in this planet's atmosphere), your own gravity and energy field separates you from any outside force, and the biggest ninety-degree turns won't affect the people inside the spaceship at all. Therefore, a bump on the surface that makes the craft shake, wouldn't make the people shake.
The only situation, where the Star Trek-like 'camera-shake-based' effect would realistically happen, would be if you are in a room that's in a gravity environment, like on a planet, and then that room, that doesn't have its own gravity, shakes separately from the planet, so the planet's gravity is pulling you towards itself, while the room is moving about.
However, a spaceship has gravity in every room, so it would be like shaking the planet Earth and expecting us to feel it or be flung about, which wouldn't, of course, happen.
So, only if they had a spaceship-gravity-separated room, like a 'building inside the spaceship', and then that building were to shake, would we get that effect - NOT, when the spaceship itself shakes for one reason or another.
However, maybe it's considered 'fun' to do that camera shake and have people thrown about all over the place, after all, it's television entertainment, not a documentary.
".. there is no need for money, so as a result, there is probably no creativity as well.."
What kind of capitalistic money-grubber banker freemason do you have to BE to think like this?
Sorry, but your statement is 100% illogical and wrong in all possible levels.
First, money does not create creativity, or anything else. It's a tool for exchange (well, supposed to be), but it has been tied to 'accumulation of materialistic crap' as well, so if anything, it destroys creativity, because you can make more money with remixes, reboots, remakes and re-everything than creating something unique.
If YOUR statement was correct, there would be no sequels, hollyweird would only make unique movies and TV shows, and so on.
It's astonishing anyone can look at this world and see all the crap money has caused, all the creativity money has absolutely annihilated, all the people that have been murdered in the name of oil, money, corporate greed and so on, there's food fraud, ever-growing garbage dumps, recycle scams, shrinkflation, and a billion ways corporations scam people to make a buck, including making weak light bulbs and umbrellas that break quickly so you have to keep buying new ones.
Money does nothing, if you put a thousand (why is this not called 'ten hundred', by the way?) dollars on a table and leave it there for a thousand years, it will never create anything.
You need a SOUL for creativity, not money. The richest people in the world are not the most creative people in the world. Creativity is a calling inside of you, it's a divine touch that compels you to express your inner visions of beauty and wonder, it's not something you can buy, it's not something money somehow does or provides.
It's appalling how little people understand anything, but your statement has to be the most disturbing thing I have read all year, it's downright demonic. Basically it's worse than anything Gekko said in his speech in 'Wall Street' about greed. Equating money with creativity?!
A TV show can't age, it stays exactly as it ever was.
So could you please elaborate and explain, or at least back up your completely detached opinions written as some kind of factual statements (which they are not)? Thank you.
Explain.
Why would something being brightly lit be bad or wrong? You just state this as if it's some kind of automatic fact. It isn't.
I have always hated the gloomy, dark crap they turned everything into, when the nature and reality IS brightly lit, so what exactly would be the problem of a high-tech spaceship that CAN be brightly lit, not be brightly lit? It's best to have more light to push away depression and make things easier to see.
It's definitely not TOO brightly lit whatsoever.
As far as the aesthetics go, you are making statements without explanations, without backing up anything you are saying. Why would empty space be bad? Have you ever heard of Feng Shui or human psychology? Ever heard of something called 'claustrophobia'? Open space elevates your happiness, it makes you feel like things are majestic, and if everything was 'busy' and cramped, it would make you feel like you are in a confined prison, work cubicle or some other really depressing place.
Think about anxiety, stress levels, etc. Think about how LONG you have to endure the same spaces, you damn BETTER well have as much empty space as you can!
Would you rather make a years-long journey on a ship where everything is cramped in an 'utilitarian' (for some reason, you seem to worship anything utilitarian in your post), way, or a cozy, livingroom-like, comfortable place with lots of open space to breathe, walk around, or just be?
Open space is psychologycally elevating, it makes you feel better than a cramped space. Basic psychology.
What's bad about the 'wooden structure', and why do you call it 'stupid', as if structures can have any kind of intelligence, let alone varying levels of it?
Why don't you think 'it doesn't fit in with what the ship is'? What do you mean by 'what the ship is'? Your post is very confusing, full of claims without backing up anything, and thus useless. Anyone can just spew opinionated statements and then use them to say something has 'aged' 'badly'..
It's never a window, it's always a screen. High-tech spaceship wouldn't have a simple window at the front, when screen is much better for all kinds of purposes. Otherwise, how could Picard order zooms and enhances, if it's just a window? Also, a screen offers automatica protection from bright light, since camera can only take so much, and a screen can only display so much (obviously, they would never make a screen that can blind you, because that would be stupid and dangerous).
Ad hominem is never a valid argument, so you lost right there. It's also unnecessary, crude, hostile and barbaric, primitive, basically the lowest AND stupidest thing you can do in any communication.
Orville isn't what it could be or is praised to be, but it's not that bad, either. Mike Stoklasa has an interesting viewpoint to it.. 'I can't watch it because I love it so much'. It's like a poor man's TNG with some cool surprises.
It doesn't have the meticulous detail or thought of TNG thought, and it treats its 'source material' somewhat superficially, which is disappointing. It's obviously a 'love letter' to Star Trek, but ultimately, it doesn't reach the deep waters, always wallowing in the shallow side of the pool.
It's still pretty good and entertaining, although its ideas were 'done better' elsewhere, most of the time, and there's a lot of 'soap opera' stuff and silly humor.
What bugs ME the most, though, is the dull-looking space. Just some stars, that's it.
It's a NEW show, so it's inexcusable. It's like the makers of this show never saw Hubble photos of any kind. There's one photo of a beautiful galaxy when a teacher is trying to teach a bunch of brats, but why can't there be at least one nebula in space from time to time?
Look at 'Hubble Deep Space' pictures, to see what it COULD have looked like, at least..
The OP is at least explaining his statements and viewpoints, the OP is elaborating.
You are just making simple opinions without elaboration or explanation. It becomes a yes/no-screaming match without context, content or point.
I could say Janeway was a HORRIBLE captain, but I haven't watched that show enough to make the judgment - I hate the actor, I hate her squaky voice, I hate how old and ugly she is, and she doesn't have the 'captain charisma' Kirk, Picard, and the token guy in one of the shows have.
No matter why you think that, or how good you think she was, she was the wrong choice, because the choice wasn't made for the right reasons, but for 'woke' reasons. Obviously.
So you have never seen 'Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan' or 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home'?
Also, your attitude is invalid.. a show can't be 'too old', and you can't be 'too old' for something. Just say you don't like something and leave it at that, no need to bring in delusions to artificially validify your irrational hatred for innocent shows.
Since when does anything in this world make any sense? I think I have proved it to an extent by writing a few posts on these discussion forums about how movies make no sense. I wish they did, but they don't.
I always expect a movie to make sense, then things happen and are shown to me in them that just don't make any sense.
..speaking lazily american writer-written lines without any thought, but it's ACTUALLY someone from a non-american world, that actually USES the english (or the translator would at least be more universal, not 100% americanizing everything someone says) in a more logical or at least different way.
But nope, everyone HAS to sound 100% american down to a tee cup, because that's obviously how an universal translator would work, and there's no variety or discussion on the matter whatsoever. Wouldn't the otherplanetarians WANT a bit more variety on the translation, not just always 'strictly americanized' style? Couldn't there be a menu option that..
..ok, never mind, but I hope people get my point. It would be fun to hear non-americanized english for a change, especially from someone whose head is full of weird make-up. It just becomes so pedestrian and 'streamlined to the max' when every crazy-looking blob just speaks 100% boringly americanized english and no variety is allowed, universal translator or not. Couldn't they have differently-tuned translators sometimes?
I guess this idea is too WILD for these shows, just like my idea of 'incarnation in a holodeck' - as in someone would actually incarnate into the holgraphic projection instead of a physical baby, so it would not be some 'A.I.' character, but actual soul... too wild for sci-fi show, I know. Sigh.
Also, my japanese rose to another level exactly because of subtitles, and you always know you are advancing in your linguistical studies when you start seeing errors in the subtitles (fan-made ones, for the most part), and start correcting them in your mind. It's amazing how wrong people can hear things sometimes - even english subtitles on american shows can sometimes be incredibly bad, because the translator didn't understand the idioms or american culture (such as it is) at all.
In any case, I wouldn't mind subtitles, but I don't REALLY mind this 'convention', either, because it makes things faster, especially if it's explained well. It can never be fully explained, though, because people's lips still sync perfectly with what they say, so if there's a 'universal translator', shouldn't the lips move completely differently? If someone speaks japanese, and you get instant, real-time translation in english, the lips would definitely move completely differently than if they were speaking english, I can GUARANTEE you that..
I am more bothered by them not even TRYING to use 'quirky english', when you know there must be dozens of ways of speaking english from thick australian accent to how they talk in the Philippines to how Irish speak english, to how Indians think their english intonation is actually the correct one, and americans are wrong, and so on.
Heck, in UK alone, there must be like 50 different accents and ways to intonate words that are completely different from americans.
What I don't understand is why would the universal translator not only make things english (which would be fine, and could be fun, and SO MUCH could be done with this), but AMERICANIZES everything, abso-friggin'-lutely EVERYthing.
If ONE character could just ONCE say 'thousand two hundred' instead of 'twelve hundred' while they're wearing make-up that looks like it takes HOURS to put on, it would at least keep or add to the immersion that yes, this is not just some american actor..
I guess this subtitle-hatred has connection to the other problem of native english speakers commonly, WAY TOO COMMONLY have - not understanding english grammar, the inability to type simple english words (let alone sentences) correctly, and so on.
I mean, if they had more subtitles, perhaps americans could eventually learn to write english correctly. We can't have that.
Also, american audiences seem to worship 'spoken language' over written language for some reason, so even if they learn that 'their', 'there' and 'they're' are supposed to be written differently, they will just randomly choose one of those (while probably butchering that one, too), because as a kid, they only HEARD those being said and thus decided they are the same word.
Too stubborn to correct things at a later age, so they just keep using 'spoken english' in written form, and that's how you see all the verbal puke being spewed all over the internet by these mentally lazy idiots that just refuse to learn how to type simple english correctly.
Therefore, when they see subtitles, they enrage, because that's WRITTEN english - that's not the english their mom spoke in the kitchen when they were trying to steal cookies!
It's like they only learn 'spoken english', and then hate all other forms of it, so subtitles would immediately cause rage - HOW DARE someone expose them to WRITTEN english (not to mention correctly-written english!), when they have tried to stay away from it all their life, and mangle, twist and butcher it any chance they got.
Civilized people that are, of course, exposed to subtitles as a normal thing, have no such reaction - they are keen to learn and correct their mistakes, and maybe even learn other languages BECAUSE there are subtitles (I learned english this way quite a lot, starting to predict the english after reading the subtitles, and then saw if I got it correct or not - an efficient way to learn, because you're watching something you like).
This kind of thing bothers me. I can understand all the viewpoints to the issue, but it's still an issue.
The real problem isn't really that they speak english, the real problem isn't even the fact they so loyally and stubbornly use every single american idiom and saying without thinking twice (twelve hundred instead of thousand two hundred, pee oh double us instead of prisoners of war (when spoken, it's not even shorter!), et cetera), as I mentioned in one post.
The problem is that people of this planet are incredibly stupid, lazy and tiny-minded. Their minds are extremely small by comparison to the geniuses and actually intelligent people. This means that the masses, which are the audience, will never tolerate anything that goes 'over their head' or isn't fast food-like in the ease of consumption.
Anything requiring acquired taste, knowledge of history or geography, other cultures or manners or appreciation of quirkiness flies out the window.
So when anyone tries to offer them something intelligent and well thought-out, they don't understand it, they get angry about it, and lash out. I think that Klingon language with subtitles, like they did in one of the Star Trek movies, would be BRILLIANT, I would applaud it and love it, and think it'd bring authenticity so sorely lacking in most hollywood slop people's tiny minds are being fed constantly.
I mean, can't german people speak german in any movie ever? At least japanese people are allowed to sometimes speak japanese, but other times you hear some hollywood bimbo butcher its pronunciation so horribly, your ears actually become sentient so they can wish they could vomit. I don't have the powers to point those movies that fit the bill while killing the language, but I am sure someone can figure it out.
The main problem is that you can't give pearls to the swine, or they will trample them, then turn on you and rend you.
Subtitles should not be a problem, because reading is faster than speaking..
I wouldn't know about that, he was a great actor and I absolutely loved him in 'Stand By Me' (one of those RARE movies that do not contain injected romance of any kind!), but he's absolutely cringeworthy in this movie, and I can't watch his parts... have to skip them every time.
Who cares about mannerisms anyway, he just didn't fit this role. He is not Indiana Jones, he's much better as Gordy's 'streetwise' friend (forgot his name in that movie, though). He is much more real in that one.
I also hated him in 'Sneakers', a promising, but uneven movie that falls flat on its nose by the end.
I mean.. the juice is not worth the squeeze here!
If the grail can never leave the cave (and what magical power makes that rule and why?), then what's even the point of all the booby traps and the test anyway? Couldn't THAT be the protector of the grail, crumbling the whole system if anyone tries to take it away? Why would it have to be 'kept' anyway? For what purpose? Couldn't they just as well have destroyed it instead of going through ALL that trouble for no purpose or reward other than 'grail fell into crevice'?
Is that a good grand reward for hundreds of years of patience, pain, misery, toil and trouble the knights went through?
How did they gain magical powers to create a spell that strong that will collapse a whole cave if someone tries to take the grail out anyway? They weren't magicians, mages, wizards, warlocks, necromancers, witches or sorcerers. They were KNIGHTS. Since when can knights do magic?
So the knights' plan was to leave many clues so someone could find the grail, then cast a spell that keeps the grail in the cave, create a mysterious test that kills anyone that drinks from a non-grail cup (this magic is also not explained, is every cup laced with some kind of poison that stays potent for centuries?), then create booby traps to kill possible intruders, but then stop working if someone gets through..
Then leave one guy to 'guard' the grail, try to kill the one that will be then put to the test.
I am trying to figure out what they were trying to achieve by doing all this. The end result would always be 'grail falls into crevice', so couldn't the knights have just THROWN the grail into a crevice and saved themselves all the trouble?
NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE!!
Yeah, I thought of that 'universal translator'-explanation, but does it HAVE to translate to 'americanese' instead of 'at least slightly weird english' sometimes? Couldn't we have them speak at least a LITTLE bit of quirky and more interesting english than following american systems to a tee-shirt?
Just to add another sidenotelike point about the 'alien languages'..
..WHY do they always, ALWAYS sound so 'american-pronouncable'?
There are PLENTY of europan and asian languages american tongue would struggle to pronounce correctly. Chinese, german, russian, swedish, korean, japanese... why can't any 'alien' language sound AS UNPRONUNCABLE to americans as those languages seem to be? Wouldn't it be cool to listen to 'alien' language that ACTUALLY sounds better than just some 'americanized klingon'?
In retrospect, I probably should've said 'transitwise' instead of 'travelwise'..
In any case, I thought of more weirdness that doesn't make sense. Why is the wife so passive?
I mean, the wife could say 'stay put, I'll come pick you up' at SOME point, right? What's faster and more fun, using your car to pick up your husband, or just watching crappy TV shows while waiting inside the house? How passive can you get?
Also, can't Neal tell her wife to come pick him up at ANY point? If he has money to use a train, he has money to make a phone call (or do a collect call). There is NO excuse for him to first try to use a train, then WALK that very long street with Del, as if Del's physique could even handle it in the first place..
This guy is rich, connected, successful adman with enormous house. How the heck doesn't HE have any friends or family to call to pick him up?
Also, think about where the truck dropped them off. Where was that, a truck depo? Some mall? Did the truck driver know to drop them off at a train station?
In any case, I can't figure out how they ended up in the train station in the first place. Neal had so many better options..
1) Just use a taxi cab, like originally planned, and do the old 'hold my jacket, I'll get the money from my ENORMOUS MANSION'-stuff.
2) Call his wife to come pick him up OR at least be waiting at the door with money when he arrives in a taxi cab to pay the driver. Remember, in the 1980s in USA, you could do a 'collect call', so he doesn't even need money for that.
3) Call literally any of his friends or family he must have a lot of, to come pick him up and then give them gas money for that after they arrive (he must have money in his massive manor).
4) Use Del's two dollars to make that call, if absolutely necessary.
I mean, COME ON, what's with this train-plan, when he has no money for the train ticket? He COULD have some kind of 'train pass', of course, but look at him, his mansion, his suit, lifestyle.. would he?