MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
I mean, forget what happens in this movie, think of the much larger cultural consequences, if men started freely being able to wonder this kind of things. 'Yeah, I wonder if another woman IS a solution after all'.
You know that a woman isn't, and can't be a solution to all your problems. But if you say this out loud, women feel the shiver of fear from realizing their house of cards is about to come down, and when it does, all their free perks they have enjoyed (for some reason, they don't teach this stuff in schools, or we'd have a textbook that comes with a list of perks women enjoy for free that men can't even dream of, unless they're a wealthy celebrity) are being denied, the fountains of gold and honey are being shut down.
I mean, if this keeps going on, one day, women will have to come down from the ivory tower and start living on the ground, just like men, do the everyday minutea exactly as men, and have no cheat code, skip button or shortcut because of their V-pass.
Women are basically afraid that if this kind of wondering spreads and men start to questioning the matriarchal propaganda ('stop violence against women', 'no excuse to hit a woman' - no one EVER says these things about men unironically), they will lose their social-sexual power they can still use to manipulate simps into keeping them 'fat and giggly'.
They might actually have to resort to the most vile thing any woman can ever imagine.. a honest day's work for a honest day's pay.
So they claw and spit and scream and shame their fears into the air, without realizing it makes no sense. Daddy-issues? How is someone just calmly and peacefully WONDERING something proof they have 'daddy-issues'?
Furthermore, aren't 'daddy-issues' what WOMEN have anyway? How can a man have 'daddy-issues'? Usually that means a woman is looking for a man like her father, or seeking a father-figure in her life or whatever, in a destructive and unhealthy way. But these are heterosexual men, it makes no sense.
A promise is always a lie, unless it's about this, exact moment. "I promise I feel nauseated", for exampe.
(For those that confuse 'nauseous' and 'nauseated', and think there's a word like 'nauseating', I refer you to 'noxous', that works the same way. Why can people use 'noxous' correctly, but not 'nauseous'?)
A future isn't 100% knowable, unless you have access to such dimensionally high data and view of the Universe that it would make you a being so high level that you would never have to incarnate again.
This means that anyone that promises anything about the future, is a liar, regardless (there's no such word as 'irregardless', by the way, but even if there were, it would mean the opposite of 'regardless' due to a double negative of sorts) of whether that actually does happen or not. If I promise to clean a table tomorrow, and then I do clean the table tomorrow, I was still a liar, because I couldn't have known about tomorrow.
Don't promise. Don't lie.
This movie smells of desperation. It doesn't have a 'fun spirit', you don't even know what you are supposed to feel half the time.
However, I am watching it for the third time now, and oddly, this seems better every time I see it.
There are many good points - for example, the Gorneckies (however you spell this) are really 'good people', or they would be, if they weren't so into the cruelty industry.
I like the chipper vibe of the female Gorneckie, and the moustached version warms my heart with his kindness.
It's the kind of movie that you know isn't very good, but you end up watching it every now and then anyway for some reason, and it doesn't disappoint.
It's the perfect movie to watch during the darkest time of the year, which is what I have always done, I found this in a bargain bin a couple of years ago.
Robin clearly didn't do it because this is exactly the movie he always wanted to make, but some contractual, financial, etc. kind of reason. He seems like he's really sad most of the time, and that's hard to take from the guy, who played the most eccentric, fun and energetic otherplanetarian in TV history.
What somewhat saves this movie, is that it does have a coherent story arc that keeps progressing all the time, and it does tie everything neatly together at the end, while showing the expected, but still heartwarming character growth. Some of the sceneries are also gorgeous.
If it's hard to gleam what I think about this movie from this post, it describes perfectly as to how confused I am about the movie itself, I don't know what to feel or think.
4) Modify the letter.
I already wrote a post about this, but why didn't Doc and Marty think about the letter? Just tweaking it a LITTLE bit would ensure they have all the gas they could ever want, and that Marty would NOT be attacked by the bear OR the indians. Just a few words in the letter, which Doc still has somewhere (even if it's in the office already - surely you can modify your own letter, or ask to include a paper you forgot in the envelope-bag-thing, even if it costs you a bit more).
"By the way, bring some gas and change your time travel starting location because there will be problematic entities attacking the DeLorean and damaging its gas line, and absolutely never go into a cave, because there's gonna be a bear in it!"
Problem solved - the pen is indeed mightier than a stupid plan to accelerate a train to 88 so it can fall into a ravine.
The wild west-Doc had seen and experienced so much, and started realizing he can make SOME kind of 'replicas' with the primitive 'past-tech', proven by the 'ice cube machine' he buit. Sure, it'd have to use different paths to the same result, and they might be clunkier, but he could scavenge '1955-replacable' parts from the cave DeLorean for his experiments (and the gas it would have, or would have had before the Doc meticulously took it out and stored it in his lab, which this character would ABSOLUTELY do).
As I have mentioned, the whole 'gas problem' is a stupid, manufactured crap for 'movie tension' and doesn't make sense if you think about it for a few seconds. There's no reason to risk their lives with the hare-brained 'train plan', when they could sit and think for awhile.
My more common sense-solutions to the 'gas problem':
1) Take the cave DeLorean's gas, that Doc absolutely would have stored somewhere neatly.
2) Instead of alcohol, use some kind of oil that has been known to work for cars for a long time, even if it's not as effective and so on. (Surely even alcohol wouldn't have exploded that way and broken the car the way we were shown)
3) Instead of gas, figure out how to use Mr. Fusion also for 'propulsion'.
How did Doc explain it in 2015, and how could he even get that kind of power source but not use it for making the car move? I mean, what did the people in 2015 think he is using it for in his car, since it's not for 'propulsion' (for the lack of better term)? Coffee making? It makes no sense that Mr. Fusion seems to be a normal, popular tech in 2015, but Doc still uses it only for a 'secret time travel engine' that he doesn't want to broadcast in public.
My question is, WHAT do people in 2015 use 'Mr. Fusion' for, if not moving their car? It generates ridiculous amount of energy, so what do the normal customers of 'Mr. Fusion' tech use it for? It seems to be popular and common enough to just be sold to people in 2015.
Are you sure THAT is why he says it? He did visit 2015 in the previous movie, you know, so he could be referring to that just as well.
In any case, I wanted to mention that the Doc that invents the time machine is not the same Doc that helps Marty get back to 1985, and the Doc that invents the train version of the time machine is also not the same, youthful and ignorant Doc.
1955 Doc doesn't know anything, he only has a vision of how a time machine (or flux capacitor) could, in theory, be built. He has no idea if it would work or not (he exclaims excitedly 'It works!', when he sees it and realizes it must've brought Marty to 1955 from the future).
However, he has no experience in building or inventing time machines yet, he's 'green', so to say, and he has access only to 1955 components, not 1985 stuff, which he might not even be able to imagine yet. All those electronics and such.
The wild west-Doc is even more knowledgeable, because he has been doing major modifications to the DeLorean in 2015, so he has SO much more experience and knowledge about all kinds of components, of which he can sure fabricate at least crude replicas in the wild west. He has more intimate knowledge of how all of it works, so when he is allowed a few years of tinkering, tinking, philosophizing and pondering, he can find 'new paths' to the power requirement problems and such (as did Nikola Tesla in real life, alas, his inventions were stolen and energy towers demolished because money).
Heck, he might even have talked to mr. Tesla, maybe there was a collaboration.. (Tesla was born in 1856, so it's plausible!)
Also, there was a lot of TIME on the more experienced Doc's hands, the 1955 Doc that didn't have experience or knowledge, had no way of doing anything but basically planning and waiting for the right components to exist and all that, so it took him 30 years.
Isn't Doc inventive enough to figure it out in the future, seeing all those cars flying and reverse engineering the tech and building his own version? I mean, it's possible he just did a lazy, simple 'hover conversion' (though it's not really hovering, is it, it's flying), but thinking about Doc's character.. not sure if he'd be that lackluster and lazy, to let others tinker with the time machine, when he's even sensitive about Jennifer SEEING it (which makes no sense, because why would he RISK that in the first place, arriving to 'next morning' presumably directly from the future, on a public street where ANYONE could've seen him and the time machine, wearing futuristic clothes and all that..)
See how even the most insignifigant-seeming details make no sense, when you think about them.
How about the whole fact that they travel to a non-existent future, because Marty doesn't live up to BE that guy, because of all the time traveling. Marty should've been fine, since no car accident ever happened. I mean, THAT Marty should never exist, because Marty doesn't get to continue his life 'into the future' BEFORE they return from their time travel shenanigans-filled adventure back to 1985. Only THAT Marty, from THAT point can continue living his life into the future, and he's certainly not the sad Marty we see in the 2015.
I am not saying there shouldn't be A Marty in 2015 - after all, as long as they return to 1985 and Marty lives his life from thereon, Marty exists in the future, even if they haven't returned to 1985 yet to ensure that. However, the VERSION of Marty we see, is someone I can't see existing, no matter what. Only _IF_ they never time travel, it could be possible, but that timeline doesn't exist, because Doc comes to take Marty to 2015 the 'next morning'.
So many problems would have to be solved before we tackle the cartoon train with cartoon physics (the mass of a train would NOT allow such fast turning and movement).
I barely scratched the surface.
This movie has _SO_ many other problems that should need some 'thought put into it' before it would make any sense to try to tackle the most stupid ending of a movie ever. There's no way he could make a flying train, and if he could, why would he do ALL that first, especially now that he has a family draining his resources, energy, wealth, money, and has to slave for .. err, I mean, a family to take care of, and only after all those years come to 1985 to greet Marty, his former BEST FRIEND (way to abandon and ditch your best friend just because you find a vag!).
I mean, the ending is definitely not very well thought-out, it's cartoony, over-the-top ridiculous and convoluted as well. First we are made to feel sad that the time machine is destroyed, but now it's replaced by another time machine almost immediately, so what did we lose?
This time, Doc is separating himself from Marty, though, so now Marty is supposed to live the rest of his life without having access to the time machine Doc's family has full and free access to 24h every day.
The problem with 'fantasy movies' is that the protagonists are often expected to handle the psychological strain of having experiences fantastic, amazing things and possibilities, only to then just settle to live a 'regular life' afterwards. Could you? I certainly couldn't.
In any case, there are so many problems with these movies that the tacked-on nonsensical ending is the LAST thing anyone should concern themselves with. But if we must, how about this question; Why does the train system react to a train that's not there?
I mean, is it chronologically expansive system that can detect trains coming from ANOTHER TIME, not just from a distance? How far and deep does that system scan, when it can even scan into 'time', and not just react to object in a distance?
Who the hell designed and built that fourth-dimensionally-scanning train detection system??
Also, why do you assume it was a corporation that converted DeLorean?
Someone like Doc would need a good reason to do that.
How did the photo end up in Marty's possession, if the events were changed? This means no one takes a photo, the whole damn photo should disappear, not just the tombstone IN the photo.
This movie, and the other 'problem sequels', are SO full of problems and nonsensical, illogical, self-refuting elements, they cease to be movies and start being just 'bunch of stacked problems displayed in a story form for no reason'.
"1. The 1st girl who got killed. She's in a mall full of like 100 people and nobody has seen her. Even when she was going down in the Elevator the cops didn't see her its just stupid.
"
I agree, all this 'have you sen this girl' crap in this movie is stupid on so many levels it made my brain overload, I can't even analyze it all. It's just so implausible and ridiculous.
"2. How the hell the Keanu Reeves manage to get in her apartment without any proof that he broke in?"
This one was actually explained in the movie, he is supposedly as skilled a lockpicker as 'Lockpicking Lawyer'. This was the least stupid part of the movies, because at least it makes some kind of sense. This can't be said about a whole lot of the other things in this movie, though.
"3. The girl at the photostore. "I have to call my boss" Well one of your employees is about to get killed and its an emergency. You should give the cops the number to her apartment."
Maybe I am giving this trash'movie' too much credit, but I thought this simply meant the boss is the only one that has that information, so she has to retrieve it from her boss, because she doesn't have it. Of course, anyone can impersonate a cop and flash a fancy badge, people aren't generally trained to recognize the signs of a real police ID, or differentiate between a fake and a real badge, etc., so this kind of scam would be easy. She would be right to be cautious.
Of course, if I remember (as my brain tries to forget I ever saw this, it's difficult) correctly, there were a lot of cops in uniform frolicking around, so that might have been a clue for her.
"4. James Spader's character is a former cop/druggie who pops pills whenever he wants to, and gets his job back"
I was also shocked to see they simply have him in the payroll without questions asked, the therapist would've probably sent him to some kind of clinic or rehabilitation program first, but nope. Everyone just accepts his casual drug abuse. WHAT?
Just making a physically strong woman that can fly doesn't cut it. THIS is why this movie failed. It makes no sense, because the woman can't have a typical 'male story', but they couldn't figure out what to make a woman do in a movie, because she can't have crude fistfights or other typically 'male' thing. So what do they make her do? After watching this movie a few times, I still don't really have a clue.
She.. destroys .. a .. witch?!
Think what a REAL Superwoman could do. A Superman is just a man, whose natural strengths have been boosted to the extreme, and then some weird crap has been added, like eye beams and flying.
So what would a Superwoman look like that actually had a woman's natural strengths boosted? She would be even MORE nurturing, more adept at social interactions, even better at manipulation and gaslighting, even better at informational work and social engineering (gossiping), and so on. She wouldn't be physically strong, but BOY, would she be strong in so many other ways, especially social ones.
The power she would have over men would be beyond mere mesmerizing or even hypnotizing ability, she could make masses of men fall in love with her, and she could be bubbly and flirty with them and they would do her bidding. They would never figure out she doesn't really love them - she actually despises the losers she can control so easily. Sound familiar? This happens in every single webcam site.
This happened in human history for thousands and yet thousands of years.
Why can't stories take this power into account in their stories and build a REAL SUPERWOMAN instead of some muscule-bound, misandristic jerk that tries to simply mimic physically strong men? IT'S BORING, and it doesn't work!
But there are no simps for men. Hence, you can do anything to a man, and people will just think it's funny.
Superman takes quite a lot of pain and beatings in the movies, cartoons and comics. But a Supergirl can't take a punch, because how dare anyone punch a woman!
This makes it a very strange 'hero', because she's supposed to be powerful, but not powerful enough to take punches? She's supposed to rescue and save people, but this would make her a typical worker drone that men usually are. A woman punching something really hard is just boring, because we've already seen a man do that.
We should be able to expect woman to give us a feat of strength we haven't seen men do. They should be able to use seduction, flirtation, social-sexual power, even 'sleeping with the enemy' to gain some kind of advantage for the common good. They could be spies, kunoichi, psychological mind game masters and such, they wouldn't have to do acrobatics and punch people in the face, for crying out loud.
Why are women's ACTUAL strengths never seen in movies or cartoons? Why is She-Ra just another muscle-bound, physically strong entity?
Why is everything si physical anyway in movies? Even in the old, 'The Neverending Story', Autreyu doesn't pass the first gate because he ACTUALLY succeeds in doing what the rules say he should, but because he PHYSICALLY RUNS VERY FAST.
This is so mundane and banal, when it could've been something so much more interesting. Too often have I watched a movie, expecting something a bit more interesting, but then it all crumbles down because it's just 'physical'. Everything is SO physical, even if someone 'mind controls' someone, it's somehow done in a physical way.
I don't know if it's lack of thinking, understanding just HOW different the genders and powers endowed with each gender are, or just not caring about anything except money, but they just do a lazy 'copypaste' instead of really thinking how they could make a 'female version of Superman'.
Cesar Millan has often said, 'never go against mother nature'.
Yet we have She-Hulk, Titania, Supergirl (why not SuperWOMAN? Why are they ALWAYS so afraid to use the word 'woman'? Why 'She-Hulk' instead of something like 'Hulkess' or 'Hulkette'?), you name it. They just don't get it.
I am tired of seeing the SAME, exact character, but slightly smaller body, longer hair and more attitude and misandry.
My point is exactly why this movie is such a mess. It's easy to write a 'Superman' story; a strong, powerful man rescues weak people from the tyranny of some kind of villain. It writes itself.
But what do you do with a woman? The problem is, it has to offer something different than the 'strong man', or there wouldn't be any reason to even make that gender switch, if it's just going to be exactly the same, now is there?
However, by making the strong woman a copy of the strong man, they lose so many possibilities they could otherwise have. You can't just have a strong woman save weak people, because it would feel somehow 'wrong' for a woman to have to rescue some icky and yucky man, ecch. Men are always the worker drones, the robots, the cannon fodder and the nameless henchmen in stories.
Women are always pedestalized and valuable prizes that have to be treated with silk gloves. So what is a woman heroine to do, that would be different than what a man would do, but still show off her physical power,... ? It's a dilemma, moviemakers haven't been able to solve it, because they are going away from the nurturing, gossiping and stealth women would be so good at. Women could manipulate men so easily, but instead, they just physically beat them up.
Why can't women's strength be psychological? Women always win arguments against men. This is not coincidence. Men have physical power, which is USELESS against women in the modern world, because if you hit a woman, you will face DIRE consequences, and women don't even have to lift a finger, because simps are everywhere.
..Well, I think everyone gets the point by now.
That story will at some point come to some kind of point, but we will be better off just diverting back to my point before we want to re-decorate our livingroom walls with an interesting new color called a hint of brain.
My point is, if you think about the whole 'Kunoichi' phenomenon, how women could actually work as servants and other 'non-suspicious' elements, and thus smoothly flow through the otherwise impenetrable walls of societal discourse and flocks of important people, and how they can retain trivial and mundane details, whereas men focus on the big picture and important points, THAT power could be so easily and well shown by movies, TV shows and cartoons.
Instead of doing the typical 'strong woman beats up men for DARING to feel anything sexual - HOW DARE men have sexuality!1'-misandrytrope to show how strong and powerful a woman is, I would be more impressed seeing women seducing men and that way extracting secrets, poisoning men's drinks while flirting with them, eavesdropping on men while seemingly just being a good maid or a hostess or whatnot.
The possibilities of these feminine, subtle but powerful expressions of strength are endless, and yet all we get is a 'female version of a big muscle'.
You can't just take what works for a man and then make a female version of that. That's why She-Hulk is a boring character, and she has to do something -extra- even in the comics to stay interesting and relevant, like breaking the fourth wall. Titania got beaten up by Spider-Man in Secret Wars (they would NEVER do that nowadays even in a comedy movie, but it's the funniest thing I have ever seen in a comic), and that just goes to show that a strong woman is just boring.
A strong man can be interesting, because it's a natural extension of what men strive to be and can be anyway. A strong woman seems a bit off, it's not a natural extension, but more like going the OPPOSITE direction from nature.
Women's multiple strengths are multi-layered, subtle, hard to see, hard to realize and often invisible.
A woman can attract a man and make him sweat, his heart pound, and his feet jelly just by sitting on a chair and doing absolutely nothing. How do you measure that?
For some reason, this enviable, immeasurable power is never seen as strength, although women use it every day to ruin men's lives and wreck marriages. A pretty woman can tie a man around her pinky in various ways. Crocodile tears, among with other manipulation tactics and playing men against each other or crushing some woman through her man are very powerful control methods women use without even thinking about them, it's natural for them.
Women make great spies and spreaders of information - gossiping is an actual, useful strength, if used for good, and it used to be. Think the fifties nuclear family, whose woman, wife, mother not only extracts information from everyone she meets, but then also creates a semi-coherent narrative based on all that information and is able to spew it into the family pool of knowledge in staggering detail and length.
There's a reason why men's version of the exact same night is 'We went bowling. The end.', and a woman's version is: 'So Jenny, of all people, out of the blue calls me - it was the most amazing thing, because I was just thinking about her, and she had all these ideas on a family get-together, and of course my blue dress was in the dry cleaners, so I had to stall and try to think of something we can do that doesn't involve something so fancy, so I was thinking of a party, but you know how Susie hates when one of her friends give parties, when she thinks of herself as some kind of party queen, so I half-wanted to do it just to see her smug face, but Jenny talked me out of it, because she had just had coffee with Nancy, who talked about how much fun her husband had last week bowling - Nancy is of course cheating on that husband of hers, and..'
I just thought of more questions - this movie just keeps giving..
I mean, Buzz thinks he's a ranger. We have all thought about the question of 'why would he follow the rule if he doesn't even know he's a toy', but I have ANOTHER question about this.
Why would he take 'life as a toy' as normal, and LET A GIANT PLAY WITH HIM as if he has no soul and as if he's just a still, rigid, inanimate object instead of, oh, I don't know, A SPACE RANGER? Why is it normal to him that Andy writes his friggin' NAME on his foot and GRABS him with his giant hand and plays with him as if he's a toy?
WHAT KIND OF SPACE RANGER would allow that to happen and not question it AT ALL? HOW?!
I mean, can you imagine Captain Kirk to beam to a planet, where some giant starts playing with him as if he's the giant's toy, and Kirk thinks NOTHING of it, but 'yes, this is the normal life of a space ranger'?
What kind of sense does THAT make??
What I can't understand is how did this information age not usher prosperity when it comes to knowledge, information, ability and grammar? I mean, if you didn't know how to type a word in the 1980s, you had to dig through some tedious libraries (though so many magazine editors and other HIRED, PAID people should definitely have DONE that before writing their error and bad grammar-ridden, idiotic articles where they try to sound clever while not being able to choose between 'their' and 'there' correctly) and browse actual pages of physical books just to find how something is spelled.
It's almost somewhat excusable, especially if you are in a hurry - you'd have to find the library, then the book, then the page, then the word.
But now, I would have logically expected people to be MORE informed, because you can get information so easily now; they shouldn't be LESS informed, and how the heck are they more stupid and ignorant?!
I can't understand this.. more information means people know less? What the .. easier research, spell checkers so you can learn how to spell, all these tools and apps somehow means.. people don't know how to spell anything or understand what words mean anymore?
I can't watch the 'Gen Z can't answer basic questions' without feeling pain in my stomach. It shouldn't be like this, how the heck did it come to this? We should know _MORE_, not less! We should have MORE ability, not less, we should have more understanding, better linguistic skills, higher-level of ideas and .. heck, I learned a language just by researching about it in the internet and starting to talk to people. EVERYONE and anyone not only could, but pretty much SHOULD be a polyglot by now, that's how easy it is to learn languages (among everything else) now.
But nope, people are dumber than ever, more ignorant than ever, and they can spell even less then bad magazine editors and writers in the 1980s could. Back then you had a bit of an excuse, now you have NO excuse. W..T..F?
There are problems, no matter how you look at it.
First, if it just goes and kills Matt and Ginger, it can't just stand in the apartment waiting for Sarah, because the cops will be there, and will find it. It can't keep killing cops and the whole neighbourhood and expect Sarah to just normally return to her home that's now a damn WARZONE.
A better option would be if it was more 'infiltratory' and actually rang the doorbell, saying he has a message for Sarah or something. BTW, why would it EVER use the 'austrian accent male voice', when other voices would be so much better for its purposes? If it can flawlessly mimic Sarah's mother with perfect intonations and everything, it could just use -any- damn voice at the door buzzer, or whatnot. We never did find out how it got through the front door of the building anyway.
This way, Sarah could return home only to find The Terminator sitting at the breakfast table, sipping tea with Ginger and Matt, and THEN it could kill her.
Any other option would be a problem; it can't just stand outside the apartment building, because it would look incredibly suspicious and weird, and draw so much attention, it'd ruin everything. It could wait in the garage somewhere in the shadows, but then it would have to periodically go check if Sarah has returned already, and it could actually have bad luck and JUST miss her, when she's going for some other trip, maybe just to live with her boyfriend for a month or something.
I mean.. I'd watch THAT movie..
In any case, if things hadn't been SO convenient for it, what would it have done? It only knew the city, but if Sarah doesn't spend much time in that city, what can it even do?
"Truman Show is just incredible "
I agree, since that word means 'not credible'. This movie is not credible at all, there are SO many stupidities that absolutely wouldn't need to exist or happen, but do and are ONLY so the movie can happen.
They can control information, but don't. They let Truman know about things that only make it harder to control him. It's insanely idiotic. They keep the loop going LONG after Truman finds out about it.
Plus, this would be a really boring show to watch. Truman saying the same thing to his neighbour every morning, showing off his non-existent dog-handling skills (obviously he can't watch Dog Whisperer, but still), and watching him work all day and then have petty fights with his wife that he doesn't even seem to have sex with, and then masturbating in the corner with the wind blowing in the curtains.
Who the F would tune into that?
As far as Network goes, it's a pretty interesting movie with some salient points and surprisingly realistic depiction of 'corporate power' and the heartless people that always climb to those positions of power, but it fizzles out at the end a bit too much.
Please, please learn to AT LEAST type the _TWO_ (2) small words in your title correctly. Is that too much to ask?
There's no such thing as 'plagerism', it's 'plagiarism'. Why can I know this, but you can't, although you are the one trying to type that word for your.. do I need to reiterate? .. TITLE?
I mean, you can have typos in a long post, that's a given - but to have an 'american typo' in the VERY TITLE? WHY? HOW?
There's no hope for humanity, you must be a Gen Z.