MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
I know there's NO way they would be singing things like 'Ventura', and I have no idea about that 'Shina' or 'Seito' part, and that whole 'Katsui chinchin' is so drowned by music, I can't tell what it's actually supposed to be. Consider my wrong parts as 'placeholders' that can be replaced by the correct words some day, hopefully.
What makes it EVEN worse is the completely wrong intonation they deliberately use. For example, the word 'ana' is not supposed to be a-NA, but Ana - the emphasis should be on the first 'a', not the 'NA', so it gets very confusing trying to understand what they are saying, when they don't follow the english OR japanese intonation norms or rules.
Fun song anyway, but damn it's hard to hear what they are saying. With pure speech without the music, it would still be a challenge, but.. possible, perhaps?
They should have featured Kuriyama-san and Takayama-san a bit more, though, they looked like they were having a lot of fun.
Back in the day, everyone expected the next movie to simply be called 'Star Wars 2', but it wasn't. I read an old MAD Magazine of the era which confirms this..
..don't ever watch any 'youtuber reactions' to any of these movies, as all of them (sans maybe two) watch the 'special editions' and such WITHOUT REALIZING what they're watching, so then they're complimenting that the 'effects were pretty good for the seventies' while they're looking at the slowly meandering CGI added in the 1990s and 2000s or whatever.
It's SO groan-inducing that people today can't even REALIZE what 1970s effects would look like, and what bad CGI looks like. That they can even ENTERTAIN the thought that _THAT_ came from the 1970s, makes me lose ALL HOPE.
Maybe reality should give us a new hope that someone might actually make a movie that makes sense, and youtubers would actually RESEARCH what the F they are friggin' watching so they would know to give appropriate commentary, not look at some modern CGI and say 'that looks pretty good for the seventies'. Groan.
Also, seventies practical effects look better than any modern CGI, but what do I know.
What interests me, though, is that there WAS supposedly some 'treatment' that had a full story.
Why did they have to retcon SO MUCH, if they already had a full story, boggles my mind. I mean, in 1977, they already had a 'treatment' that George probably bought from someone, and they decided to do the middle part, which would become three movies, but wanted to make the first one a 'standalone' just in case it doesn't sell - or something. I think this is the way the story goes, but then why would they have to retcon a ton of stuff in the very next movie, is beyond me.
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars-movie for sure, maybe even top three best 'space movies', basically due to the Luke's training and the iconic 'valiant knight fights the dark knight'-scenes, although so much boring and useless and nonsensical filler and fluff is also included. The original, DESPECIALIZED EDITION-version of the Emperor looks so cool and sounds more majestic and menacing, I can't understand why they had to feebleize that as well. The weak-sounding, wrinkly emperor is nothing like the hologram shown ORIGINALLY with the monkey eyes, which make him look so creepy (and it was a woman's face, if I remember correctly, not that that matters).
George always goes where the money is, so whatever the story requires doesn't matter, anything will be changed to get more merchandizing opportunities.
Isn't it amazing that pretty much everything was retconned into oblivion? 'Illuminate beings are we, not of this crude matter' was changed to 'MIDI-chlorine' [SIC] (I think Lucas just takes existing words and twists them a bit and puts them together), so now even that's gone. All the wisdom of Yoda? Gone.
BTW, ANH wasn't even ANH originally. It was just Star Wars - a name that doesn't even make any sense,since stars do NOT go to war in these movies, let alone multiple wars. There's just a 'tiny rebel struggle' at best in any of these movies, not ever a full-blown WAR(S).
The problem of course being, as it always is, that this kind of new, common-sensical future tech would be SO advanced, it would be hard for any rebel group to even exist for very long. The empire could track you down, they would be faster than you are, and eliminate all of you with a click of a mouse.
For a long time, I have wanted to see a 'futuristic tech'-based fight done in the 'modern UI' way.
Think about banana flies in your kitchen. There's this big group of tiny things that are hard to see and even harder to get rid of easily and quickly.
WHAT IF you could just select them like you can troops in a RTS game, and then hit DEL and they would be deleted? It seems so intuitive, and yet I can't do it, because I don't have the technology.. Obviously, cleaning your kitchen will get rid of them, but my point is, wouldn't it be cool to see this kind of 'fight' implemented in some story?
Someone would just select the enemy group, to form a box around them, then every enemy would slow as 'selected' (have a glow around them or glowing outline or a rectangle for each unit), then they would hit DEL and the enemy would just be .. gone.
That would be so cool, but I might be the only one thinking that way. Still, watching these movies makes you imagine something so much better every time... sigh. Why can't fantasy movies ever be fantastic?
Anyone that has seen Babylon 5 space battles - well, they're not exactly realistic, as they're STILL happening 10 meters from each other, but at least they have 'destructive light beams' (though they seem to move too slowly and STILL act like physical knives or swords, experiencing resistance or something sometimes, when they should just quickly slice through like a katana would a bamboo tree in an old samurai movie, and not make things 'explode' in the way - they should just slice, SWOOSH!, and THEN there might be explosions - now it looks like the beam doesn't actually slice the ships, but just penetrate slightly to cause explosions, which diminishes the effect)..
So think of these beams but in more massive scale, used in precise, effective, computerized manner, where every hit is pre-calculated and targets have been locked so the computer can't miss, will always hit them perfectly and so on.
We could be seeing NEW ways of 'orbital bombing', we should be seeing NEW ways of destroying massive enemy fleets. Heck, no one would even HAVE fleets anymore, they'd be too big as targets, too slow beacuse of inertia, and so on. Everyone would have tiny, flexible, superfast 'drone ships', unmanned and tiny in physical size, but super powerful in their energy weapon systems and such. They would have millions of these tiny things trying to eliminate each other's bases from thousands and again thousands of kilometers away with 'energy missiles' that can use warp technology (so stupid to call it 'light speed' in these movies, because that would be way too slow - it takes EIGHT MINUTES for light to even reach Earth from the sun, do the math!)..
Can you imagine a spacefight like this? Instead of clunky WW1-style fights which were obsolete even at WW2, let alone modern times, LET ALONE THE FUTURE SPACE FIGHTS, we could have more IMAGINATIVE (if not realistic) future fights, even _IF_ we only follow 'common sense', we could see something previously completely unseen and amazing!
I mean, think how much they would save in money and resources, if they didn't build these ridiculously massive 'death stars'... how they're able to do that kind of a project secretly is beyond me.
They have 'tractor beams', and yet they're letting gravity decide things for some reason. They could keep any 'rebel spaceship' in a levitated mode in a cocoon, so no one can escape from it, and of course they could keep such a ship under observation, monitoring every LIFE SIGN THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY CAN SCAN FOR...
(I am sorry, these movies are so stupid that it bugs me - why do they show a feature only to then forget about it in these movies? If they can scan life signs in the beginning of a movie, they should be able to scan for life signs also when they capture a Millennium Falcon - kinda weird name for a ship, considering this is a SPACE saga, so why are 'falcons' even a thing? Do people know about falcons? Also, why is 'millennium' signifigant? It might've been in the 1970s, when people were thinking about future and the year '2000', but when every planet probably has a different calendar they use, shouldn't 'a millennium' be a completely insignifigant name and word in that particular universe? When you're not planet-tied, you don't have a 'set time' to follow, as every planet has their OWn time)
In any case, I was just scratching the surface, but if we really imagine what future tech would be, space battles would be fought thousands of kilometers away from the enemy, shooting devastating, faster-than-any-missile energy and ray and vibration weapons that can use hyperspace to jump back and forth and destroy massive areas with devastating force instantly, targets would be locked as big groups from massive distances away and destroyed instantly by sweeping energy grids..
..and if there ever WAS a 'light weapon', it would be a SOLID BEAM that destroys everything it touches (somehow they can have this in small scale, but not big scale, think light sabers in space)
Just off the top of my head, what COULD have been shown as 'future technology' when it comes to spacefights, destroying a rebel base, and so on.
How about small scanning drones that jump through hyperspace (or whatever it's called - light speed obviously being WAY too slow for actual space travel) from sector to sector to scan everything there, with powerful energy beam capabilities.
This would give the empire a lot of REAL power, as they could remotely ensnare a planet, pump it full of some 'alien energy' that would do anything the empire wants, from making the people there sleepy or suggestible, kill the population or whatever they want. Even disrupting their sleep by pumping super loud sound and noise into the planet's atmosphere would make the people VERY suggestible when the sound ends an the empire issues a demand. "Anything you want, as long as we don't have to suffer from that noise anymore".
This is just off the top of my head, remember, I am sure many people could create much more effective ideas.
In any case, this would also allow the empire to know everything about all the planets, cultures, people and such - they could do almost anything from their computer consoles, merely by selecting things from a menu and clicking. No need to send a huge fleet somewhere, land cumbersome, giant metal robots to walk VEEERRRY slowly towards a tiny base from VEERRRRY far away. Just push a button and eliminate the base by the actually destructive energy beam the drone can generate and aim and LOCK at anything.
(Why don't these movies even have proper target locks, is beyond me.. every time they do, the target is never destroyed anyway)
If the ability to destroy a planet is insignifigant (I can't get over this MASSIVE claim that changes everything - you can't have a bigger gamechanger than THIS in a movie!), then why can't the emperor and Darth just go on missions to explode planets with the force left and right - any 'rebellious' planet would be destroyed.
Wesley Snipes as Phoenix in this movie belongs to top three MOST enjoyable, fun villains ever. I am only saying it like this because I can't remember if there might be someone even more fun, and then I'd regret making him number one.
However, he absolutel DESERVES to be number one anyway, I can only agree with the consensus here. All villains should be like this - his real-life martial arts-skills are on great display as well, the only way his fights could be better, if he did 'Jackie Chan'-like stuff, like the playground fight in 'Police Story' (almost wrote 'Police Squad!'), or the roof fights in 'Who am I'.
Amazing stuff, Snipes really proved he can be one of the most fun villains ever, and it even looks like it's so easy for him here. It looks like he's having actual FUN, and that translates to the screen VERY well. Lots thumbsies up for him here, I absolutely agree.
If Friendly is so hard to kill, how much harder would Phoenix be to kill? How do you get rid of him? Thaw even a tougher psycho and so on?
No, the whole thing makes no sense from the get-go. If he IS to thaw someone, Cocteau should make sure he's properly programmed..
1) Wouldn't even be ABLE TO think anything bad/negative/destructive/disobeying about Cocteau, and getting euphoria boost every time he obeys him, and super big fear, anxiety, depression and psychosis every time he even THINKS of thinking of disobeying him.
2) Desire, not just nagging reminder, but pure DESIRE to kill Friendly.
3) Like Manchurian Candidate, or the 'wrist watch' in 'Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!', he would be - OF COURSE!!!! - programmed to kill himself IMMEDIATELY after Friendly is dead.
4) Lock/Prevent/Squish/Remove his selfish desires. Just psychologically prevent access to them. Phoenix can't dream of power, can't have agency, can't have selfish thoughts whatsoever, can't have self-preservation or anything you don't SPECIFICALLY want him to have.
5) He wouldn't have to roam free and go around looking for guns, killing cops and whatnot. Holy cow, WHY ALLOW THIS?!
He would follow his programming and come STRAIGHT to you, without having any need, urge or wish to do anything else, and not being able to even breathe without thinking about arriving at your place, first. It'd be like the biggest urge you have ever had, but psychological, and which doesn't get satisfied until you actually arrive at Cocteau's residence and listen to what he has to say.
6) _HE_ wouldn't have to try to find guns - YOU would damn well equip him. You are his boss, he's your pawn and slave, what the F are you doing letting him cause chaos in your 'perfect city' and show the public how incompetent your cops are? This makes no sense on SO MANY LEVELS, Humphrey would probably call this plan 'novel' and 'imaginative'.
4) Make sure that anyone you DO thaw (though Humphrey could take over the world without anyone thawed, too bad Cocteau is not even worthy of kissing Humphrey's shadow) is fully programmed to not be able to even THINK thoughts that would be against you in any way, and that they would be basically hypnotized to always obey you and feel EUPHORIA every time they obey your command. Common sense, isn't it?
5) Make sure that the whole 'I will get you with the next shot' can't ever even happen, Phoenix shouldn't be able to EVEN raise his gun enough to point at him. It's RIDICULOUSLY dangerous to let him get a tiny finger squeeze away from murdering you instantly! What? Why? HOW? Wouldn't _YOU_ want a "bit" more marginal here? Phoenix shouldn't be able to even hold a gun while thinking negative thoughts about you, he should feel sick, faint, headache, stomach ache, amnesia, etc. etc. Come on, why can't writers have imagination?
6) Why make someone not have anything to lose so he will be GUARANTEED to rebel against you, and then thaw a dangerous criminal with VERY feeble 'failsafe' programmed into him that can actually hack your whole house to obey him to kill that someone? This whole thing makes no sense.
Even if Phoenix succeeds, as someone said, 'now what'? But it's worse than just that. First, Friendly becomes a Martyr, and that can actually wake up people to think for themselves. They might read up on him and find out what was really going on. Why would you risk this by killing him? If you paint him as an evil guy in the eyes of the public, what's the worse he can ever do anyway? Let him live and enjoy your power.
Also, Friendly isn't a psychotic killer, Phoenix is. This is exactly like using wasps to kill your crop-eating bugs, so now wasps become even a worse problem, then you need to bring frogs to kill the wasps, then some catlike jungle beasts to kill the frogs, and so on and so forth. Cocteau's logic is EXACTLY like this.
It's a shame that Sir Humphrey is so clever and competent in Yes, Minister, but so awful and ridiculously cartoony and stupid here.
His plans make no sense, he really doesn't take advantage of his power to consolidate it and gain more power, or anything.
I guess the (feeble) point is that Friendly is 'intelligent rebel', whereas the thugs he thawed were just dumb thugs, easy to dispose of.
However, Cocteau didn't really make the kind of contingengy plans Sir Humphrey Appleby would definitely have. I would have LOVED if this movie properly utilized his talent and amazing capabilities to create a similar network of lies and corruption as shown in 'Yes, Minister'. That would've been absolutely exciting and brilliant.
Cocteau really made many stupid mistakes. I guess it's because villains have to be stupid, or movies can't happen (sigh).
What he COULD have done..
1) Gas the underground with, if not poison, at least some kind of hallucinogen, sleeping gas, some kind of drug that the underground people become addicted to, and thus, his slaves. Offer them free food that has some kind of addictive, memory erasing, hallucinogenic - - well, you can easily continue from here - - to the 'rebels', thus removing their reason for rebelling. Offer them free clothing and such.
I mean, if a big underground rebel group can happen, you are not doing it right. If Cocteau did this like Humphrey would do it, then it would be a SLOW, gradual, subtle change that not even Friendly could resist. Everything would be fine, just 'slightly' more restrictive each year (just like in our world.. uh,oh!)
2) Have the general public against the rebels. Paint them as something YOU can do something about, give all the 'citizens' free tazers and training to use them and so on. Run this kind of PSAs on TV all the time.
3) Give cops enough power and competence to be able to handle a group like this, and have them training specialized scouts to infiltrate those rebel groups and so on.
My mind starts running laps in a cog factory when I think of Will Smith as Neo.
Just out of curiosity, I would love to see that, but at the same time, I can't see him do a good job as Neo in particular. He's a great actor with powerful on-screen charisma, and he's absolutely BRILLIANT in some movies (Men in Black comes to mind), but it would've been hard to take him as seriously or relate to his wise-cracking happy rapper-personality when Agent Smith is interrogating him.
Keanu is not the top actor, but in this role, he fits so snugly, it's difficult to imagine anyone else filling this role. It's like Jim Carrey in Liar, Liar - can you imagine the roles reversed? I mean, Jim Carrey as Neo and Keanu as Fletcher?
That's the kind of mental struggle I am talking about when I try to envision Will Smith sitting there, staring at Agent Smith bitterly and in a cocky way. It would be a completely different scene, and consequently, a completely different movie.
Interesting, but almost scary to think about.. how would the scene with Trinity go when this innocent baldy gets all excited about the Morpheus rescue plan, and Trinity wants to come with him? I shudder to even think about it..
Actually, 'Should have made', because you don't 'do' a reboot, you make or create one.
Context matters.
Sorry, can't resist grammar-Nzing a fellow grammar-Nzz..
Usually I am a bit of a grammar-national socialist, but I think in some of these cases, where english is just a messed up language, it's OK to do the more human and logical thing and flip the bird to english for clarity. Sometimes you SHOULD use an apostrophe wrong, if it actually makes it more clear what's going on, sometimes you SHOULD use a non-existent word, if it makes your meaning easier to understand.
I think I would actually rather shoot english language in the eye when it comes to 'cast', and just write 'casted', because even though it's wrong, it's still more clear, and sounds more correct - it also would be more logical, when you think about how words usually work.
I absolutely HATE some quirks, like silent letters (I deliberately pronounce knee with a hard K in the beginning), non-plural words ending with 's' (series and news, for example - what the heck is up with those? It is SO tempting to say 'I have a great new!', and I have seen many people say 'serie', when they talk about singular - I am sure there are many more of these).
Still, refreshing to see someone else that hasn't forgotten the english language completely, but you just happened to pick the side of the 'quirks', when I am firmly planted on the side of 'logic' and 'looks good' when it comes to these weirder exceptions in the language.
I ABSOLUTELY hate when I can't 'bend' a word to specify an exact meaning - I want to say 'new' if it's plural, I want to say 'casted', when it's past tense, and as much a grammar-certain political party I am, I just HATE those illogical and annoying exceptions that make no sense to me. After all, logic trumps grammar in my book - even if it is difficult to believe.
What do you mean by OFF? It was very much ON. When you turn something ON, it 'runs', as you put it. If you turn it OFF, it stops running. How come you don't know this basic logic about things? Also, the internet isn't 'running', it's a network of computers, most of which, at least in 1999, stayed in place, without moving anywhere. They also didn't have legs, so they couldn't run anyway.
In any case, the main point is good, though. If you watch the 'BBS Documentary' (I think it's free now), you can realize even those old geezers mention how things don't just suddenly appear, internet wasn't just in existence one morning, it developed slowly, like all things like this.
There are ALWAYS predecessors, and when the technology level is cultivated enough and the time is right, someone will make an innovation that makes that tech leap to the next level. That has been happening since the telegrams, let alone teletype (10 cents if you know what this means without looking it up).
Even BBSes weren't completely a new thing, it was basically just logical extension of what already existed, but just made 'computerized'. It's like CBBS being the first BBS. The name means 'Computerized BBS'. Of course 'BBS' means 'Bulletin Board System'. So it's nothing new per se - people had been sending ASCII-style pictures and text messages in teletype way before that, and of course HAM radio operators sent even DATA for the early computers back and forth.
BBSes were, in effect, just a logical concentration, conglomeration and joining of these pre-existing systems, technologies and ideas into a way to do it all on computers. The internet basically evolved from there.
I am aware of how Arpanet was developed, so I guess that needs a bit of clarification, and isn't entirely accurate, but you get my point; most things, like the internet, are built upon pre-existing ideas, systems and things that are then just cultivated and developed to the next logical tech-evolutionary point or plane.
Who is this kid you are talking about?
In other words, PLEASE learn the correct place for the apostrophe, or you are just embarrassing yourself in a place that can be visited by anyone in the world.
I could also sort of nitpick about the soundworld and all - if a planet-size planet-eater eats a planet, it shouldn't make any sound in space, but if it's gonna make sound, THERE IS NO WAY the sounds would be 'our world's typical sounds', because the SCALE IS SO DIFFERENT. It would NOT sound like an industrial machine, and those 'teeth' couldn't crunch so INCREDIBLY FAST due to inertia and slowness of mass.
When you increase the scale, you slow the speed anything can go from resting position to motion, and the greater the speed, the longer this takes. Something of THIS scale could NEVER MOVE THAT FAST back and forth!
It could move that fast in one direction ONCE the inertia requirements are met, and enough time is allotted so it can accelerate to that speed, but.. sigh.
Also, the sounds are SO feeble and thin considering what's going on. Events of this scale sound sound MASSIVE AND BOOMING, because _EVERYTHING_ is enormously huge beyond human understanding (almost), they're not 'normal things being crunched in a normal factory', they're bits and pieces of massive-size PLANETS being crunched by things that are PLANET-SIZE, for crying out loud.
Well, this might be a nitpick, but it really takes me out of what's happening when the sound doesn't match what I am supposedly seeing on the screen, and brings the scale down to 'normal level' from the massive, epic scale depicted.
No, he was not mentally ill. He had no schizophrenia.
Remember, this is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. If he's not specifically WRITTEN to have something, then he doesn't have that something. You can create conjecture all you want, but this is the fact. He's just a vessel for the writers' weird ideas they wanted to express in the show, that's all he was. He was never a real human being, therefore, he could never be mentally ill.
Also, a child has vivid imagination, one of the sad things about this world and its so-called 'education system' is that it absolutely murders this natural part of human beings, and perhaps this is what LEADS to mental health problems.
To add another perspective; who is to say that unborn baby DIDN'T talk to him? Children are still sensitive to telepathic influences and higher realms, their chakras are still relatively open, especially their crown chakra, that closes surprisingly late (the physical side of the skull mimics this, by remaining 'open' for a surprisingly long time).
Considering all these things, and that 'newborn babies' are just old souls incarnating again, there's absolutely no reason why Dewey COULDN'T be hearing actual beings communicating with him from the higher realm using the fetus as a conduit of sorts to strengthen their presence enough to be able to establish access to Dewey's receptive mind.
Of course this probably already sounds like cookie talk to people, whose chakras are as closed as their imagination dead.
People here are making the fallacy of taking ALL THE FAMILIES IN THE WORLD and then pointing out the five or six examples of SOMETHING like this having happened once. "Look, people forget kids all the time" is not an argument, it's a fallacy based on faulty logic.
You take ONE family, and the likelihood drops almost to zero. You take one, rich family that should know better, who ALREADY ditched their kid once, and the likelihood is in the MINUS realm now. There's just _NO_FRIGGIN'_WAY_ they would forget Kevin AGAIN.
It's not even a question of 'why not' (this question wouldn't make sense), it's a question of 'WHAT WOULD MAKE THEM FORGET HIM'. There's nothing powerful enough to make them forget Kevin, except 'movie has to happen'.
That's literally the only reason most of the implausibilities and impossibilities that are absolutely required by both movies, happen in these stupidly written, nonsensical messes. Think again before trying to apply faulty logic, ok? It's the same kind of reasoning as 'murders happen', so it's 100% likely that your family will murder you.
No, it isn't, and no, it won't. People win lotteries, but it's _EXTREMELY_ unlikely. People are killed by falling meteors and lightning bolts, but you wouldn't use that as an argument that someone will experience all three events... ...twice, now would you?
I have to agree, there are a few reasons why this wouldn't happen.
1) Kevin is one of the few 'relatively helpless' members of the family, that absolutely NEEDS a bit more looking after.
2) After what happened in the first movie, Kevin would be a god damn priority, there's no way he wouldn't.
3) The coincidences required to make these movies' implausibilities happen are just too big to be realistic in any way.
4) The mom definitely be SO EMOTIONAL about the possibility about leaving Kevin behind AGAIN, that she would take extra steps to ALWAYS keep her eye on Kevin, no matter what else is happening. She would friggin' CHAIN HIM TO HER WRIST if that's what it takes, there's just NO WAY she would let that happen again.
5) The dad is kind of 'just there', but even he would probably at least do something to make sure Kevin is with them - they would ABSOLUTELY have created a SYSTEM of some kind to make sure Kevin can't be left behind AGAIN.
For example, why would they do headcount as NUMBERS instead of doing it as NAMES?
They could have a list written on paper, then call everyone's name with pen on their hand, make sure the correct individual is counted for, before checking or crossing out their name. Then move to the next name, until the whole list is done.
They would do this, for example, three separate times; at the 'van' or taxi cab or airport shuttle or whatever, before getting in, then they would do it at the airport, while making sure everyone has their ticket and passport ready, then they would do it as boarding the plane, so when they sit in the plane, they could be 100% sure everyone has boarded the same plane.
It's not rocket science, a family this rich could afford the maybe 2 bucks my plan would require. God damn these movies are stupid.
'People forget kids all the time' isn't the same thing as 'most families always forget their kids'.
Of course with ENOUGH PEOPLE, there will be parents that are that negligent, but MOST PEOPLE wouldn't.