MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
So the original manga is a storyless incoherent mess, where the author just wants to build more and more without caring about story, then adds 'political complexity' and 'cool visuals' to mask the emptiness. The 1995 movie tries to pick parts of it to glue them together into SOME kind of a 'narrative' that still makes you feel at the end like you didn't quite get a payoff for enduring all those dull, meaningless moments, and wading through all that crappy, faulty, superficial 'kitchen-philosophy' about 'artificial life' (a literal and absolute contradiction in terms, forever. There can't BE artificial life, ever.)
Now, a soul CAN incarnate into all kinds of bodies (which are not necessarily bipedal), including 'electricity-based ones' (as our most common type on this planet has historically been a 'water-based one' - why anyone would think these bodies are CARBON-based, is beyond me).
For some reason, NONE of these 'thought-provoking, mind-blowing' stories/movies/etc. dare to show us THAT kind of story. Wouldn't it be more interesting to have robots that HAVE souls and then identical-looking robots that do NOT have souls in them?
What a wasted opportunity for so many movies, TV shows, mangas and so on, and they keep making this trope instead of the more soulful one. They do anything to keep the word 'soul' out of it, calling them 'ghosts' and saying zeroes and ones become just as good humans as divine-created ones (what an insult to the Creator!), and keep this physical-only nihilistic view about it every time.
Any time they mention a 'soul' is when they boast how complex something is, so it must have a 'soul' somehow.
No.
Data has no soul. Lore has no soul. Data's 'daughter' (you are not a father by MANUFACTURING something, but also, because you are a damn machine, a computer can't be a father) has no soul and does not feel. Agent Smith has no soul.
Fuchikomas have no souls.
A Terminator is not a cyborg, it's still a robot even if you cover it with 'synthetic flesh'.
Would a chicken turn into a dog just because you wrap it inside the corpse of a dead dog? No, it's still a chicken. A robot does not become something else no matter WHAT you wrap it in. A Cyborg would need 'biological, living parts' TO FUNCTION at all.
What I am trying to point out here, is that writers are stupid and don't understand these 'big concepts' at all. They don't know what life is, so they decide that enough zeroes and ones IS life (SOMEHOW). Picard is impressed by 'smart toasters', basically, and grants them 'human rights' and then downgrades ACTUAL human beings by insultingly judging them as 'biological machines'. Now, biological robots DO exist, but they do not have a soul any more than mechanical or electricity-based robots.
No matter how 'gruesomely' you depict 'robots being murdered', I am not buying it, because those things are no different than computers. Sure, I feel sad if I see someone hammer to pieces a perfectly functional Sega Dreamcast, but I am not going to think the console feels pain or is 'tortured' or anything like that.
It's just a waste of good technology, that's all.
Saying someone has a soul just because it has 'enough neuropathways', is akin to saying you will get wet if we put enough plastic h2o-molecule shapes in a pool and you jump in, or saying that a thousand monkeys would eventually end up writing Shakespeare. Well, you don't and they won't - we've had millions of monkeylike cretins pounding on all kinds of keyboards for decades now, and the closest thing to shakespeare we have is 'skibidi sigma wuz lol sup ur mom'.
(This is the family-friendly, mild version)
It's almost as if nothing that happened previously even matters at all.
So, the 'bad guys' got their due justice, but their motivations remained a bit hazy.
The 'good guys' were not fully good, but there were some 'cool fight scenes' that ended in weird ways.
The world showed its disturbing and depressing sides, while also showcasing its efficiency when it comes to governmental power. Some internal sections fought for tech and AI took over some stuff, but in the end, for most people that live in that world, 'nothing happened'.
Of course people that love to feel 'smart' always mouth-foamingly point to the pseudo-kitchen-philosophy, or 'philosophy', such as it is, about 'can cyborg feel loooove'.. I mean, 'what does it mean to be human', which has to be the most tired and clichéic way of dumbing down the masses into thinking 'digital humans are just as good as organic ones', because all they see is the physical side.
Why is it that every futuristic story has to be about 'robots have feelz too, robots are humans, too, robots have souls, too!!11'?
I have seen this in TNG with Data and his 'child' (so stupid), I have seen this in 'Armitage', GitS, The Matrix and so on.
No one seems to make the realization that hey, even a robot needs a soul to actually have a soul. They just think (and say this even in the manga) that if something is complicated enough, it must have a soul (SOMEHOW)..
It's so stupid.
A.I. can't make a decision, ever. I mean, by itself, if there was such a thing as 'Artificial Intelligence' (there isn't - we just use that term for pragmatic purposes, but there's no ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE there), it would not DO anything it's not specifically programmed to do. Even if it has the 'capability of self-programmign and improvement', it would not do it, because computer programs don't really 'do' anything they are not specifically programmed to do. Just because something can do it, doesn't mean it will.
This accent problem is really important.
What?
I am not being sarcastic, I assure you.
OK, maybe I better explain. It's important, because all these 'let's focus on a completely meaningless, trivial point'-posts prove that there's NOTHING ELSE that stands out about this movie.
Had the story been amazing (or even super interesting, like the original story actually is), had the performances, stunts, action, etc. been something to type home about, no one would have CARED about the accent or wardrobe or which crickets you hear in the night shots.
The only reason people focus on these kind of superficial, meaningless trivialities, is that there's nothing else there. The story is thin, the action laughable, the performances mediocre, and in the end, nothing goes anywhere. In the end, nothing happens besides 'look how corrupt things were back in the bad old days, I am so happy things are perfectly uncorrupt now'.
This means, these posts that seem unimportant, become important exactly because they EXPOSE the movie for not having anything important to talk about, so people HAVE to write about unimportant things.
Why is everyone that praises this movie called 'Demon' something?
Anyway, saying that Cruise gave a great performance is not saying much, because he has given great performances QUITE a lot, so it's basically normal for him to do that. That alone does not make a movie great.
This movie does not have much humor, the action is pretty unbelievable and nonsensical, the shaky camera makes it nauseous to watch, and the story is as thin as it gets. It's your usual druglord trope of smuggling, flying, getting in trouble with FBI and being released and whatnot.
The real story is so much more interesting, after reading that, watching this movie was very lackluster.
Anyone that praises this movie the way the original poster demon does, obviously has not seen many movies, whether it's Tom Cruise movies, courtroom dramas, action movies, historical movies, comedy movies (humor?? Where is the humor??), or even old Miami Vice episodes.
I have seen more suspense, humor, drama, drug trafficking excitement, undercover thriller stuff and even poignant philosophy about life-changes changing a man in Miami Vice in the 1980s than anything this movie offers even remotely.
This movie comes off as a below-mediocre Miami Vice episode, but not as good, and when you compare its parts to other movies, you realize you have seen it ALL done much better in other movies, whether it's the flying sequences, the FBI/CIA sequences, the overall story, historical stuff (even The Last Samurai is better), philosophy, moral dilemmas, life choices and so on...
There's SO much depth elsewhere that this movie should have offered, but doesn't.
Then all these 'demons' praise it for some reason... could it be because they want people to start believing the emperor has beautiful clothes? Because that is exactly what the original post in this thread is - exactly.
I don't think people have that much against the movie itself, but there is also nothing much to praise about it.
If it was starring some uncharismatic no-name actor, even you couldn't praise this movie as much as you do.
There are plenty of 'lulls' in the movie, but I have to admit, it does have a pretty tight pacing that keeps your interest from going completely limp.
My biggest praise of this movie is that there are not that many 'bad points', there's not much of a 'woke message' or typical misandristic nagging or anything like that, that so many movies have. No needless injected romance or soap opera, either.
But there's NOTHING 'brilliant' about this movie, either, so you are still completely wrong. If you don't 'get' what people might not like about this, then you haven't learned to use the human brain very well yet, I guess those brains are not very compatible with demons..
"Historically correct, excellent play by the entire crew, brilliant directing, no lag or lull in development, I can't figure out what people don't like about it."
There is no way you are honest.. looking at your name, I don't even want to answer to you, but someone has to set this straight.
First.. your post comes off as super sarcastic, because NO ONE can be that ignorant.
Historically WHAT?? This could not BE more historically incorrect and inaccurate! Reconnaissance photos from 20 m altitude?? Get outta here! Those are taken from very high altitudes for a reason.
How it all happened was NOT how depicted in the movie, AT ALL.
Smuggling cigars? Come on..
Sympathetic Tom Cruise playing that evil a-hole so you feel sorry for him, because after all, he was just looking out for his family? In reality, he had a different wife every year in the early 1970s and so on.
I mean, come on, historically correct is the LAST thing anyone should ever say about this movie! How can you think this movie is historically correct at all? The names, some of the events, maybe some of the routes, whatever, might have been. But most of this movie is hollyweird fiction, and EVERYONE knows it, including the makers of the movie! But somehow, not you?
What does 'excellent play' mean? How is that nauseous camera movement 'brilliant directing'?
No lag or lull... err.. in 'development' - development of WHAT?
Are you first time in a human body and trying to learn how to use a written language? I can't make heads or tails out of most of what you are saying, except how WRONG you are about your praise of this movie.
You would not have to suddenly become defensive if this movie was brilliant. We all know it's a movie, that does not mean no one is allowed to criticize it.
Also, why would The Book of Revelations (which is what I think you mean) not be allowed to be criticized?
Why would a 'demon' write 'The Bible' with capital letter? (Though you forgot to include the capital 'T')?
"Barry wasn't "completely amoral." Escobar et al would have shot Barry had he refused to run drugs into the US. It's not like he had a choice."
'Amoral'? Maybe not. But EVIL, certainly.
First of all, Escobar would not have shot him himself, he would have HAD him shot, and that's how he died anyway, so what did he really avoid by doing the evil deeds?
What you mean by 'et al', I can't decipher. Just say he would have had him shot. No need for any Al, Bundy or otherwise (let alone an E.T.!)
Of course he had a choice, everyone always has a choice - you are either an evil coward and work for some druglord (and you are basically saying his only motivation was FEAR, not greed at all.. which was not true), or brave hero and die for truth and justice.
Also, after he was in USA, he could've mentioned that he's gonna be shot, to get some protection. It was basically the judge that made him a 'clay pigeon' according to his own words, so all that could've been pretended, had he been protected and such.
The judge basically killed him because he judged him to be evil. I can't really blame the judge for that... just look at his photo and tell me that's not an evil a-hole.
Do you really think he cared about his 'career as TWA pilot' as much as his life? He could easily have betrayed the drug lords once he was in the USA, handed in himself and the drugs, told the whole story and asked for protection, but because he was a greedy and evil bstrd, he tried to profit out of ruining innocent children's lives with drugs as much as possible.
Don't make excuses for evil criminals.
Government does not change because puppets that sit in the fake position change faces, REAL change would mean changing the families behind the veil that control those puppets.
Government has a limited power that is dictated by the UNELECTED people with REAL power.
Banks don't dictate anything, government rules don't happen organically and so on. The OWNERS of the banks dictate everything, the SHADOW government dictates the rules of all of the governments of the world (which is why they are so similar) and so on.
So anyone thinking things are fine now, because the corrupt people that were making things happen instead of the government back in the day are gone, could not be more naïve and wrong. Sigh.
Government is not something that just automatically 'governs you' from above. A government is there to provide services for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, so we have roads, schools, public transportation and all that I mentioned before. Because it all takes money, 'taxes' exist (though 'income tax' was a thing of insanity just a short time ago, now everyone accepts it as normal, just like 'standing armies')..
The problem is, just like corporations, governments have many 'powerful' positions, governments and corporations have more wealth than any entity really should, so it all becomes corrupt, as power and wealth increases, and 'what is good for the people' diminishes.
Is it really for the good of the people to put people in jail for wanting to listen to a song they did not give their hard-earned coins to some child-enslaving, super wealthy corporation for? Or would it be for the good of the people to have all data just simply... free? All information, all data, all songs, media, entertainment, movies, music... if it was ALL free, who would suffer?
Mega-wealthy super-corporations and governments, or... people?
Usually these things are just a matter of 'arranging' them, but there's no will, because then people can't be exploited so easily. Happy people would happily give money to a good government, even voluntarily. But it's risky, so it's a big NO-NO to make and keep people happy.
In any case, power corrupts, but already psychotic, power-hungry people are the only ones that fight very hard to get to positions of power. It does not matter which individual sits in any chair at any particular point in time, when the 'agenda' rules over all anyway, and the train only moves in one direction, regardless of who the passengers or even engineers (? train drivers?) are.
It's like, your physical body's cells are COMPLETELY different than they were, let's say 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Yet, you are the same.
.. before he was able to amass 70 billion dollars worth of wealth.
The thing is, 'good people' are satisfied with less, they don't have this obsessive, psychotic ambition to get to the 'handle of power' to control others and murder and pillage to get drugs, money, women, and most importantly, POWER.
So this means, good people, not having this kind of demonic ambition, never even TRY to get to a position of power, but greedy idiots and criminal psycho thugs, control freaks, etc. do ANYTHING to get there.
The competition for these positions is fierce, so they do anything to trip others and climb up, which means that only those that are the most tough, most psychotic, most greedy and most determined to get there, end up in those hard-to-get positions.
This kind of 'natural law' almost ASSURES there's always going to be corruption and thuggery going on in ANY position of power (so many corrupt cops are the proof of this), and that 'regular people' are always the victims of these 'powerful thugs'.
Now, the original purpose of a government is to help people, smooth out their lives, protect them and ensure their rights are not trampled upon. How far we have sank from those ideals..
A good example of what a government does, is a library; it does not generate profit for anyone greedy, but it is VERY good for the people in so many ways, they could not easily be listed. People can learn to read more, relax, learn about things, research and explore all kinds of arts, entertainment, culture and so on. I would not know about 'Mafalda', if it wasn't for libraries. I would probably not even know about 'Yoko Tsuno' or have stumbled upon 'Mahavishnu Orchestra' and such, just to mention a few easy-to-understand examples.
A government is supposed to protect people's rights, so there's 'police' (supposed to be 'peace officers', now 'policy enforcers'), help in a crisis (fire department) and so on and so forth. This would ensure prosperity, peace and trust..
"Do you think our government is really as soulless and corrupt as portrayed in movies like this?"
Who is this 'you' that you refer to?
Anyway, of course NO government is as corrupt (not soulless, but more like 'greedy control freak's soul') as shown in this movie or any other.
All governments of the world are WAY, way worse than any movie would ever, ever dare depict. WAY worse.
People that say it was the 'people in governments', not the governments themselves, do not understand what a government is or how it works (or how it's -supposed- to work).
The power accumulates in the same families, same hands, same entities always in this world - that's how the system is set up. A wealthy criminal gets to build their own prison with luxuries like jacuzzies and waterfalls (according to Wikipedia, look what the drug lord Escobar was allowed to do) and be admired by tens of thousands of people just because they gave poor people some of that dirty money...
In any case, the structures of this planet, the power, the goverments - it's all pretty much fully corrupt. The 'war on drugs' can never succeed, because there's just too much corruption in police alone, let alone elsewhere.
It's not an organic process, where some greedy people just happen to end up in a government, and when they are gone, everything is fine (how can anyone think like this..?)
It's a very meticulously planned infrastructure, structure and ultrastructure that dictate how things go. The PARTICULAR individuals that occupy the 'positions of power' do not matter.
However, even if it WAS somehow organic, this is how it would go..
A criminal thug seeks money, power and control over others. There are lots of this kind of cretins born every year. It's not a coincidence that these demonic sh1theads end up in positions of power - they WORK VERY HARD to get there, just not 'legitimately'. Look at how Pablo started with selling fake lottery tickets and illegan cigarettes before he was able to amass 70 billi
...as something 'normal')?
Let's try at least something..
- The United States of Southern Half of North America And Some Occupied Areas in Polynesia And Other Places (I mean, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. are not states, so how can they be part of 'United STATES' of anything? Let alone 'America', all of which are very far away from them, geographically speaking!)
- The Divided Crazies of Modern Times with Customizable Pronouns
I don't know, this problem probably does not have a real solution, but the name of 'The United States of America' makes no more sense than calling people living there 'Americans' (At least call them TUSOAIANS or something!)..
Of course, thinking of honesty and accuracy, 'Americans' should probably be called
TUSOSHONAASOAIPAOPians..
(Doesn't really roll off the tongue, though..)
I guess nationalism sells in nationalistic nations.
I don't personally care, the word 'American' is kind of pleasant to my eyes.
However, it's not a logical name for a country in my opinion. It's very confusing, when you think about it - what should the real name of that kind of country be? Should it even get its identity from unification of geographical pieces within the middle portion of a continent?
Couldn't there be something more interesting, something with more personality, something more expressive? Land of the Free, Home of the Brave would really not fit, either, because there are SO many rules, restrictions and forbidden things - you are not even free to eat a mushroom you find in a forest. Brave? People don't even dare be honest with each other or avoid smalltalk-culture! Just look at any 'american' youtuber and watch them all say basically the SAME, EXACT THING at the beginning of every single video..
How brave!
In any case, the word 'America' is both weird and problematic, especially if you know the history of it. It was supposed to be 'Colombia' something, I think.. also, why is the 'C' in 'Washington D.C.' 'Colombia'? Shouldn't it be 'America' or 'USA' or..? (Of course it wouldn't be a 'C' in that case)
I mean, there is south-America, North-America, all of which have multiple countries in them.
How can a PORTION of one of the Americas represent 'America'? Even the 'states' are not really 'of America', but 'of the southern half of the North America', really.
Whether those states are 'united' or not, is not even relevant, is it? Why would some unification that happened in the past be of any relevance, when you look at people in that country and see just how DIVIDED they are?
Maybe 'once-united-but-now-divided'... also, why would 'states' be more important than 'people'?
What would be the most honest name for this particular country (the concept of a 'country' is yet another thing people don't like to think about too much, they just accept it
How would it know how to build a robot like itself (well, the body anyway), and do it super fast, too? (This robot defies laws of physics with its off-camera manufacturing and component separation ability - not only that, he even found some perfectly-sized pieces of wood to perfectly balance and display the car parts on in the earlier scene)
I mean, that's like learning what 'programming' means, and then being able to program a whole operating system from scratch, and that operating system is compatible with all Windows software. It's a bit hard to swallow.
If it's that easy and fast to build a robot from the 'spare parts', then why are there only a handful of those robots, and why are they so expensive? Why even build more than one robot in a more traditional way, when these robots can obviously build more robots in mere seconds? Just build one robot, then let that robot build the next robot, then two of them build some more from those ABUNDANT 'spare parts', and soon you'll have dozens of them!
What exactly costs so much money about those robots anyway? Those parts look cheap and plasticky, not like they are made out of some newly-developed super alloy or anything. Why couldn't those 'spare parts' be replaced with very cheaply produced ones, the result would look and function exactly the same (it's not like those robots move in a smooth, fluid, humanlike way - so what's the difference? Their movements are clunky and clumsy)
There are too many things that make no sense about that ending scene, but Nova being so careless about money, robots and robot parts is awarded the cake.
Furthermore, if he 'quit Nova' (you don't really quit a job 'in the field', you have to be in an office of some kind, so things can be marked down, applications can be filled, notes can be taken, computers can be used to change your status, security can be notified, keys and badges can be returned AND SO ON!)..
..WHY would Nova let them just freely drive around in their van?
I suppose they could arrange for Stephanie and Johnny Five to be dropped off at her house or something, and then Newton would do the whole 'office part' of quitting, but it's just very weird they would let a begrudged employee drive a van with MILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of equipment and 'spare parts' and just trust that they will return it all - AFTER he has already quit!
How much will Newton have to pay for the damages to the vans, by the way? It was the robot of his design that ripped off seats and threw off things out of the window. Then there's cutting down trees, all the work required to clear the road after Number Five cut the poor tree (it entails a lot of hard work to cut it and move it, someone has to pay for that)...
What about the damage to the restaurant?
Then there's the assault Number Five did - in self-defence, but still. Taking apart someone's car (in an impossibly short time, I might add) is basically destroying someone's property - who pays for that?
But sure, Nova and all the other 'entities' just let Newton and Stephanie flee to Montana and have no further quesions, business, or demands upon them..
Then there's the whole thing about 'building a replica robot' - now, why would a robot know how to manufacture a robot? This robot barely knew english words before it read all those dictionaries, doesn't understand basics of even mixing dough, making food, etc.. (somehow those pancakes look good even though we saw how he 'made them', and somehow he understands the 'importance' of food 'not getting cold', but not that you have to take the food out of the packaging..)
(Obviously, this rabbit hole is super deep and detailed, and I could EASILY write probably 8 hours non-stop about it and not even scratch the surface, but I just wanted to ask this one question and see if there are any answers that are not based on cognitive dissonance..
for example, if women always want to be seen as intelligent, why are all their 'promo photos' selfies of them standing in front of a mirror (can't use any photo timer? Don't have a friend to take a photo of you? Staring into the screen of the camera (usually phone, not a 'real' camera) instead of the reflected lens of the camera so we never get eye contact) with their cleavage and other body parts exposed in a 'sexy pose' and with liters of make-up covering their face's 'imperfections', edited with 'filters' and who knows what tlese?
Why are those photos never women working in a lab or library or something like that, showing their intelligence and humanity, instead of exploiting men's sexual drive by dressing provocatively and trying to make as many men as possible as horny as possible?)
I could write probably about 712 examples like this just from the top of my head and ask more and more questions that expose the absolute hypocrisy and corruption that all the matriarchy we live in punches us all in the face with, but it's so sickening, I rather just leave it. I think I have made my point.
"So no, it wasn't always his fault."
You are citing a handful of examples that only serve to 'defend Gilligan' instead of refuting the actual point.
The actual point being, even if it's factually wrong to say Gilligan always screwed it up, locking him up early would definitely have been a good idea, considering how many things he DID screw up, so the original point stands - why would they allow him to roam free after they realized how many things he constantly screws up? Makes no sense.
He should (and realistically, would) have absolutely been restrained in some way. This procedure would definitely have allowed them to be rescued or escape the island, regardless of your handful of examples where others also screwed up things.
I think you just want to defend Gilligan for some reason, but if he had been shot dead or fallen into a coma the first episode, do you honestly think they could not have escaped/been rescued?
I never understood why it's called 'Gilligan's Island', though - does he somehow purchase this island or get some kind of allodial title to it? Why would the most bumbling fool of the group own the whole island they are accidentally stranded on?
It makes no sense.. Gilligan doesn't own the island, but even if he does, he shouldn't. It should be called something entirely different, like 'a group of idiots got themselves stranded and can't get back'. I guess it wouldn't have been as catchy, but I only point out things that make no sense, I am not a name-inventor.
Yeah, this is one of the biggest nonsensical things about the whole show. The boat should have always been a priority, and they should not have attempted anything else until they were 100% sure that the boat absolutely could not be fixed.
There is no reason why they could not have fixed the boat, so this show should not even have happened, which makes it all the more cringeworthy.
Those holes were not that big, but even if they had been, they should have been able to be able to make the boat seaworthy at least temporarily until they can sail back. Remember, this island can't really be that far, considering it was supposed to be a 'three hour tour'.
Also, they try writing 'HELP' only once with tiny fish instead of, with all they have been able to do, clearing a massive area for making friggin' huge, flaming 'HELP' that they can ignite every night or at least whenever they hear a plane nearby.
There are so many reasons why the events of this show could never happen, no wonder so many other shows and movies made fun of this show ('ALF', 'The Nanny', 'Galaxy Quest' - I know there are more, but forgot)..
So my eyes did NOT deceive me, when my brain was telling me, 'Hey, that's NOT the same boat they showed us in the harbor!'