MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
When you think about 'the devil tempting the Christ', you can get a crude understanding of what a spiritual initiation is all about. We are all tempted on some level, and we are supposed to choose the right and good instead of the seductive and evil. Only this way can our soul be cultivated enough that we can do the work of the Creator properly - this is how priests were created originally in the first place in the Golden Age of Atlantis, the cultivation and spiritual center of this planet back in the day.
Now, when you realize how this all contrasts to what the mainstream agenda has always brainwashed people with - the nihilistic, materialistic agenda, that pharaohs had massive egoes, so they had to have massive pyramid tombs that just HAPPEN to be located on Earth's energy points (I'll try to simplify these explanations), and just HAPPEN to be arranged exactly as the stars in the Orion's Belt... it's all the nihilistic mainstream knows and understand. Massive ego? I can understand that. Spiritual cultivation so people wouldn't have to live as half-animals (sometimes very physically, too, as you can see from the old hieroglyphic paintings, but people dismiss it as 'symbolic', of course, because they can't accept the literal possibility)? Can't understand that, so let's go with the ego explanation, although it would be 100% impossible, according even to just the materialistic evidence.
Slave labor building a pyramid, because older civilizations MUST be less cultivated than we are? Sure, easy to understand and to mock the older cultures.
Levitating massive, heavy stones so the pyramids can actually be built? Nah, can't understand that, so let's go with the easy-to-understand slave explanation.
See how history is being written by materialistic nihilism?
I am only saying all this to refute your whole post, because you OBVIOUSLY base it on these kinds of viewpoints and brainwashed 'facts' (which aren't true at all), to show you have no base to stand on.
It's always sad when people base their arguments on beliefs that are founded by ignoramuses that base their worldview on purely materialistic thinking, and thus can never understand or realize the truth about history or anything.
It's like egyptologists that, although it has never been proven, and it would be literally impossible, claim that pyramids were built by slave labor (they were not) and that the pyramids were 'tombs' (they are and were not, ever), just because they come from a 'scientific background' that doesn't allow such truths as 'spiritual cultivation' and 'past civilizations were spiritually more advanced than current people'.
Pyramids were built with very sophisticated technology, and they looked very different in their heyday (shiny, reflective, etc).
The function and purpose of the pyramids was spiritual cultivation, basically in layman's terms, 'burning off the unnecessary materialistic excess' by going through what is called 'an initiation'. This has nothing to do with later RITUALS also called 'initiations', but it has a very specific, spiritual meaning that doesn't tie itself to any particular group or agenda.
We are, in fact, all going through a spiritual initiation, whether we realize it or not, but it's happening much slower by these weird, incarnational experiences. Each life cultivates us a little bit, but in ancient Egypt, where the priests of Atlantis and the higher spiritual culture was still very much alive and present, they were able to cultivate people through initiation much more effectively - albeit more painfully as well.
This is why only strong-enough people can go through with it, as it's a harrowing, arduous process, where your body is put to a considerable strain, and your soul even more difficult experiences. This kind of thing was -somewhat- described even in the biblical writings, when The Christ went through the initiation to re-emerge as 'The Christ'.
Ad Hominem has never been a valid argument, and it still isn't.
You can't dismiss someone's well-thought arguments and thoughts just by insulting them to be a 'troll', thereby also revealing your own ignorance as to what 'trolling' really means, where it originated and so on.
In my opinion, someone that doesn't even understand basic concepts like the difference between 'troll vs. trolling', isn't qualified enough to write anything meaningful, much less an analysis on a movie that makes no sense, or a well-written, well-argumented, well thought-out post about multiple such movies' timelines and narrative expressions.
The kind of mind that thinks it's clever or even acceptable to just say "[Name] is a troll.", and thinks it conveys anything meaninful, other than revealing its own ignorance, arrogance and dismissive 'I won't listen to you, I will put my fingers in my ears and sing la la laa very loudly'-attitude, is the kind of mind no one should ever listen to in any circumstances.
No offence, but your kind of 'argumentative style' (insulting someone and declaring victory) is extremely childish and comes off as someone that just doesn't understand his post, and anything you don't understand, you have to attack and insult. Not cool.
I'd rather die in a housefire than listen to you screaming 'fire' and considering its possible reality and run out.
The 'why' is a question that can never truly be answered, without considering the origins, creations and motivations of the Cosmos and the Entity that created it by forming it in all its dimensions out of itself.
Especially this primitive, non-developed (the original term before the euphemism mill made it nonsensical - underdeveloped, less developed, developing, development, etc..) planet's nihilistic, materialistic, capitalistic 'science' (such as it is here), doesn't even recognize that question as anything legitimate.
People also don't seem to ponder it too much, because it would obviously disturb their daily lives. Why do quantum particles behave so weirdly and subvert common sense and logic so much? I mean, WHY can a quantum particle know the future? (Check the Delayed Quantum Eraser experiments, of course only after you thoroughly understand the Double Slit experiments and photons' weird behaviour and dual nature as waves AND particles - my explanation, of course, is that because the waves exist in higher realm (etheric and astral plane), the particles in this realm simply reflect that in behaviour, but what do I know).
Why does a tree exists is basically the same question as 'why does ANYTHING exist' or 'why does anything exist the way it does'. Why do you exist? How can you even research that? Are we truly separate, or are we actually just part of a massive whole that constantly flows as one, but are only seemingly separated?
It would be cool if hollyfkers could make movies out of these ideas without any kind of agendas or gloomy darkness or lens flares. But their answer to all questions is MONEY and CONTROL, so we'll never see that kind of things explored honestly, until the current financial and power infrastructure and paradigm is dead or at least non-existent, or the very least, non-influencial.
Yes, I used the word 'paradigm'.. you have to add humor into posts sometimes.
"Darwin's powers (ability to adapt to survive) would make the most scene for the sentinels"
Make the most WHAT?
SCENE?
Do you possibly mean 'sense'? Look, don't try to copy me if this is the best you can do..
In any case, 'The Sentinels' is written with capital first letters, because it's a NAME of a group. Names are always capitalized, unless you are an idiot emo teen or something.
People should stop calling movies 'films' anyway, since film is starting to be a thing of the past, cameras don't use film anymore, they're not always shot on actual film anymore, and so on. People have the same problem with 'recording' and 'tapes' or 'taping' - who the heck uses records or tapes anymore? You can't RECORD on a computer that doesn't use records, you can't TAPE something that doesn't have a tape in it, for crying out loud.
The main point of your post is good, though, but you should learn to use the comma a bit more. When you use the word 'too' (at least you spelled it correctly), you should consider the comma.
In any case, the whole Mystique thing makes very little sense, but I guess the logic is that since her cells are extremely pliable in how they reflect photons, that 'technology' can be utilized in all kinds of 'adaptability' things. It's very thin, but it can sort of almost make a little bit of sense, if you squeeze your eyes really thin and then bonk your head against a mountain for awhile.
They should've just done it the way they did in the comics - isn't it fascinating how the comics and the ideas presented in the comics are always vastly better than anything hollyweird crap-people concoct in their superficial stories? They always alter things for the worse.
The comics are not masterpieces of literary exploration by any means, but holy cow are they damned more interesting and original than anything hollywaah has ever done.
All these problems have the same reason - they want to give us 'rule of cool' and 'twists' instead of 'interesting stories', 'good writing' and 'meaningful event sequences that make sense'.
We will always be suffering from this confusion, because of the idiocy and personalities of the writers.
Also, as one of the modern geniuses often likes to point out, money.
(Who am I talking about is probably hard to figure out - or maybe it's super easy, barely an inconvenience..)
"Wolverine has essentially lost all the memories of his life and all the people he knew."
No.
He never HAD those memories. It was the other version of him that did - basically, his soul was killed by another timeline's version of his soul - or perhaps they swapped bodies permanently, as energy can't be destroyed, so neither can souls..
The REAL answer is: "Writers don't think, so you can't make sense out of movies".
Wolverine is just 'anger and grumpiness' with 'hard to kill' ability, and that's pretty much it. He has no moral qualms, he'd kill almost anyone if he had the chance and let his anger and temper run its course without trying to calm himself down, and ofter questions the decision to NOT kill someone or something in the comics. Pretty boring, semi-macho character with Freddy-knives. Yawn.
Heck, Susan Storm and Rogue are way more interesting characters, but we barely see them anywhere. Even Kitty Pryde with Lockheed form a cool combination - she's timid, scared, unsure, and can phase through things, and the dragon is an alien mystery that understands things and has formed a bond with her, helping her with her self esteem and giving someone to talk to and have companionship with. The situations she ends up can be very interesting, indeed.
Rogue is kinda interesting even in the diluted TV show, she has moral dilemmas and is confronted with tough decisions about mutants, powers, etc.
If she happens to touch someone, it's a disaster for her in the comics, as she integrates the someone's personality into her own spirit too much, and experiences a tearing, extremely unpleasant and mind-bending identity crisis, but she's also super strong and can fly. I never liked the 'southern accent' stuff, but other than that' Rogue has plenty of unexplored potential. But sure, make the 'regular dude with metal suit' and 'grumpy anger with knives' the main characters to care about.
When you go down this list, there are so many amazing characters we could explore deeply, so it's a typical stupidity of this world to worship the most mundane, most violent, most 'metallic' characters that don't really have any actual powers or - dare I say it? - even personalities or morality compared to so many other characters.
I could go on .. and on .. but I'll stop here, because I probably made my point at this point, not to put a fine point on it, I want to point out, even if all this is a bit pointless.
..and change his attack 'plan' in a moment-to-moment basis, so the mind-reader couldn't ever have time to prepare for his ever-changing tactics.
This semi-interesting, Freddy Krueger-inspired 'Adamantium claw-hands' was never too big in the comics, just a 'darker' character to balance out whatever goofiness would otherwise be too much, with his cigar smoking, drinking and 'killer instinct' attitude about everything, is put into a movie and BAM! now everyone worships him as some kind of 'most interesting thing ever'!
I mean, he's a grumpy little half-animal guy that wants to kill things and has lots of temper and 'super healing' combined with 'adamantium skeleton' and some installed knives. This shouldn't be all THAT interesting, but who am I to argue with the masses (watch Gen Z answering basic questions-videos if you think masses are smart)..?
I never thought he was all that interesting. Spider-Man is a more complex character with actual superpowers, spider-sense and reflexes (and speed), Superman is an actual alien from another planet, although he's a bit too powerful.. at least some of his powers are very interesting. These two characters are not interesting because of their powers, though, they're interesting because they present moral dilemmas and are psychologically tormented internally.
I mean, should an alien try to rule a planet because he can, or just lay low? Is it wrong to impersonate a 'human being' by pretending to be Clark Kent, and thus deceiving everyone, or is it a harmless, victimless crime? Is it Peter's fault if Ant May gets a visit from Doc Ock, and if he hadn't been Spider-Man that day, could Ant May's kidnapping have been prevented and so on and so forth.
Iron Man is just a guy in a high-tech armored suit, with pretty bland personality (in the comics anyway), it almost doesn't matter who or what he is compared to what his suit can do. He's functionality personafied.
It's weird how these insignifigant side characters become so popular, masses worship them in a movie like they're the main stars.
Think about 'Iron Man' in the comics; he was never that interesting a character, there were more quirky personalities, more visually pleasing and expressive suits and abilities, many characters had more spirit and more interesting stories (I especially love how Spider-Man beats up Titania in the comics, while constantly taunting her jokingly while calling her a bully - you could NEVER see this in a movie! Spider-Man is physically weaker than Titania, and this scene shows why physical strength isn't enough, and it's so brilliant in so many ways).
Iron Man was OK, but a bit bland of a character, just a regular guy with some goofy suit that has 'repulsors' and other gadgets and can take some heat and blasts but overheats anyway if Volcana blasts that suit with full force.
Then hollywolly makes a movie about this side character and BAM! now he's the main thing everyone talks about and loves. Tony is also not such a douche in the comics, and Iron Man is sometimes even black (how's that for comics being more woke than the movies..?)
Captain Marvel is a celebrated 'you go, girl' black woman in the comics (although he was also a a white man originally, so go figure), but she's done so well, I always enjoy reading her stories. Her 'light form' is fascinating and affords many interesting possibilities, and when Dr. Doom 'freezes' her into a 'light statue', being in that form permanently, it sends chills to your spine.
Then they make a movie about her, and BAM! now she's some superstar, stronger than Superman and Galactus combined!
Now, Wolverine was a grumpy, SHORT guy with lots of problems with his temper, always wanting to kill everyone until someone calms him down. He had 'animal instincts' that he was able to use to detect imposters and to defeat enemies that could read their minds, because he was able to 'live in the moment'..
"Real outlaws would have been immune to suffering"
HUH?
Are you saying LAW causes people to suffer?
What the hell are you saying? NO ONE is immune to SUFFERING.
Why are YOU so wimpish you don't dare make a statement without making it a question? Look at your title. Are you SAYING this show is 'a bit wimpish' (which bit?), what about it is specifically MIDDLE-CLASS, when class like that doesn't even exist in the world and era depicted, or are you CLAIMING this show is 'a bit wimpish'?
I would say this is one of the LEAST 'wimpish' Robin Hood depictions ever - it has a lot of killing, death, disease, pestilence, demonic rituals, satan-worshippers, animal torture, brutal deaths, torture, witchcraft, paganic magic, demonic possession, manhunts, anger, hatred, abuse of power, burning villages..
I mean, what about any of that seems wimpish to you?
"In reality, many more of the Sheriff's men would be slain coldbloodedly, and no ponsey 80's mercy? "
What reality?
First of all, you are basically saying people are not INDIVIDUALS, but 100% dictated by the era. How the hell do you know the 'reality' of these individual human beings in the fictional world depicted?
Secondly, so many ARE killed without any mercy, what are you talking about? How many more would have to be murdered for you to be happy?
Third, I don't know what 'ponsey' means, but you put the apostrophe in the wrong place. It's '80s, not 80's. It's not a possessive, it's a PLURAL, so why would you use apostrophe there? It's a year that's supposed to have other digits in it, the apostrophe is used for shortening and contractions (compare to 'they are' becoming 'they're' due to the apostrophe), so it is used for replacing the '19' so you don't have to write '1980s' every time.
Fourth, you are now assigning both 'coldbloodedliness' ('brutality', maybe? I am writing it this way to underline how silly your chosen word is, there's no such term as 'coldbloodedly' - usually people say 'in cold blood', for heaven's sake!) to a DECADE, not individual people's decisions and morality.
Why would the DECADE dictate how people behave? People are people, they're individuals, capable of making decisions for themselves regardless of the decade. There might be the idea that people are somehow more 'civilized' these days, but if you look at the world, you can realize this is not the case.
Fifth, why would you end your last, weird, badly written sentiment in a question mark, when it clearly isn't a question? Are you asking something, and if so, what? It looks to me you are making a statement, so why end it in a question mark? Do you understand english grammar AT ALL?
You also write incomplete sentences, put question marks all over the place, and use double exclamation point.
I suggest you research and learn a thing called 'proper punctuation', it might help.
The OP is correct.
I don't understand how anyone can watch the third series - I have TRIED, oh, so many times, but that reverse-charisma blob always sucks my energy so much I pass out if I keep watching.
How can someone have inverted charisma, I don't know, but it is pretty amazing how someone extremely charismatic can breed something like that. The son is like a charisma vacuum or .. well, I think I made my point. He's ABSOLUTELY awful to look at.
I mean, he's not ugly, he's not repulsive in the usual way. He's just awful to look at in a way that's impossible to describe.
The whole third series is the same as the actor; it rather SUCKS your energy than gives you anything. It doesn't tell or say anything the better seasons didn't already do much better. Michael's charisma carried so much of this show, and it seems to also have inspired everyone else as well - without him, the show is just an empty shell without meaning or interest. A boring thing to watch at best, an absolute travesty at worst.
When you take the best bit out of a show, you will be EXPOSED to just HOW bad the worst bits of a show are. Without the good to balance the bad, the bad really starts weighing too much. I just can't watch the third season, but undoubtedly I will still try... maybe I can wade through it some day. It's just not 'magical' the way the first two seasons are.
The third season is as soulless as the actor is charismaless. No point in watching it.. you'd be better off re-watching the first two seasons and then IMAGINING a great third season - it's bound to be better than what was actually made.
The actor isn't just a "no-charisma", but actually a charisma black hole, where all charisma goes to die. Instead of just bland nothing, he is a MINUS, he makes everything around him have less charisma.
Subservient?
The opposite of aggressive is passive.
Why not use the word 'passive'? Guy is subservient, but he's also a megalo-maniac egomonster. Passive is something he isn't, and Baldrick obviously is.
Baldrick has no ego, he's timid, passive and lives basically through his master and somewhat through his turnips.
One thing I really hate about this show is how something is shown to be something - then it's diluted immediately.
What's with this satanic baron character and his retconned servant women?
There's tension building that leads to nowhere. It must be because they can't really just kill people so much, because otherwise, there'd be no one left. So Baron can never REALLY be a threat to Robin, so all the conflicts lead to nowhere. He just disappears from the show at a point where he could still kill Robin or something.
It's like Robin is rescued by writing instead of something more interesting. Realistically, the Baron would've won those battles, foreseen a lot of things and so on. The true battle should've been between the baron and Hern, not with Robin and the baron.
Hern can't see the future, except when he can - I hate this inconsistency. There shouldn't be ANY way a mortal mercenary can ambush and surprise a forest god that can summon light brighter than the sun in the middle of the forest without electricity or lamps.
Animals have intuition and instincts, but a damn GOD can't sense dirty, filthy mercenaries that probably don't bathe much, spying on him 20 meters away?
REALLY?!
This is the downfall of this show - so many 'ridiculous' contrivances for the sake of keeping Robin and his gang alive and for keeping the story going.
This show has a 'serious tone' (with really cringy humor at times), but that's diluted by the cartoony fights and the cartoony 'nothing bad can REALLY happen to any of the characters'. Sure, they get possessed, but all that does is make their eyes shine in a weird way (a cool effect, I must say).
The Saracen wielding double swords couldn't be more cringy. What happened to his superior archery skill?
All in all, it's a good show, as shows go, but DAMN does it have a lot of cringe, cartoony fights, easy escapes and goofiness to it. If you are going to show me a formidable villain, MAKE that villain properly formidable, too.
I wonder why they never try things genders reversed.
There's NOTHING women can do that would be 'radical' these days, but there are plenty of things MEN could do that would.
For example, three heterosexual men wearing colorful dresses and expressing their feminine side as a normal, everyday thing without it being seen as weird or 'gay', would be something no one has ever tried.
Can you even THINK what it would look like, if the original TV show's Angels were replaced by heterosexual men with long hair? If the show or movie was EXACTLY as the original was, except the gender of the angels was changed?
I mean, if gender is just a social construction and there are zillion genders, why are men never allowed to act feminine at all? We all have masculine and feminine sides regardless of the physical body we temporarily inhabit. It's a UNIVERSAL fact: yin and yang always combine to form the whole.
Yin contracts, Yang expands, you can see this everywhere, as the whole Universe fluctuates this way. You breathe in and out, your chest contracts and expands. Same happens with your heart. Space is expansive, so it's Yang, but planets are 'contractions', so they are yin.
I would love to see a movie, where gender in NO WAY dictated ANYTHING, but there would be HUMANS telling us an interesting story. No romance, no gender-based stuff (at least more than necessary), etc.
This is probably way TOO radical for modern times, though.. humanity is not recognized or appreciated anymore, only genders are.
I don't think movies need to be 'radical' or groundbreaking in any way.
They just need to be FUN ESCAPISM. That's all. Make a movie fun and escapist, and people will watch it, guaranteed. It doesn't matter if it has three females or ten robots or two insectbeings from planet Coosbane, if the story is good, and the movie is fun, it's all good.
After all, that's what movies are for - entertaining you and making you forget your everyday troubles, by bringing you into a world where you can escape the mundane daily minutia for awhile.
I think Charlie's Angels 2 (Full Throttle, was it?) achieves this nicely. Just some mindless, cartoony romp, that's a lot of fun, if you take it the right way. Only if you EXPECT something different from it, can it disappoint you.
I don't care if the 'Angels' were angelic and doing good deeds or not. The premise is basically female cops that were bored, that now have a more interesting life, where they can sit on a couch and joke around with Charlie through a speaker on the table, and put down Bosley, the mandatory 'lesser man' to underline how magnificent the female heroes are.
It doesn't need to be more complicated than that, and the original show is not exactly showered with deep, philosophical thought that overwhelms the viewer. Pretty girls with great bodies doing traditional man-stuff in a more 'cute and bubbly way', cue 'the theme' and let people relax. That's about it.
There's nothing wrong with a movie or story being "just fun". Not every story needs to be an epic prose about fluctuating cosmic epochs.
(Sorry, I just wanted to use the word 'epoch')
But it's really ridiculous that women SERIOUSLY expect women to come watch their crappy woke movies and their uninteresting, unentertaining, boring sports (compared to men's sports)..
..THEN they blame MEN for not watching it.
Why would men watch women's sports, if they can watch men's sports? Women talk like it's some kind of OBLIGATION men have, like men somehow OWE women something, although men have historicaly BENT OVER BACKWARDS so much for women, anything women have screamed about and demanded, men have given them.
200 years ago, a domestic housewive's chores were hard to do, very physically demanding, but they did it anyway. Then men came up with dozens of inventions to make it all easier - so now there are all kinds of kitchen and laundry machines to ease that burden, women still complained. They wanted to ALSO be men and go out in the world. Men let that happen.
Now what is the situation? Women have -everything- men could possibly have given them, and they're still not happy, they still blame men for everything, and then wonder why men don't bend over as much anymore.
It's like Bill Burr said, when are women going to pick up their end of the couch?
Also, this other movie I forgot the name of, had basically 'headlines' like..
"Men, DO NOT come to watch this movie!"
a bit later..
"Men, why did you not come watch the movie?"
Only women's logic can be this warped.. 'Don't watch this! Why didn't you watch this?'
It's like that old 'Get out of here, GO!!' combined with "Why did you leave?!".
I just can't wrap my head around the logic that produces something that twisted..
It's the old problem that Bill Burr mentions - trying to equalize the genders, because after all, a gender is a social construction, right?
So obviously, if men's sports is interesting to watch and draws in masses of men to watch it, then women's sports should be just as interesting to watch and draw in just as big masses.
It's amazing to me that women think this way and think they are ENTITLED to get as much money as men do, although men don't flock to watch women's sports the way they flock to watch men's sports..
..but more importantly, WOMEN aren't like men, so they don't flock to watch ANY sports whatsoever, because women's interests are elsewhere.
Men are 'expansive' by nature, they flock to activity and explosiveness, exploration and competitive things. Little boys rather play with cars, spaceships, trucks, robots than barbie dolls, small houses, tiny tea sets and toy ovens.
Women are 'contractive' by nature, so their interests are more domestic and social - females have, by nature, traditionally flocked to domestic and social roles in life. Man goes out to explore and work in the world, woman gathers things into the home and gossips to keep the household up with the local news and other important stuff.
People, as human beings, are pretty pathetic on this planet, as they have not been able to outgrow these purely animalistic and genetics-based roles.
It's amazing to me that women can just be blind to ALL of this, think that because MEN choose to watch UFC or boxing, that women will ALSO flock to watch that stuff instead of the 'housewives' stuff or some reality crap, where women are tearing each other down (after all, it's DRAMAtic because EMOTIONS are involved).
Now, I don't care about sports OR drama, as I don't really belong to male or female sphere fully, I am more of a 'human being' that can see both sides of the story, regardless of which kind of body I am inhabiting. I do not let genetics dictate my interests or behaviour.