MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Movies and even video games get 'measurements' wrong almost always.
200 gallons of nitroglyserin in that tiny van? I DON'T THINK SO.
RA4 (or whatever it was) written 2048 times (or whatever it was), when you clearly see there's BARELY 100 of them on the wall? I DON'T THINK SO.
Enough cash to buy an expensive car and all the other things they need in that TINY PILE OF BILLS?! I DON'T THINK SO.
It's like moviemakers just want to use big numbers without considering how much that would really be, without understanding just how incredibly MUCH it would be if it was actually that much. So they just scribble some 'big number' on the script, then they make the movie and do 'whatever' without considering the depths or measurements or amounts VISUALLY at all.
It's like.. the scrip just 'says things', and then the visuals are whatever someone else wants us to see, and they don't have to match. That's what the moviemaking process seems like.
"Eh I thought she was ok. Slater wasn’t any better. "
Slater is really bad - you can't believe anything he says, it seems like he's sarcastic from the very moment he utters his first lines. The aftermath of the boxing match he seems 100% sarcastic and talks in a very unreal, weird way, while Travolta is at least giving a believable performance.
However, this woman doesn't rise to even 1% of Slater's crappy performance. Slater was BAD, but that woman is SO MUCH WORSE. Be honest.
It's hard to not cringe every second she's on the screen. Her very first scene, she's WAY too excited and happy when she starts talking, it doesn't fit the situation at all.
Besides her annoying face, shrill voice, bad acting and horrible all-in-all performance, what bugs me more about her is the whole 'damsel in distress, but she's stronger than men, but she needs men to rescue her, but she's a strong and independent woman, but but but'-flipflopping - CONSTANT flipflopping back and forth between the weak, female victim that men have an OBLIGATION to rescue (how dare you think otherwise, you chauvinistic misogynist pig!), and the strong, independent woman that roars and does everything better than men can.
It's like.. MAKE UP YOUR MIND, movie.. at least make up your mind.
He's not the bad guy in Face/Off. He plays a cop.
I mean, Castor Troy has the cop's face on him, so in a way, he does play a bad guy, but technically, he plays someone that simply borrowed the good guy's face, so his face is still the 'good guy' even though a bad guy is wearing it, so .. hm... it's kind of hard to determine whether he plays a bad guy or not, even though his face isn't one.
That's not how it went.
No one sued.
Lucas APPROVED of this movie, and even let his effects team (Industrial Light & Magic) help A LOT with this movie, without any extra compensation, if Mel Brooks obeyed his most important rule; Mel wasn't allowed to MERCHANDISE.
That's _WHY_ the merchandise joke exists in the movie, and is so omnipresent. He couldn't merchandise OUTSIDE the movie, so he merchandises INSIDE the movie.
Knowing this, it makes the joke even funnier in my opinion - it's like Mel is snapping at Lucas a bit, like 'HA! I managed to merchandise anyway!'
George actually said something like it's a really good movie even if you don't consider it's a comedy, that it's a perfectly good space sci-fi story in its own right, even though it does parody his movies.
This movie had George Lucas' FULL BLESSING, so please stop making up ludicrous things.
BTW, I know you are trying to be funny, but do it after the truth has been told, not in its stead.
Even if people recognize her 'princessdom' in some distant desert planet (I kinda hate theme planets, considering how many different themes exist on Tellus alone.. surely some other planet should have even MORE 'themes', from alien forests to all kinds of lands and suburbias, but it's always desert, ice, generic forest, and that's about it), it doesn't automatically follow that she has ANY power or jurisdiction there.
Try going to some other country, trying to impose your own, self-created rules about how people should treat you, and tell me how well it goes (depending on the country, this actually does work today too well sometimes)..
I mean, 'princess' means your father is a king, right? Can you BECOME a princess just by marrying into 'royalty'? So this means your father could be a shoemaker or a homeless alcoholic.
What other things are there to signify that someone is a 'princess' and is thus FOR SOME REASON 'more valuable than other people'? Does she have any duties or responsibilities, like keeping the Kingdom running? Does she need to organize mail routes or maintenance of roads? Does she have some kind of council decisions to ponder? Is she constantly struggling with how to make people more happy, how to remove poverty, how to improve the infrastructure and lessen cruelty to animals?
Do people think 'being a princess' simply consists of prancing in skin coats around the palace, ordering servants around, eating luxury food, meeting foreign princes and having 'relations' with them, for the good of the kingdom, of course.. ?
It just bugs me that these people just slap 'prince' or 'princess' as integral part of some story and do not think ANY further than that, and _THEN_ women fall for it every single time, and put themselves into that position in their mind while watching, and... it's just such a stupid, vicious, oppression and manipulation-based exploitation. If only masses would DEMAND something better.
To continue, Disney and makers of these stories don't really EVER think about or reveal the governmental, oppressive structures behind the whole idea of a 'kingdom'. In a world, where everyone has the same, human value, so everyone is equal, there can't be obvious HYPERGAMY, so women would be in trouble trying to select a mate.
Women's psyche is hardwired to NEED a high-status man to look up to. Prince is the easiest, simplest, most direct route to provoking this part of the female audience. Men just go along, because it's 'tradition', they don't care if Daphne is a princess or not. What good would it do in a desert anyway? Why would it matter to a man? As Seinfeld once mentioned in a stand-up routine, men don't CARE AT ALL what a woman does, or how 'educated' she is. Men's sexuality is hardwired to be turned on by physical beauty, that's it. The job can add some sweetness to it, like a cherry on top of ice cream, but just the cherry does nothing, if you have a cat turd instead of icecream.
Men want a jobless, low-status woman way more than an ugly, rich air hostess. If an attractive, young woman is an air hostess, it can be exciting, but just the job alone means nothing.
So the _REAL_ reason why there are princesses in these movies, is that 'George wanted a space version of 'wizards and princesses''. Basically, George wanted a space princess, and THAT is the real reason.
There's no thought put into how anyone can even BE a princess when their kingdom ceases to exist. Leia ceased to be a princess the second Alderaan was destroyed. How could it be otherwise?
I would also say she ceases to be a princess the second she leaves that particular planet. How could she be princess in space, or in a spaceship? Wouldn't the ship have its OWN hierarchy, unless it's owned by the 'kingdom'?`I mean, if she keeps changing locations, from planet to planet, ship to ship, surely the 'princessdom' doesn't automatically follow, unless the people specifically recognize that.
.. and he might also fall for the woman's personality, after he first finds the woman beautiful.
No one cares if a man is 'beautiful', men don't use make-up or wear high heels or paint their nails (generally speaking), because men are seen as 'utility', so this leads to a situation where only the kings/princes get women, and the hard-working peasants remain alone.
Modern kings/princes are of course things like outlaw bikers, CEOs, useless celebrities, wealthy men, charismatic alpha males, criminals (even convicted rapists in prison receive love letters from women, good men that happen to be Linux nerds never receive even one), PUAs, and so on. As someone asked, which would you go with, the player or the nerd, every single young woman immediately answered 'the player'. There are very revealing youtube videos like this out there.
Now, Disney is one enormous corporation that realized to exploit women's psychology, and started creating these princesses. Everyone is always a prince or a princess, so women never have to think about the ordinary, good men at all. The peasants don't get mentioned, they're just the background. The REAL story always happens with the rich and powerful.
So women want to be these powerful, worshipped princesses that have servants, live an easy life, and can look up to an even more powerful man/men - they want to live in the world of princes and kings, the most wanted men that have the MOST OPTIONS, but somehow happen to choose YOU, the ugly or plain, ordinary hag that can't offer anything special to any man. Yes, YOU deserve to be princess, which means NOTHING below a prince is good enough for you.
It's really annoying that even a good comedy perpetuates this sick message, where men have to be princes to be good enough for a 6.5 - maybe most men would rate Daphne a 7, whatever. But she's certainly not beautiful enough to deserve the TOP MAN, which Lone Starr is. There would be planetful of young hotties, but he selects.. her.
There's SO much to unpack, when we think about 'movie princesses', I don't even want to get into 'princes, queens and kings', and ultimately, it is the same thing.
There's of course the bloody history of wars, people wanting to crown themselves, then the unholy alliances between churches and governments crowning people, then the whole nepotism angle and all that.
The REAL reason why this kind of crap is STILL perpetuated in movies and such, and why women even call themselves 'queens' and parents call their daughters 'princesses' (but rarely their sons 'princes', go figure, eh?), is of course hypergamy.
What? A word that doesn't LOOK like it explains anything... but it does. Hypergamy simply means women's genetic, biological, gender-URGE to select a 'high-status man'. Now, this is hard to explain, because it's not intuitive, but when you understand it, everything women do makes so much more sense.
It's like this - all women want the king or prince, no woman lusts for the peasant. Since modern world is way more complex than that, there are nowadays many variations of that. A man doesn't have to be a LITERAL prince or king to attract a woman, or to make a woman's 'sexual side tingle'.
It's so tempting to talk about looks, but I assure you, princes and kings are made handsome only because it's just more intuitive, simple and almost self-explanatory to do it that way. A woman would lust for a prince/king even if he was the ugliest monster in the world. A woman will not get turned on by a shy peasant guy that lives in their mom's basement, no matter HOW handsome he is.
Because men get turned on by a woman's looks, a man NEVER has to second guess or question whether he REALLY 'loves someone' (it's usually emotional lust at best, usually combined with sexual lust as well). A man knows basically immediately whether a woman is attractive or not to him. It might be that his feelings deepen or thin (?) along the way, if he's exposed to the woman more..
You are worried about COUNCIL MEETINGS?!
They rule with IRON FIST, there is no council! Everyone must do the king's and queen's bidding, or heads will roll!
All kidding aside, this is one of the least of this movie's problems, there are SO many reasons why the story can't happen the way it does, it boggles the mind. Also, the parents are worse than ANY parents in 'Supernanny' ever.
They are TOLD exactly what they need to do, so they do the opposite. Frozen Pitch Meeting is right on point.
However, what I have said about this movie still stands; this movie has HEART, lots of it, and despite almost nothing making any sense, I can't hate this movie, it's beautiful in so many ways and on so many levels, and the songs are absolutely fantastic, much better than I ever could have thought... I have never liked the idea of songs in a cartoon, it seems like lazy padding to me, and corny cartoon songs are just so boring and useless when you have listened to Mozart's interesting structural flows and immersed yourself in Fusion Jazz's refreshingly different experimentations (together with progressive rock, of course), and even heard some special, 12-inch versions of even 'popular songs'..
The songs in Frozen are just something else. If anything is 'magical', these songs truly are. They even interlace them skillfully, one song can have splinters from other songs, so each song is almost a partial conglomeration of multiple other songs... brilliant!
I must also note how sublime the singing is, it's enough to evoke imagery of angelic choirs in higher planes blessing the listener with their mesmerizing beauty that touches the deepest parts of the soul of the murkiest grumpy grunt.
This would mean that Cypher REALLY has nothing to complain about; besides his FEW duties on the ship (it can't be as bad as he makes it up to be, and why WOULD he just blindly obey everything Morpheus says without questioning or asking for leave or whatnot, and why did he SIGN UP for the ship instead of staying in Zion to party, and can't he just quit and live in Zion and basically in holodeck for most of his life in pure bliss anyway?) and 'bad food'.
Couldn't they arrange it so that you can eat or 'be automatically fed' whenever you eat in the holodeck, so you can eat the most delicious gourmet food in the holodeck, while your body is being fed that 'healthy goo'? Best of both worlds.
It wouldn't matter that it's cold and food is bad in that situation - you would come out of the holodeck paradise to do your duty on the ship, and off-duty, you could plug in and just live in pure bliss your free time. Realistically, this WOULD be Cypher's life, and if he had any backbone, he would NEGOTIATE and DISCUSS with Morpheus about these problems, but of course if Morpheus was a good captain/leader, he would KNOW all of these perspectives and problems already, and would offer his crew PLENTY of 'holodeck time' just to keep their sanity and motivation up.
As I said, Cypher is a NECESSARY character, but his motivations are pretty flimsy and unrealistic, and he has no backbone, leading him to do crazy, stupid things instead of sane, human things, like discussing his plight with his captain. What exactly forces him to obey Morpheus anyway? Can't he say no? Can't this rebel rebel in smaller scale?
Cypher only exists to make the audience think about the 'other side of the coin', really. He is also a convenient plot device to make things happen.
I really hate the Oracle, though, she could've told about Trinity's stupidity, or told Trinity to abandon her 'subway station speech' plan, and so on. She could've changed the future so much just by giving enough information.
Cypher exists because the moviemakers needed some way to 'counter-argue' their otherwise too linear value system of 'real world is the only world living in'. They needed to bring in the point that viewers would otherwise make, that at least for some people (if not most), living in The Matrix would be much better and happier than living in the real world.
They underline this point a bit too much by making the real world an awful, miserable, dark, gloomy, cold place with no proper food or anything fun. All work and no play, etc..
However, they don't go far enough to show that the crew uses the simulations for entertainment, besides the 'lady in the red dress'-stuff, which is just scratching the surface - I also don't get people's attitude against Mouse, who is not only doing a valuable work by programming an enticing figure for the lesson, but also understands the 'Holodeck'-style entertainment value.
Surely everyone uses the holodeck (for lack of better word) for their entertainment, and surely everyone has all kinds of physical needs they can also use the holodeck for. It's like.. everyone reads porn magazines, but suddenly everyone despises the maker of the porn magazines. Not much makes sense about this movie.
In any case, Joe Pantoliano is a really charming and charismatic (in a bit unorthodox sense) actor, and when I watched Memento, I wanted more of his scenes. There's something inherently likable about him.
I think Cypher has a good point, but I also think he's a weasel because he doesn't CONFRONT Morpheus about his misery and needs, and Morpheus is also a bad leader for not noticing that Cypher is miserable, and not offering holodeck to him.
In reality, everyone would be constantly using the simulations for entertainment and 'dream life', whatever it may be from space exploration to realistic video games to carnal needs entertainment to social stuff - we already know they use it for learning things very quickly, and learning can be fun.
"Some movies it doesn't pay to think through. "
What a weird, oddly phrased statement. It doesn't pay to think through some movies? It might, if you were a screenwriter for movies.. and if you are seeking a fun discussion about a movie. Usually people here think about movies more than their makers ever did.
So yeah, it does pay.. if you think otherwise, why are you here?
By the way, did you even WATCh the movie? You seem to think they would 'find themselves trapped'. Was Neo TRAPPED? No, he was completely free to move. Was it a COFFIN? No, it was a pod, from which he could even look down from, not to mention every single direction around him as well. Trapped? WHAT?
Unable to move? HUH?!
Which movie did you watch? Neo moves QUITE A LOT _RIGHT_ after he wakes up, even though his muscles are not supposedly capable of much movement. Where do you get this 'unable to move' crap? Sorry, but honestly, where?
Why would they have 'full awareness' of anything, unless they have been told about things? If they have been told about things, they belong to a group that's going to be rescued soon. Why would they be doomed or dehydrated? The tubes are still connected, feeding them food and drink, keeping their body in a good shape and properly hydrated. They could lay there for decades without any problems.
Why would they be awakened if there's no rescue planned for them? Maybe you shouldn't talk about 'thinking through', when you can't even think your own posts through..
"Trapped", "coffins", "unable to move", "dehydration" - there's _NO_ reason for ANY of that, this movie CLEARLY shows none of that is true, and using a word like COFFING for an OPEN POD is so misleading, I have to conclude you are doing this deliberately for a dramatic effect because you KNOW your statements and claims are the ones being dehydrated - as they clearly do not hold water.
No, it's not true.
"..there's no way the free human can rehabilitate or support more than a handful of the battery humans."
Why not?
They are not 'battery humans', they are just 'humans'. Once they have been trained on the matrix side to know what to expect (mass media exists in 1999, so people could be told via televisions and constant transmissions, even 'signals directly into their brain' and so on, to mentally prepare and psychologically understand the situation and how it's all going to be good, so when it happens, they will know they will be rescued, they just have to wait a bit, and so on..).
They don't need 'rehabilitation', they just need the truth. Sure, the 'mind has trouble letting go', BUT if it's happening to everyone on mass scale, it's just a matter of waiting your turn and becoming free, and I think it's easier then. Perhaps it's a bit like Amish elders still missing driving their car during Rumspringa.. but they'll get over it.
The ethical dilemma is; would people be HAPPIER living in blissful ignorance in The Matrix, or would they actually find better life outside of it? We have to remember that it would be like you losing everything you have worked for, and everything you own and have ever owned, and possibly even people you have known. You'd have to start a whole new life from scratch in a pretty gloomy and scary world.
However, perhaps there are plans to restore the sunlight after the machines are conquered, and slowly return the planet to its former glory and pollution levels.
Victory definitely wouldn't mean that people (not 'BATTERY people' - humans are only batteries from the machines' perspective, for us, they're just 'humans') would wake up. The 'waking' would be done in phases, in manageable groups, until everyone is free.
You have to remember that the speed grows exponentially; you free 10 people, train them, then they free 20 people, train them, then those 30 people free 60 people, then those 120 people free 240 people..
"collecting nutrients"?
Where do you get THAT? They don't collect any nutrients, that is never mentioned in the movie. They simply feed the dead to the living. Of course this would be problematic and not sustainable in real life, but that's not my fault.
How do you know how many people Zion 'houses' (HOUSES?? Have you seen houses in this movie that doesn't even show Zion to us, and where do you get that number that is ALSO not mentioned in the movie?)?
Tank clearly states that if the war was over tomorrow, that's where the party would be, indicating that there's enough room for everyone.
Also, The Matrix would not have to be destroyed in an INSTANT, it could be destroyed AFTER all the infrastructure is in place to accommodate people, then in small groups, people could be awakened. Of course a long and arduous process, but your statements are way too bleak, there's NO reason why this kind of thing couldn't be well-planned and organized. They have hovercrafts, they can build things, there's plenty of food for everyone, and even if the A.I. is destroyed and the war ends, it doesn't mean the whole system would instantly be destroyed, you'd have to be MAD to think that's how they planned or even foresaw it.
The Matrix isn't even the physical stuff, it's the simulation. Just because the simulation is shut down, doesn't mean people couldn't still sleep and be fed by the automated system just like before, they don't have to know they are in PODS (NOT COFFINS, for crying out loud), until they are ready.
Also, the people are of course TOLD the truth about the reality, and that their actual bodies lie in pods, so they should be mentally prepared for it. There would be hovercrafts waiting for everyone that's awakened, instead of that spider robot, and so on. Do I have to spell out everything?
I think the OP was being sarcastic; everyone knows perfectly well what an evil sin 'ret-conning' is.
I have never seen 'Goodfellas', but your statement about The Matrix is both true and untrue, depending on how we look at it.
The Matrix has a similar problem as 'Back to the Future', when it comes to getting things going. Both have interesting 'intro sequences', that then descend onto a 'less interesting, but still OK-ish' section, before landing squarely on a really drawn-out boredom-fest before finally starting to pick up the pace and THEN it keeps the viewer's interest in a tight grip.
The Matrix has particularly interesting, even 'exciting' scenes - its action sequences are still, even after all these years, pretty much top notch compared to almost any other movie (if we don't go all the way to Hong Kong, where the PROPER Kung-Fu actors surpass the fights and such, but they really did an amazing job with hollyweird actors when it comes to Kung-Fu, and the whole 'virtual reality' aspect believably enhances all the action, making ludicrous things perfectly acceptable, which elevates the 'epic feel' of the action).
However, when you watch this movie again and again, you start to slowly see how much pure FILLER it has, and how so many scenes have been done really boringly. The 'Smith interviewing Neo'-scene is actually quite long and boring, some of the first Morpheus meeting is also a little bit yawn-inducing, and it takes so long to really get going. It also seems like Neo's escape attempt is a waste of time, but I love the office scenes.
There is a bit of a problem with the pacing before things really start happening, and of course, from thereon, it's more of a 'breeze'.
I am not sure 'breezing' is a verb, though. It's usually a description of a thing that's happening. Wind doesn't 'breeze', it creates a breeze, or it blows (which does seem a bit weird when you think about it).
One wise man once said, when we watched this movie together, "needs more Kung-Fu", or something along those lines. When I thought about it, I realized he was right.
"If Back To The Future were to be remade today I doubt that scene would be allowed to be filmed with that line... even though 100% REALISTIC for the era... everything is censored so studios wouldn't allow it."
Are you saying we live in times, where accurate depictions of historical racism are NOT allowed in movies?
Wouldn't that be very good for bringing awareness about racism and helping people understand the plight of the victims of racism?
As if we're not having the exact same, matter-of-fact-style racism against white, heterosexual male people now - just to mention a viewpoint to racism. What black people suffered in 1955, white people are suffering now, but no one cares, because white, heterosexual males are not allowed to have victim status.
There is also a big part of slavery that has been silenced, the WHITE slaves were conveniently forgotten, because this part of history doesn't fit the agenda. So racism ALWAYS means racism against black people (except when it SOMETIMES means racism against asians). This is racism at its worst, because you're not even allowing the victims or anyone else to RECOGNIZE their plight, let alone talk about it.
So because 'racism is bad', period pieces should never portray racism, let alone accurately?
Sure, it was racistic, but at the time, it was seen as normal. The makers of this movie are not saying it SHOULD be still seen as normal, they're just saying 'in 1955, people were racist bastards, but times changed'.
Why would you have a problem with this? It's like you wouldn't allow someone to tell an accurate story about racism in history, because 'racism is bad' and it's not like that now. WHAT?
Are you just trying to provoke reactions? (I think this is healthier way to say this, instead of using the fishing metaphor that people confuse with a mythical being, because no one thinks what the F they are writing, saying or even thinking, they are just repeating common phrases and trends withotu research or any kind of processing)
I really thought I replied to this, but I guess the post is too stupid to waste my time.
We're constantly traveling in time, so reality itself already proved that statement false.