MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Smoking is not healthy.
There have been plenty of people that smoked a lot and yet their body aged to a very ripe age before letting them go.
Smoking is not 'automatic death', but nothing says that the smokers couldn't and wouldn't have lived a much better and just as long (if not longer) 'lives' without smoking.
The problem with smoking is not the DEATH, it's the lowering of quality of life. When your lungs are constantly stuffed with thousands of poisonous chemicals, it's a given that your body isn't going to work as well, this means your mind can't work as well, either, and you can't even exercize as much, thus you are forced to live in an unhealthy body (on so many levels) for a long time.
Even these people would've been happier in a non-smoke-and-chemicals-filled body, and possibly even 'lived longer' (though that's not much of a bonus, who wants to live long in an aging body?)
I mean, please don't make smoking sound like some kind of healthy, good thing. Regardless of how LONG you live, smoking will make you FEEL BAD for that duration, and you would feel much better if you didn't smoke and hadn't smoked. Healthy lungs feel better, and food tastes better, when you can actually taste it.
Can you also imagine the sweet sensation of being able to enjoy the pleasant, uplifting aromas of early morning forest after a rain? A smoker doesn't know what that means, and they're missing out.
Well, men are not allowed to be offended anyway, men have no victim status, no one cares what happens to men, or it's just considered funny - men can be insulted all day long and everyone applauds. It's only WOMEN that have the victim status, and it's only women that people get offended about and for. NO one gets offended for men, not even men themselves. But plenty of men get offended for women, so a word like BOY, which can be seen as VERY INSULTING (unlike girl, unless it's aimed at men), is nothing politically-incorrect, and never will be (unless we're talking about some 'transistor' crap).
In any case, I don't think the OP is really talking as much against the stupidly artificial and illogical, pretentious "Ms.", but the INACCURACY of the subtitles, putting words and agendas into people's and character's mouths, not being able to just translate something without EDITORIALIZING it for 'modern, politically-correct climate'.
It's like taking something someone says in an old show and changing it completely, altering its meaning just so it will FIT the insanity that's called political correctness.
That _IS_ something to complain about, and the OP's point is valid. It seems like a tiny change, but I have noticed this kind of crap done a lot, too, and it pisses me off. Why can't AT LEAST the old shows be what they actually are? Do we have to alter and change everything, so we can never know what was ACTUALLY done and created in history?
Should Laura be digitally altered to be a man, or Dick a woman? Should Dick van Dyke's name be changed, because the word in that name are offensive nowadays?
I mean, when you go down this road, where will it end? We will just stare at a black dot at a black screen, and then be horrified, because it's racist to do that. I mean, there's no entertainment, if we continue down this path. Someone has to point out and stop this madness, and I am glad the original poster had the courage to do so.
Being deaf must be annoying and impractical in ways that 'hearing people' don't even think about, but I must say there has to be at least one good thing about it; noisy neighbours can never wake you up or bother you with their explosive insanity and heelstomping all night long. You don't have to buy earplugs, like I do.. and those earplugs DO let the most annoying sounds through that dig into your mind and start attacking your peace of mind until there are only tiny shreds left.
Just out of curiosity, can you still hear something? I mean, 'seriously deaf' sounds less deaf than 'fully deaf', but I might be misinterpreting things.
I mean, 'Mr./Dr.' vs. 'Miss/Mrs.' WAS a fair system, because both genders got information about both genders, about things that were IMPORTANT for relationships, marriage, pairing and raising a family.
Fema-fascists violently shoved a useless, extra thing in there, that destroyed the whole thing.
Men never needed the marital status-revealing equivalent of 'Miss/Mrs.', because man's marital status is IRRELEVANT and always was.
It's hard to believe in today's world, but some of these things were actually logical.
There's no logic in "Ms.", it just hides the information that made everything work back in the day.
I mean, from a human perspective, I can understand wanting to control what others know about you, and not wanting to reveal your marital status or lack thereof. But to have to INVENT a whole new category just to do that is just pretentious and hypocrite. "Is it Miss?" is a question any woman should've been able to answer "I'd rather not tell" or whatever.
That's the problem with honorifics anyway - at least japanese have always used 'san', so there's a gender-neutral honorific to use (so why couldn't women start using 'Mr.' instead, why did a new one have to be invented? Because women always have to be 'special' and pedestalized to the max.?).
However, even they often destroy this convenience for the sake of gender-obsession, so we often hear 'chan' and 'kun' and whatnot. It's a bit sickening to me, as I only consider gender a trivial thing in the grand scheme of things. Useful for pairing, mating, sexual stuff, etc., but beyond that, we should be able to be more genderless and more focused on humanity instead of 'genderity'. No one should identify fully with a temporary quality like a gender, and everyone should realize we're human beings, first.
Isn't it funny, how the 'sexual liberation' only freed 50% of the people, and by doing that, drove the budding 'civilization' right into the ground?
Now both sexes are confused and women having so much power, have made a complete pig's breakfast of the whole 'seduction-pairing-relationship'-stuff, they don't even know what they want. First they follow their 'tingles' through all the alpha carousel, and when it turns out that men that have OPTIONS don't really settle for any individual woman, but actually USE those options, women want to change those men.
Then women say they want kind, compassionate, nerdy, intelligent, caring men who text them back and call them and take care of them and blahblah. The women don't MEAN regular men, though. The women don't want the men who ALREADY ARE all those things ( = simps).
This has confused men throughout the ages, how women can say they want a kind and caring man, and then TELL a kind and caring man that SOME OTHER woman will find a treasure in them, and that 'we should just be friends'. It couldn't be more confusing, until you realize women say things that are not rooted in reality, to keep up their image as a 'non-slut', while desiring to ACT as a slut.
Women don't want kind and nice men, they want to TURN thugs, alphas, CEOs, celebrities, outlaw bikers and prisoners INTO 'nice men'. If they ever succeed, they will leave those nice men and start over again with new thugs and so on.
So, there was a time, when this stuff was controlled, and 'Miss' and 'Mrs.' served an informational function in the human world, where everyone could easily know the important things about people. A woman's marital status was as important to know as a man's job. Has anyone noticed this is STILL the first question a woman asks a man, but men are NOT ALLOWED to ask about a woman's body count anymore?
So the whole 'Ms.'-stuff is hypocrite at best, fema-fascist information destruction at worst. Suddenly it's all veiled and shrouded.
My completely unnecessary commentary about all this..
I can understand it not feeling fair that women have to be specified, but men don't.
However, can't it ALSO be seen as unfair that men can't be specified according to any status, but just their WORK? (Dr. vs. Mr., for example, but then an engineer would still be just a 'Mr.', no matter how hard they studied - fair?)
As usual, men are only seen as utility, men's value ONLY seen as to what they can PROVIDE FOR WOMEN = their marital status doesn't matter as much as what WORK they do, because work defines their value. Fair?
Wouldn't it be more fair to let men also use an unspecified "Mrrr"? (Funnily shown in 'Sledge Hammer')
I mean, isn't 'Ms.' a bit pretentious and overly-safe? Why avoid a perfectly good "Miss", if it applies and is accurate?
Why did the whole 'Mrs. and Miss'-stuff even begin? Because of PATRIARCHY, or because women wanted to not only show off that they're married, but also for 'eligible bachelors' (= high-status men, i.e. the 0.01% men who have options when it comes to women) that they are 'free', so the high-status men should feel free to seduce them..?
It served a very big function in a woman's life - egoboost for the married, and 'please seduce me, daddy'-message for the high-status men so it's easier for a woman to get a "good man".
Since it's the MAN who always has to do all the seducing, make all the moves, buy all the drinks, provide all the houses, lifestyles food for the women, it used to be a very essential social function for both men and women, for everyone to be able to instantly know whether a woman is 'available' or not - can you imagine the useless toil and effort a man would have to go through just to find out someone is married?
This is why it doesn't matter if a man is married or not, because women don't do any seducing, buy any drinks or do any of the moves, because they don't have to - men are always expected to do ALL. 'Sexual liberation' freed women..
It's Sally.
Sally can't get 'bags of mail' if she robbed a post office!
So it's obviously her hallucination, and in hallucinations, anything is possible. Case closed.
Yes, she's annoying, isn't it splendid?
I mean, she's the perfect friend for Laura - she's backstabby and gossipy, but loyal to Laura, always ready to listen to her, and even ready to dig out the truth forcefully.
She's also ugly and short-haired, so she makes the perfect contrast, underlining the gorgeousness of Mary. It's very common that good-looking girls and women have ugly friends so they can level up their beauty because of the contrast.
She has a bit of obnoxious personality, but that only serves to be funny, and she can be surprisingly dramatic at times. The actress is also perfect for the role, I can't say I enjoy her, but sometimes it's fun to watch them try to solve some problem together or scheme something, like that 'bleaching of Laura's hair' stuff, that Laura took way too seriously - why would Rob care one way or another, it might be a fun change, and it'd be temporary anyway, so even at the worst case-scenario, it'd just be a mild dislike of the style for a short while, then everything is back to normal.
I have to say, I absolutely love Laura's hairstyle in the show, it always look curvy, feminine, and accentuates her facial elegance in the most adorable way possible.
I don't really care one way or another, but I want to point out something anyway.
With the greyscale, as annoying and dull as it can be, your imagination provides the color. It will be a better color, and you have the FREEDOM to choose any colors at any time - you can have different colors in your mind for every single episode, or even every single frame, if you like, or you don't have to even focus on colors, or you can just see the show without colors OR grayscale, just in some kind of surreal, impossible-to-exist 'inbetween'.
With color, all these options are destroyed, your imagination goes back to sleep.
I think it's more fun to watch things in grayscale, at least sometimes, just to evoke this effect and to keep my imagination more active. Sometimes a limitation brings creativity - if you have 800 channels and million terabytes of hard drive and memory space and the fastest CPU around, it's no fun to make a song.
But if you have only three channels, four waveforms and some limited filter ability, it's really inspirational to see what you can make within those limitations.
In the same way, the greyscale can inspire a deeper immersion, since your imagination takes part in rendering Rob's and Laura's world, instead of a detailed, colorful, completely complete and fully realized and rendered presentation of the world, whose rendering doesn't require your imagination anymore, and thus, becomes more dull.
I wouldn't mind seeing the colorized versions of the episodes (haven't seen them), even if just out of curiosity. But I wonder if the atmosphere is still intact..
Sally is the modern woman - post-wall, ugly hag, thinking she's a princess deserving the most optimal, high-status prince in all existence, while being surrounded by simps that would give their lives for her, if ONLY she could even see them at all.
Modern Sallies go to 5 dating apps and 800 dinner dates, get 20 000 followers per app, then make a Tiktok-video complaining how they can't find a man.
Sally is exactly like this.. same mentality, same, self-created 'victim-status', and we're supposed to pity these women that have SO MANY OPTIONS BUT DECIDE NOT TO USE THEM BECAUSE THEY WANT THE 0.01% MEN THAT ALL OTHER WOMEN ALSO LUST FOR!
Nothing new, even sixty years ago, things were the same, just on a different scale. Lauralike good wives probably never existed, but at least in the sixties, they could play the role a bit more convincingly and possibly ACTUALLY cook something other than "Let's order a pizza".
" eniquity"? "Iniquity"?
What??
It's INEQUITY!
Why can't you know this, although you have access to THE GOD DAMN INTERNET?!
Not to mention common sense.. equal, equity, in-equity. It's not brain surgery!
Wouldn't "Dyke-Dick Van" be more realistic? I mean, transistors can be lesbians, too!!
It could be a white van, going around the suburbia, exposing the dykes' enorm.. ok, maybe that's going a bit too far, but the woke can't be mocked enough.
Two examples;
1) Someone I know told me they watched Supernanny, but her techniques don't work. When I inquired further, they revealed that they had sent their kid out to a freezing weather in the evening (wearing only flimsy pyjamas) and told the kid they won't let him in until morning. You can guess they of COURSE let the kid in after a minute or two, because the threat was RIDICULOUS to begin with, and the kid knows it.
OF COURSE it wouldn't work, if THAT is how you do it! The point is not to make the kid suffer physically, the point is to force the kid to be BORED for 5 or however minutes. Sigh.
2) In a stupid youtube compilation video about 'kids being owned by their parents' (or something idiotic like that), they show a PERFECT example of the parents NOT understanding anything about parenting, and definitely NOT owning the kid in any way.
A father says he's gonna give the kid a wonderful present, since the kid always says he doesn't want to clean his room or whatnot, so the present turns out to be 'freedom', when he opens the door and SHOVES the kid out the door. This is basically child abuse AND bad parenting AND I can 100% guarantee they let the kid in after a minute or maybe five. I would bet 1000 bucks right now that they let the kid back in before nightfall, and 10000 bucks that they let the kid in before morning.
This kind of 'EXTREME PUNISHMENTS' never work, because the kid KNOWS you are not going to follow through, you are not gonna make the kid stand outside the whole night. It becomes JUST ANOTHER EMPTY THREAT the kid doesn't have to take seriously.
This kind of stupidity and bad parenting is inexcusable in modern times, but back in 1960s, Supernanny wasn't a TV show yet, and since this planet even NOW hasn't yet implemented ANY kind of 'parental education' or any requirement for parents to know ANYTHING about child psychology, discipline, rules, boundaries or limitations, Richie isn't even that bad compared to what you see in supermarkets..
Well, Supernanny didn't exist yet, so the parents had an excuse for bad parenting.
This planet hasn't yet implemented the "Parenting License" or even the "Parenting Manual", and people want to reproduce for the wrong reasons (often even accidentally), without any plans or understanding of child psychology - people pop out kids just like they buy pets, without ANY consideration of their psychology being different, or how much they need rules, boundaries and limitations.
People go to a kennel and pick up a free dog, then label themselves a hero and a 'rescuer', so it's an egoboost. They select a 'cute' dog or 'pityful' dog instead of 'the right energy for you and your lifestyle' dog, instead of 'a complatible dog that doesn't have a lot of baggage and emotional problems'.
So basically people are guaranteed to bring the most problematic dog home, then wonder why their curtains and couches are being demolished and their neighbour's parrot disappeared mysteriously.
People have NO consideration for the future, they don't save money first and plan everything meticulously, they don't practice, they don't learn how GOOD even babies are at manipulating the parents, let alone toddlers, let alone older children. Some youtubers even admit their child 'plays' their mother completely, and no one sees anything wrong with this. Then they wonder why their little treasure turned out to be a psycho that had to be sent to some juvenile punishment facility, and ended up a heroin addict that steals cars and runs people over when drunk.
Rules, boundaries, limitations - discipline. These are the things these wannabe-parents never even consider, let alone learn. If they even TRY to 'discipline' a child, it's always something so stupid - they try some outrageous thing the kid KNOWS is just a lie (to intimidate the child, I suppose), and then NEVER follow through.
Anyway, don't hijack your own question to shove a lectured wrongful agenda about Laura- and Mary-hatred down our throats. She deserves better.
To answer your RIDICULOUS question; it's a FICTIONAL show within an ACTUAL show. What the hell do you expect? Hello? Anyone home? *KNOCK* *KNOCK*
Are you kidding me? Laura not funny?
Niceness is funny to you?
What have you been smoking?
Even if it was true, Dick and Laura together can be amazingly funny. Mary's facial expressions in the 'All About Eavesdropping' episode, when she's trying to get Rob to guess the song name, are already hilarious and amazing - I bet you couldn't get to even 10% of that kind of talent - and the whole bit had me roaring out loud, it was that funny.
Laura might not be 'nice', but she's relatable, a pretty understanding good wife that cares what her husband thinks about her, and tries to be a good parent to her kid and keep the house tidy and dinner ready for her husband and guests. She's a good host, takes part in singing and dancing - not to mention, Mary could really sing and dance really well, she decorates the room and even has a pleasant voice.
Heck, she's even cute when she's angry, what more can you want? Who wants NICE anyway, when that word simply refers to manipulative people, not genuinely GOOD people, like Laura.
Laura has PLENTY of empathy.. what show have you been watching? And no, those are NOT good points, what is wrong with people here?
It's pretty darn amazing, that a show made over 60 years ago can beat almost everything made in the modern times - The Simpsons doesn't hold a candle.
To add, it's also quite impressive, how this this show can express genuine goodness in a touching and deeply emotional, relatable, human way, without EVER making it preachy in any way. Think of a 'goodness moment' in The Simpsons or Frasier, and you will notice, it's probably going to have some kind of 'preaching' in it - either Lisa is explaining some morals to Bart or Frasier is explaining some moral to Niles, or whatnot.
This show just gets you without lecturing or preaching you, and that's a rare treat in the world of televisional feasts.
By the way, I recommend watching JP's funny Matt Walsh-inspired parody of this documentary about 'What is Recession', that guy hits the difficult line between silly comedy and serious truth pretty darn hilariously.
A child doesn't know better, what's your excuse? There's another show where some idiot hag is always asking this kind of comparison-questions, WITHOUT, of course, explaining her own views, first. You, for some reason, never answered your own question, which is INSULTING, because you expect others to do what you are NOT willing to do yourself.
You expect others to provide for you what you don't want to provide for them. You expect them to bare their souls and pour out their thoughts, emotions and well-explained intentions, while you sit back on your lazy couch and contribute NOTHING but the question. You probaly can't even see how insulting that is.. you demand us do your work for you, basically. So F you.
In any case, only a childish mind would want to constantly 'compare' things. Who would win, Spider-Man or three Batmans? Which is stronger, Mighty Mouse or Mr. Incredible?
Who the hell wants to think about this kind of stupidity, much less answer banal questions like this?
No wonder you have 90 000 posts, you just write things that require nothing of your, no thought, no effort, no time, no writing more than three (!) words... golfclap for you.
Come on, write a proper post. You never even wrote a sentence, there's no grammar, and I am surprised you actually used a question mark at the end.
Do you realize your title is longer than your post, while neither makes any sense?
"Which is better, Looper or Source Code?" would be the actual, english way of asking that. Putting a "vs" (without a period!) in the middle of two movie names, failure to use a comma after that ridiculous non-grammatical sentence structure, and being satisfied with a post that consists of three words prove that you are not the kind of individual to whom anyone should ever reply.
However, being bored and stupid, I am replying anyway.
I could go on about someone that has written over 90 000 posts (?), and still hasn't learned to write anything longer than three words (easy to write many posts with that kind of weaponized stupidity), but let's try to answer your incredibly useless question.
Both movies are fema-fascist, stupid, with a ridiculous, nonsensical happy ending that shouldn't be possible and that ONLY raises more questions - especially moral ones - so there's no real difference. It just comes down to which movie is more boring, I suppose, because entertainment is the only value these movies have, and even that is heavily questionable.
I guess Looper is a bit more gory and disgusting, so maybe 'Source Code' is better. Then again, Looper's title almost makes sense, which can't be said about this movie's name.
It's a tough call to decide between pushing your genitalia deep into a pile of disease-ridden (you can choose between plague, AIDS, or a painful veneral disease), half-eaten, but still alive cockroaches, or diving naked into a pool filled with hobo piss and feminist vomit, garnished with cat turds.
Where do people dig up these questions? It's like asking which world would you rather live in, Idiocracy's nightmarish stupidity dystopia, or Demolition Man's social justice warrior-utopia. Only a child asks such things.