MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
"- Eddie is cheap and poor and "
Oxymoron.
You can't be cheap AND poor. I mean, it's somewhat possible, I suppose, but how do you KNOW someone is cheap, if they're poor? Poor people aren't 'cheap', they just can't afford to appear 'non-cheap', because they don't have the resources.
Only rich people can be cheap, because the very definition of being cheap, is 'being able to pay handsomely, but only paying a tiny amount', or 'being able to buy expensive things, but buying cheap things instead'.
When you remove the ABILITY to buy something expensive, there's no 'cheap'. If you have 10 cents and you buy something that costs 10 cents, you're not being cheap, you don't have any OPTIONS to buy anything more expensive.
If you have 100 bucks and you buy something that costs 10 cents because you want to save money, although you could easily afford the 10-dollar one or the 80-dollar version, only THEN can you ever be cheap.
"Cheap AND poor" is an oxymoron, even if someone poor IS actually cheap, you can never KNOW they're cheap, as long as they remain poor, because they don't have the opportunity to show that they're actually cheap, since they're _FORCED_ to buy cheap stuff because of lack of money and resources.
Eddie could be REALLY generous and non-cheap, and would buy the most expensive and extravagant things, if he HAD MONEY - you don't know! So please refrain from accusing a character of being something you have no way of knowing they are. I mean, it's possible that Eddie is cheap, but considering how generous and well-meaning he really is, I don't think it would fit his character.
Being cheap fits the character of some wealthy miser, not a poor guy with an overly big family.
..so they need 'affirmative action' and so on. Candace Owens is RIGHT about these racial things, it's ridiculous how black people are actually kept 'in check' by the idea that they can't achieve anything because racism and patriarchy, so they need affirmative action and all kinds of things just to be equal to white people, and so on. This sickens me, we are all equal regardless of our physical bodies!)
White people don't have anything lifting them up or keeping them up. Women can earn millions of money just by wearing specific, skimpy outfits and laying in front of camera, maybe wiggling something a little bit every now and then. Men can't have anything this easy to earn even ten bucks.
In any case... 'prejudice'... it's an interesting word, but there's NOTHING wrong with this movie. I don't see anything ACTUALLY insulting or racistic or prejudice-based about anything in this movie. You should be able to make fun about someone or something without being accused of racism or prejudice. I can make fat woman jokes without hating the people that actually live inside those fat, female bodies. I mean, I wouldn't F them, but I don't hate them.
After all, they're the same souls we all are - we are all incarnated into all kinds of bodies eventually, or already have. It's not like our body defines us, IS IT?!
So why not make fun of your body or ANY quality of it, even race, if it's funny, since it's just temporary, while YOU are eternal? Why not? It's like making fun of your car. Why take it personally, since your car isn't you? The same way, your body isn't you, no matter how 'black' or 'asian' or 'white' or whatever.
If the movie wasn't 'prejudice' back in the day, and suddenly is 'prejudice', something must have changed. Since we know the movie couldn't have changed, the only conclusion is that the world surrounding it changed.
So in essence, what you SHOULD be lamenting, is that the WORLD changed from a 'humor-understanding fun place to live' to a 'miserable place where no humor is allowed'.
'Prejudice' or 'Non-prejudice' doesn't enter into it. In my opinion, anything and everything can be a topic for humor, without it necessarily being 'prejudice-based'. I mean, if I make a joke about black people, it could be that I just find that particular joke funny, and black people just happen to fit the joke very well, and that's ALL there is to it.
But these days, people ASSIGN motivations where none exist, racism where none exists, and so on. So you can't make a joke about black people without people thinking you are racist. This is what has changed, and it's very sad. I would be happy if people make fun of me on every possible level (as long as there's no actual physical violence), if this would mean that EVERYONE can be happily made fun of just as well.
Try making fun of women, black people, or being racial or 'genderized' about insults against black people or women. This world will eat you alive.
However, make fun of men (especially hetereosexual 'white' men) or white people, being racial against white people or women, no one will bat an eye.
This is inequal, and in a world that talks so much about equality, one would expect people to address ALL inequalities, not just the manufactured, non-existent ones. Women are always given a victim status, WHM can never have that. Black people have an automatic protection and affirmative action (which ACTUALLY is pretty racist, when you think about it, because this assumes black people are not strong enough to take insults, especially racial ones, they're weak little children so they can't compete on adult level against others..
A movie can't be 'prejudice', as that's basically an abstraction of people's feelings and perhaps motivations and attitudes.
You could've said 'prejudiced', but that'd still be wrong, considering a movie isn't a living entity, and thus can't have prejudice. The MAKERS of the movie could have prejudice, but then again, who doesn't? You have prejudice. We all have prejudice about something, it's a very difficult thing to get rid of completely.
I don't care if it's only about some fire ants after you have heard they destroyed a family, but it's still prejudice, if you haven't actually met some fire ants in real life. So what, even higher-level beings that live outside this stupid mudball might not be always fully free of prejudice.
Prejudice is a normal human quality, it takes aeons to cultivate yourself out of it, and because it happens on so many levels, in so many forms, and about so many things, you shouldn't judge people based on it, because even 'good human beings' are not fully free of it necessarily.
What I am saying, is .. so what, there's nothing wrong with prejudice, it's actually logical and lifesaving feature in unknown situations and such. It's like fear - it seems like a 'bad quality', but when you think about it, it's fear that saves our lives in many scenarios. You see a car approaching you at high speed without any evidence of slowing down - FEAR will save you and make you run to the side (unless you were in Prometheys school of running away from things) and survive. Without fear, you could just let the car kill you and then wonder what happened.
In any case, you are aiming at the movie, when you should be focusing on what has changed. The movie is still the same it always was. For some reason, no one in the eighties would ever have written "This movie is prejudice" about this movie. No one cared, people saw this as a fun comedy, and wouldn't even have thought to say anything like that about it.
So what changed? The movie certainly didn't.
I did not miss the point, I think you are too harsh on this good family man with good intentions, that JUST wants his family to have a fun vacation, sense of togetherness, and an uplifting experience in a wonderful theme park.
How is someone like that a 'jerk'? It's not "his ambition" - ambition would describe a SELFISH drive to serve greed and put other people down. It's a DRIVE to DRIVE to 'the most fun place in the world' so he can GIVE his family a lot of fun.
You are not only unfair to this movie and its characters, you feel bad for the most hostile Karen in the movie, your sympathies are on the wrong side, and the funniest thing in your post is that you not only DID find it all FUNNY (which is the whole POINT of a COMEDY, after all! So it did what it set out to do and YET you complain?)... but you also think posters here can't figure out your simplistic, misunderstanding, insulting post just because you use a word like 'obtuse' instead of 'stupid/dumb/unintelligent/insensitive/etc.'..
Look, I 'got' your point (not that there's much to get, you just want to twist something good and fun to something evil and insulting, while being insulting to everything around you at the same time), I just didn't WANT to dissect your obtuse post (see what I did here), because I figured it'd be more fun to just reflect something about it back to you in a humorous way.
Since I didn't get through to you, here you go, consider your point 'gotten' and crushed.
He was not in his room.
He was supposed to set alarm for nine (9 am) o'clock, which means he planned to be there about at ten (10 am) o'clock, probably.
He woke up at thirteen (1 pm) o'clock, so he says something like he's already four hours late.
My question is, WHY did he plan to be there four (4) hours (!) before the match begins? Why would he plan to just wait for FOUR HOURS?
If he can still make it although he's four hours late, IS he really four hours late?
I can't really understand this part at all.
I get the joke, 'nein' is a german word meaning 'no', and it sounds exactly like the number 'nine' pronounced in english. Still, why would a german speaking ENGLISH assume an american is suddenly speaking ONE word of german when he says 'nine alarm'? (= 'no alarm')? Also, would Doug REALLY say it that way, instead of something like 'I need to wake up at nine, so could you please put the alarm for nine o'clock? Thanks!'
I mean, the whole joke relies on a REALLY weird linguistic relationship and really unnatural and odd communication that is VERY unlikely.
To add, wouldn't Doug just simply ADJUST the alarm himself instead of just asking?
Can ANYONE here come up with the dialogue of how it must've happened?
--
"Do you want an alarm for tomorrow?"
"Nine alarm"
"Ok, no alarm, then." ("I wonder why he suddenly spoke german, although we've talked in english all night..")
"No, that's not what.."
--
Ok, that wouldn't work.
"I need you to put alarm at nine"
That wouldn't work, either.
"Do you want any alarm for tomorrow?"
"Nine"
"Ok"
Well, this COULD possibly happen, but it doesn't sound very plausible - I can't see anyone talking like that. Also, the german should understand that an american wouldn't use the german word 'nine' when saying 'no', he would simply say 'no'. Also, when talking about alarms (or anything that has to do with numbers or times), the Ghita (or Gita, whatever) should realize and know the whole nein/nine thing.
I mean, she DID convert SUCCESSFULLY from 'double to single', so that proves that it's not only possible, it HAS BEEN DONE.
Her winning / losing-ratio doesn't enter into it. Kate could've certainly turned into a single skater, even if she hadn't been as successful as one.
In any case, it could be that judges and audiences are more lenient in scoring and admiration for the doubles, as it's more 'romantic' - singles have more pressure, as the pressure isn't shared, so if they make a mistake, it's just a big mistake, but if a partner makes a mistake, the other might cover for it somewhat.
In any case, you haven't convinced anyone that it's MORE feasible to turn a hockey player into figure skater than a double skater into single skater. Why can Doug become such a success even though he doesn't even know the basics, like how to use a 'toe pick', but Kate absolutely CAN'T become a success as single, although she does?
None of this makes any sense, and you are just trying to use some random example to justify your rationalization of a stupid movie trope that makes no sense.
There ARE no in-universe answers to this question that would make any sense. The ONLY real and true answer is the external one; 'the plot requires it'. That's the only answer that makes any sense - in-universe, they would definitely have made Kate a single skater as soon as any problems arose. Sure, it might've taken some time, but she would've made a good one - except that she's in 'sabotage mode', so she would not have won anything, I am sure.
How do we even know this is not the case for the real-life example as well, perhaps she consciously or sub-consciously sabotaged her show for some kind of motivations that we just don't happen to know, and that's why she didn't win anything...
The point of all that isn't even whether she won anything or not, but whether she was able to convert, and if she was able to compete, she clearly completed the transformation successfully. Q.E.D.
"Different cardio regiment, different skill-set, different pacing, and different levels of physical exertion."
But HOCKEY PLAYERS have the same cardio regiment, same skillset (this word doesn't have a hyphen), same pacing (whatever this means) and same levels of .. ok, I am not even going to repeat that, because THAT is just stupid (no offence)?
Really?
I mean, figure skater into figure skater seems to be WAY similar compared to hockey player into figure skater. At least they already know how to use the toe pick and how to do the basic moves, all they have to do is just learn to do things without a partner - I can't believe the training or execution of the routines would be all THAT different physically or psychologically.
If you disagree, please ELABORATE on why you think they're so different. It's still all figure skating, you still twirl around and use toepicks and do all those coreographies according to music, it CAN'T be _THAT_ different. You still use the same muscles and same kind of stuff, you still have to be able to 'skate alone at fast, controlled speed fluctuations' with AND without a partner, so what's the real difference anyway?
Someone NOT WINNING something is no proof - she might have gotten too old at that point to compete with the fresh, young people, there might be a myriad of reasons why she didn't win things. It could be that competition is tougher, it could be that the partners-version is easier because there is less competition or fewer skilled people or whatnot, it could be that the PARTNER was the really skilled one that did most of the work and made them look good, and she was simply coasting (at least partially), it could be that she's psychologically a different entity alone, and can't muster similar amounts of energy and excitement because of the 'loss', and due to all this sadness, can't really do things as well, and so on..
It could also be that she was never that good in the first place.
How different are the jumps/turns?
Japanese is a really good language for singing and songs, although I hate what they do sometimes, when it comes to words like 'motto' - they sing it as 'moooooooooo-to', deleting the other 't' completely, it's such a typical trope, it makes my ears vomit.
However, I don't get why anime often uses some other languages - I watch japanese things to hear japanese language, not to hear some awful russian singing (no offence, but the singing is horrible in this intro) - if I want to listen to a russian or german song, I can listen to russian or german music.
When I watch japanese TV shows and such, I kinda expect to hear JAPANESE sounds and songs, vocals and singing, so it's kind of disturbing and shocking to be forced to listen to a language I did not select.
The 'terrible J-pop' is actually really good, if you give it a chance. There are GREAT anime openings that have immense energy and great singing in japanese, so I don't get what someone here has against japanese music, must be racist or something.
I mean, sometimes someone's height is shown as 5 feet 9 inches, but the next episode, someone else's height is shown as 175 cm.
Why??
In any case, all this show is, is POTENTIAL. Too bad most of that potential is not explored. But hey, we get lots of boring talking in static shots.. talking, talking, more talking and more talking.
Where's the energy, excitement and colors?
You are better off reading the manga, although it doesn't have much coherence, either, and it also consists of small side stories, basically, that have not that much to do with each other, but at least the movie borrowed a few and tried to make a cohesive story out of it (and failed).
I don't know what any versions of GitS are trying to say, except that japanese people can produce wild things, boring things, and never dare deviate from the expected tropes.
There are SO many irrelevant side stories, I might as well be watching 'Violet Evergreen'. In anime, it seems that it's typical to give lots of promise, then never deliver. Give some mystery, then NEVER resolve it until maybe 20 episodes in, and even then, it's a letdown. Our mastermind villain is just some goofy-looking, sad-eyed teenager with slightly messy hair. Holy cow, what a letdown!
It's like they didn't know what to do with the show once it got going, so they consulted every single anime director and even western movies (Nurse Ratchet should NOT be part of this world!), just to scrape something to present. Why would we be interested in some guy collecting gold that has already died, when we could be exploring more interesting themes?
Why was the ONLY good thing about this, the blue robots, removed from the show completely?
This show had SO much potential, only to become an empty balloon after enough episodes, it simply DEVOLVED from what it could have been.
Heck, the intro is so cool, being rendered, and then we get the typical anime drawings instead. Why is the intro even in '3D', if all we get is '2D'? (They rectify this in the next season but I had lost interest at that point)
There's no energy, no colors, no consistency, no big story that would be revealed a bit more every episode. There are stories that end before resolving anything, and are NEVER heard from again. What the heck? Why did I waste my time watching THAT, when the next episode is about something completely different?
It's like useless sidestory after useless sidestory without a cohesive theme that would hold it all together.
Did we REALLY need a London bank episode about WINE? Where are my robots and camouflage and Major's fight scenes? Instead of any of that, she just goes and.. buys a 60-dollar knife.
Why are prices shown in dollars in London anyway? Who knows..
Also, why does the displayed data use the IMPERIAL system sometimes, but other times, it uses metric system?
It's obvious you haven't read the manga - it's wild, adventurous, goes to all kinds of places the movie would never dare even try, and actually goes forward when it comes to story and such.
It still doesn't make much sense, but it has way more nudity and sexuality, and interesting robots with personality, that try to revolt and such.
The movie feels toned down from the manga (VERY much so, in fact), so what you are saying about the movie versus the cartoon, would definitely apply almost directly when comparing the manga to the movie.
Having said that, this cartoon is definitely dull, and suffers from some kind of 'devolution'. I watched over 20 episodes, and my brain started to want to vomit at that point, while my ghost started to try to run away and jump down the window just to have something non-boring in my life.
I think maybe seven (7) first episodes are relatively 'promising' - nothing too great, but promising that we get some kind of interesting big story going at some point, but then that promise goes away and the whole thing devolves into 'typical anime' that isn't fun or interesting on any level.
There's also SO much 'static talking' in a very fast and complicated way that I barely understood most of the japanese (although I can usually keep up with at least the main point of what people are talking about in japanese TV shows), and I struggled to even read the english text fast enough or even comprehend a lot of it. This show is a 'dull strain on your brain' for some reason.
I can understand why someone would not be able to get into this - I saw the first few episodes and wanted more and expanded story - but it was never delivered. After around 7 episodes, the show became dull, too wordy, useless and trivial. The main story was put on backburner so we can know what some drunk russian from Batou's past is up to, and that his wife makes some kind of alcohol from honey.
Every episode starts being just a 'useless side story that doesn't connect'.
Now, please note that I am not saying there are no crazy people. There are, most certainly.
However, I think psychiatrists are more insane than anyone else has ever been in the whole planet's history. Wanting to be a psychiatrist and becoming one should be the biggest proofs that someone is not only mentally imbalanced, but batsh1t crazy.
So when a psychiatric diagnosis is basically a debatable 'opinion' or 'viewpoint', and those that are diagnosed are usually ALREADY on mind-altering, powerful, brain-destroying, neuro-toxic synthetic chemical pharma-drugs, it's no wonder that people can be 'misdiagnosed' easily, and people can 'fake' these supposed (but unproven - there's not even one shred of evidence of actual existence of many of these) 'illnesses' convincingly.
I mean, no one knows what a 'mentally ill' individual would say in a given situation, so it's always subject to interpretation instead of being able to point at a muscle malfunction and data gathered from tests to say 'this muscle doesn't function properly, so this man has a muscular disorder', it's more a hazy matter of opinion, 'well, this man is interested in the topic of UFOs, so according to our bible.. I mean, this 'diagnostic manual', it means the man has a form of schizotypal disorder, case closed!'.
(This is actually a real example from one such manual, just by the way - an INTEREST in some topic means you are crazy - how insane is THAT?)
In this way, this movie is realistic. There is no reliable way of discerning someone who's faking 'mental illness' (could be diagnosed FOR that reason - no sane individual would ever fake a mental illness..?) and someone who actually has a 'mental illness' - which really just translates to 'wrongful thinking', when you get down to it.
A mental illness is not something that shows up in a CAT-scan or in any physical way in your body anyway, so it's a very hazy witchcraft-style opinion vortex that these 'mental health professionals' conjure up, usually with impressive-sounding word-salad designed to obfuscate the truth and to baffle the mind of a layman, and there's no REAL, conclusive way of testing something like this.
There are basically 'questionnaires' and 'ink blot tests' and that's as 'scientific' as it gets. There's no equipment that can measure or detect it. It's a sham.
Well, it's the whole 'western pharmaceutical treatment' approach to human health and the mystery of 'what makes someone a healthy human being' that psychiatry is only one part of.
Psychiatry is strange, because it requires no evidence, and it can lock away people without ANY due process - there are no courtrooms, lawyers, judges, defence, prosecution - all it takes to lock someone away and forcibly put them in neurotoxic drugs that commonly cause tardive dyskinesia, are just a couple of angry suicidal losers (research this, psychiatrists commit the most suicides, or at least used to - why is this, if it's a valid 'science'?) that parrot each other's 'diagnosis'' and a couple of signatures, and that's it. Now you have no rights, and you are treated as a faulty machinery fixable by synthetic lab chemicals that make a lot of money for the Big Pharma.
Between psychology and neuroscience, psychiatry sits somewhere in the middle - it's not really necessary, as if there's something actually structurally wrong with your brain, there's neuroscience to prove it. If there's something wrong with your 'thinking' (much harder to prove and closer to witchcraft), there's always psychology, that does NOT rely on simply drugging someone, but actually trying to dig into their thinking patterns and experiences and finding a perspective that might help them and so on (well, ideally anyway).
Human body is basically always treated as something that has to be 'treated' - it's NEVER to be cured, that would kill the Big Pharma business.
This has lead to a situation where millions of people that WOULD have been cured in ancient China with acupuncture and other methods, millions of people that COULD have been cured even in modern times by therapy and psychology and just 'better life circumstances' and someone listening and understanding them, are now basically 'permanently drugged' by the pharmaceutical chemical lab-concoctions, tested cruelly and USELESSLY on animals..
"Who the fuck is Lauren?"
Truman's wife.
People in power need to be black and females, because it's realist.. because it is the safest, politically-correct thing to do, so no one can blame them for anything.
Interestingly, even in an early 1980s British TV comedy "Yes, Minister" pointed out the hypocrisy of 'affirmative action' and inequality - it said something like people want to find a disabled black woman to fill some governmental position, and Humphrey Appleby replies something like "We'd ALL like to find one of THOSE!"
This was in the early eighties.. it proves how things have basically 'always' been skewed and black people and women have always been in a pedestal when it comes to pleasing the politically-correct corporate overlords that control people's opinions and values.
We're all equal, but black people, especially females, have always (well, in the media landscape's version of 'always' anyway) been more equal than others.
(Please don't bring the 'slavery' argument, as it's more complicated than displayed - white people were also enslaved, but no one talks about that, and black people were also slave owners, but you are not allowed to even think that, and some slaves were relatively 'happy', even though slavery is wrong - slavery has also brought prosperity to certain societies that couldn't have flourished back in the day otherwise, like the ancient Greek societies that really took good care of their slaves - sometimes I think I'd rather live as a slave in ancient Greece than a free (this word also has so many meanings, it's hard to even define anymore) entity in the modern times.
Yes, slavery is wrong, and black people were ALSO used as slaves quite a lot in history, but there were SO many others as well, this argument still wouldn't contradict anything I said in any major way)
I don't know how you can be so confused.
1) Bill Paxton is an actor, not a character in the movie. Of course HE wasn't killed.
2) You can't know for sure that the 'knocking out' wouldn't have killed the CHARACTER, people have died from less.
3) The scene isn't shown fully, so we DO NOT KNOW all the things that transpired, it's possible the terminator, being a terminator, terminated all three punks for having been assessed as threats. Would YOU leave threats alive if you were designed to terminate threats?
4) "Their"?? Is it REALLY that hard to select the correct word between 'there', 'their' and 'they're'? Could you PLEASE at least take the 20 seconds it takes to PERMANENTLY LEARN the correct meanigns of each word? Please. Shortposters or Sh1tposters like you are giving me ulcers.
Not only does your point make no sense, you confuse characters with actors, you write an INCREDIBLY short post (if that can be called writing), you can't even write THAT correctly, and then you make claims that make no sense and have no backing in the movie itself.
To add, 'there is' requires the word 'is' as well, geez. How does anyone become that ignorant and incompetent?
I forgot if I mentioned this small detail about this whole thing, but when you look at things in this movie, it seems IMPOSSIBLE that the robot could've disappeared so quickly, so silently and completely unnoticed by the rapidly approaching SQUAD of COPS.
I mean, these police should've seen exactly what happened - at least SOMEONE would've noticed some big entity exiting a recently crashed car and running away (or whatever the robot did).
It's just a really stupid, ridiculous movie trope, especially in horror movies, where 'nonsensical things HAVE to happen for the movie to be able to continue'. I hate when movies cheat like this, and so many movies cheat a LOT. Something is always shown to be very close, and in the next scene, they're much further away, or we're shown a close-up of someone, so they can be surprised by things that SUDDENLY appear from offscreen, when in reality, they would've been able to SEE EVERYTHING LONG BEFORE those things can come close enough to even attack them, and they couldn't have been surprised by them (E.T. does this just before the big group of kids start flying, the kid excitedly screams something like 'We did it' just before it happens. WHY does he not see a big group of people RIGHT NEXT TO HIM?? It makes no sense, but movies always cheat this way).
I wish movies would at least stop cheating like this, and making the 'impossible happen easily just because it's offscreen'.
I don't know if anyone HATES The Simpsons - I think it's more of a reaction to what HAPPENED to the show. That's what people hate more than the show itself.
The show, as it is, isn't PARTICULARLY 'hateable' (if this is a word), but it's because it carries the name of a show that used to be BRILLIANT, it's like an insult and slap to the face simultaneously.
It's so obvious that what was once OOZING creativity and brilliance, is now as bland, safe and corporate waste of imagination as possible. Sterile, unfunny and scared to be edgy.
It's like a complete opposite of what it once was - it's the CHANGE that people hate, not the show itself. If it had always been like this, no one would hate anything, it would just go in one ear and out the other without leaving any residue of any kind.
It's because it's called 'The Simpsons', but it doesn't DELIVER 'The Simpsons', that makes people hate. What this show once delivered was tasty, unique, amazing, exciting and inspired.
What it offers now is bland, pre-packaged, perfect combination of different types of 'meh' with just the right proportions to not offend anyone and to be as tasteless, soulless, predictable, bland and unappealing as possible - it's like your gourmet meal was replaced with rotting porridge from some hobo's trashcan.
Just kidding, hobos don't own trashcans, but you get the idea.
It's because they allowed this show to lose everything that was good about it and still go on, instead of just killing it. It's like they're keeping some animal artificially on life support although it would naturally have died years ago - while everyone knows the animal isn't REALLY alive anymore anyway, it just appears that way because its organs are artificially animated and its body artificially respirated and such.
The song 'Let it go' must be something the networks never heard or understood..