MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Now, you can hate, dislike or not appreciate some 'tens'' looks, but that does not mean they are not tens. I have seen women, whose face I absolutely hate and think they are not charming or good-looking to my eye - but I have also recognized their 'general beauty' and can tell their number pretty accurately, because I realize other men would probably see them as good-looking, gorgeous or beautiful.
So the 'consensus of what most men would think' of someone has a lot of bearing on the rank, but even without any men's viewpoints, these ranks would still be pretty much the same, because beauty is so universal that even an A.I. could probably rank women correctly most of the time.
Beauty is beauty, even if there's no one to see or rank it - you can have different opinions about which kind of beauty you like or love, or like better than some other versions, and you can even think something 'factually beautiful' is rather ugly, but you should keep your opinion separated from the more factual ranking.
Beauty is actually surprisingly predictable. If there's a 'classically beautiful skull and face shape' with genetically 'good looks', most people will instantly react to it as 'beauty'.
In any case, your ranking system makes no sense, because you obviously base it in subjective emotions/experiences/boner rather than objective evaluation, assessment or facts.
Ten would simply mean, she is ON PAR with the BEST-LOOKING women on the planet. That's it.
The comparison is to 'what this planet has to offer'. If this planet ONLY had bug-ugly women, then the rank would not even mean much, but a 'ten' would not necessarily even be good-looking, let alone beautiful. If a six from the current Earth then happened to move to the bug-ugly planet, then she would instantly become ten, and the previous 'tens' would be lowered to maybe three max. Then she would be the measuring stick.
So the way it is SUPPOSED to work is:
- You take the BEST-looking women on the planet, the best gene pools, the best DNA, the best faces and bodies, the people that look 'maximally good' COMPARED TO OTHERS, so they are the cream of the crop, the best this planet has to offer. Those are tens.
- You take the SECOND-best-looking women on the planet, then compare them to the best-looking ones to rank them 'nines', then compare them to anything worse-looking to solidify that rank. Those are nines.
And so on.. the 'ten' does not mean some 'etheric opinion thing', it means a very solid, hardwired fact based on the best-looking people on the planet. This woman might be charming to you, but that does not mean she ACTUALLY belongs to the small group of the best-looking women on the planet. Those women are SO good-looking, there are no better-looking ones (only equals and lower ones).
Women don't understand this concept, so they always rank themselves 'ten' or choose some arbitrary lower number if they want to appear 'humble' or something.
Men don't understand this concept, so they always rank 'whatever their boner happens to schwing to' as ten and then even add silly qualifiers to boot.
If we lived in a rational world, we would all understand the ranking system and use it appropriately.
You are not making any sense using it wrong - you belong to the women who just arbitrarily rank themselves or other women 'ten' regardless of facts.
"I disagree on the looks. Tina Louise was a perfect 10."
Wow, people really haven't been to Asia much or seen Korean or J-Pop idols or or or..?
This 'numbering' thing is tricky, because people don't understand how it's supposed to work. Just because YOU like someone's look and think they are the perfect ones, doesn't mean she is a ten in any kind of more absolute meaning of the rank.
I have known faces I have absolutely loved, and would not want to have changed them in any way, but I have always recognized that they are not 'tens', whereas the rest of the world is concerned.
This woman is DEFINITELY not even close to being ten, and I didn't know you have to add adjectives and qualifiers to these ranks.
It's as if you sub-consciously KNOW she's not a ten, so you have to add the word 'perfect' in there.. just to convince yourself.
Look, I will give her a 'six' on a good day, but without any make-up, she's probably closer to a 'five'. Fair enough?
These number rankings never work, because people misinterpret what it's supposed to mean.
A ten does not mean 'perfect', and you don't add qualifiers to the number, unless it's something like 'solid' or 'and a half'.
The numbers have to do with this planet's gene pool (usually - if you happen to encounter a beautiful visitor from another planet, you probably should use a different scale altogether).
This means, it's not some kind of 'opinion', it's not some kind of 'confidence thing' as women seem to think (everyone is a 'ten' according to women, so there's no point in EVER asking women about this stuff, or they rate themselves 'ten', thinking anything less would be disparating themselves or not confident enough, and 'confidence' is something they project as being important in mate selection, because to women, it is).
I SIMPLY means someone's rank within that gene pool.
So a ten does not mean anything 'perfect', it does not mean 'can't look better', etc.
..not to mention, written more poignant - perhaps sometimes even 'important' - posts, so maybe moviemakers can learn to some day make actual sense, and so on.
Also, if you are going to ask a QUESTION, the least you can do is use a QUESTION MARK, right? RIGHT?
Are you sure YOU are making any sense?
As to the actual content of what you are saying besides these snide remarks towards innocent fellow posters (I only do this as a 'hobby' of sorts, and even then, it's not serious, I have much more interesting projects and I express myself in other forms of creative expression WAY more than writing - if you can believe that - I just have a lot to say and have a good keyboard, so I can type quite a lot of text easily without breaking a sweat. Shouldn't this kind of feature or ability be celebrated, rather than insulted and treated as if it's something to frown upon?)..
..yes, I have noticed after just a couple of episodes, how this show doesn't seem to take almost anything seriously. The original pilot sings about a SIX-hour tour, but then they change it to a three-hour tour.
What puzzles me to no end is how they allow Gilligan to always ruin pretty much -everything-, but when I get to a scene where people all talk to fish in order to test if there is a transmitter, I can't even roll my eyes hard enough to do the nonsensical cringiness justice.
Just gag Gilligan and tie him to a tree, then formulate some escape plan and just leave the island. I am sure he can wiggle himself free eventually and then only harm his own escape or rescue plans.
There's of course the usage of fish to create a 'HELP' message, which is way too tiny to be seen from the air, only ruined by Gilligan's 'P' that is the wrong way (and weirdly far away from the 'HEL').. I mean, if you see 'HEL' and a 'P' that is the wrong way, wouldn't you, as a pilot, at least want to investigate what's going on? It's not like they would thin 'Oh, they didn't spell 'HELP' correctly, so they must be fine', is it?
I hope you don't mean me - assuming genders, calling normal posts that point out things that make no sense 'rants', calling just normal-sized posts 'long' (I guess for the text-message generation, anything longer than 160 characters is 'long'..), tying someone's writings to 'time' (let alone 'all the), and finally, making it seem like 'plot holes' are some kind of identity for someone.
In case you meant someone else, never mind.
However, if you DID refer to me, let me just point out a few things about your post that also makes no sense:
- I do not 'identify' as any kind of 'plot hole' individual, let alone 'a' guy'. I have written multiple times how gender of a body is irrelevant to true identity, as soul has no gender, so calling someone a 'guy' is insulting in any case. I do not write about 'plot holes', I only point out things that do not make sense, because it frustrates me that this kind of stuff gets made that ignores its on rules and logic constantly.
- Just because things do not make sense, someone pointing out those things does not make them a 'guy' or mean they are merely talking about 'plot holes'. Some kind of plot holes are acceptable, if things make sense overall, or the movie/show/etc. is overall good and you can see the passion and hard work that people exerted to create a project out of a vision they wanted to share or a story they wanted to tell. Often these are not the motivations, but instead, it's 'making money'.
- Being insulting and condescending towards someone that actually does work hard to point out things that do not make sense (that's most of what I do in my 'long rants' (which usually aren't rants - sometimes they are, but not often enough for you to downgrade them all to 'rants')) shows that you are not prepared to be civilized and respectful to someone that has written more and longer messages than you, pointed out more things that make no sense than you and made more sense than you..
Yes, it has clever jokes, but as a whole, the movie itself is VERY lackluster, predictable, paint-by-the-numbers and boring.
They did NOT take risks making this movie, which is unfortunate.
The ranking does not reflect 'liking' or 'not liking' a movie. You can LIKE a turd, but it's still a turd. You can HATE a diamond, but it's still a diamond.
This movie is not bad, because it's 'bad'. It's bad, because it does not reach its full potential, it does not use its permise to the max, it does not even reach very high - it's SUPER comfortable with 'magic premise' and 'star power' (Arnie), and that's about it.
It doesn't NEED to reach very high, because it would be success on star power alone, so MOST of the movie is lackluster to the extreme.
It DOES have its highs and lows, and those highs are definitely tasty indeed. The problem is, the movie is a bit schizophrenic as to what it wants to be, how gritty it wants the 'real world' to be, and so on. It is stretched too thin between 'stupid, wacky comedy' and 'gritty, depressing reality' and doesn't take ANY stance about any of it.
So in the end, it becomes a blurred mess, where it could've been a CLEAR success. It's too 'wishy-washy' for its own good, and then doesn't even reach for the stars. It's like it reaches for the palm trees, gets them, and is happy with that instead of breaking any new ground whatsoever.
It plays it safe to the max. It's boring as a result - there is SO much it could've done, there's SO much it could've DARED, but it didn't. So it remains a very lackluster movie that doesn't try too hard, with predictable stuff where entertainment is supposed to happen, and annoying stuff where the plot is supposed to happen.
The hodgepodge hot mess is just 'slightly below average', not memorable to the least. There was clearly NO VISION behind this thing - just a 'wacky premise' with 'cute kid' and 'starpower', and that's when they called it a day instead of going the extra mile.
Even the LOVERS of this movie would be hard-pressed to try to describe WHERE exactly this movie went the 'extra mile'..(because the truth is, it didn't)
It's NOT a 'great' movie, like some (censored) seem to think, but it's very VERY polished one, so people might get confused.
It also has pretty darn good parody scenes, great jokes, wonderful star power and an excellent villain (not to mention his sublime performance).
The problem is, AS A WHOLE, the movie just does not work.
Isn't it amazing how accurately you can judge someone's soul size / intelligence / wisdom level / stupidity level by their inability to write english correctly for a short topic that only takes five words, AND their inability to write proper paragraphcs instead of vomiting a wall of text NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND will ever read..?
I just wanted to point out how amazing it is.
Saying 'young kind' and then 'at his age' at the same time (shouldn't that be OF his age?) is RIDICULOUSLY redundant.
You don't have to REPEAT the same idea in your question. Have you ever researched what the word 'repetitive' means?
Your writing the same idea over and over creates a feeling of 'enough, already', did you know that?
I am being redundant just to show you how annoying and needless it is. Please rectify.
Anyone thinking about this kid and his everyday life, will be shocked. What happens to him is TOO scary, too shocking, too 'real', too gritty, gloomy, depressing and shocking.
He should not have to go through all that. Also, WHAT is with this misandristic trope of 'father always dies'? Can't ANY kid have a good, full family in these movies? EVER?
The 'real world' is when this movie ABSOLUTELY stops being funny. There's nothing funny about any of the scenes that happen in the 'real world', except maybe a couple of the 'Arnold Brownschweiger' moments.
So most of the 'real world' is a horrible dystopia with always rainy skies and whatnot. That is jarring and scary, depressing and off-putting.
This movie tries to 'have it all', but ends up having nothing.
Maybe the LAST nail on the coffin is that the movie is so on-the-nose with everything. You basically KNOW what you are going to get, and it keeps going like that for a long, long time. You know how people are going to react to things, and yep, that's how they DO react.
There are not many surprises or interesting scenes you couldn't predict or think of before they happen. You have your typical Mary Sue scene, check.. just because this movie tries to be clever by having a character AWARE of the tropes, does not make those tropes any less exhausting and stupid.
This movie COULD have been amazing, but instead, it ends up being 'too safe for its own good', and it fails because it falls flat on its flace after expecting to be levitated by audiences and then jumping in the air.
This movie is unfortunate, because it COULD have been absolutely fantastic, but ended up being 'paint-by-the-numbers' romp that you will forget about ten minutes after seeing it. All you will remember is a couple of fun jokes and interesting differences between the 'real world' and 'movie world', and that's about it.
It COULD have been 'Back to the Future' great, where people will endlessly discuss it after the movie is over.. so sad.
All I did was tell the truth. Sometimes truth is simple.
You sarcastically insult me for it (and do a LOUSY job as well)..
..why is that? Are you insecure about your own intelligence? What did you ADD to the discussion? How many of my points did you REFUTE? What have YOU done to prove you are above me or closer to 'Mensa level' in your intelligence (which seems to be a thing you value for some reason)?
You fail so hard and in so many ways, but probably think yourself very clever.. just one point - ad hominems are NEVER clever. You have to add content to make youir post worth reading. You didn't, so it isn't.
P.S. PLEASE get a 'sense of humor', it works WONDERS when trying to decypher the truth while being humorous about it. I bet you have never accomplished anything like my simple post.. you should be commending me anyway for being able to be conscise, knowing how difficult it is for me.
But ALL of that just WOOSHES over you, doesn't it? And YOU get to make fun of someone else's intelligence?
GIVE ME A BREAK.
The truth CAN be simple, you don't have to join an organization to tell the truth.. or be intelligent.
There's also no reason to capitalize the word 'Mensa' fully, it's not an acronym.
Also, for someone mocking someone else's intelligence sarcastically, you sure don't have a CLUE of what an 'Oxford Comma' is..
Try again, please. I would love it.
It's 'The Office' character brought to 'a poor man's clone' of that show, so what do you expect?
She's unlikable and boring even in 'The Office' - how do you bring a Karen from that show into another one and expect her to somehow magically be MORE interesting or likable..?
What is the reason for her even being on this show?
I'll tell ya - "Look, this show must be as good as The Office, we brought a Karen from that show, see? See?"
THAT is the reason.
Well, at least Joey is actually funny and has some good stuff. He's not just 'stupid', he has a lot of personality as well, not to mention he's an alpha that can seduce women easily and organically, has fun lines and so on. The intonation of 'How're YOU doin'' always gets me (sorry, can't write it as 'How u doin'')
Homer Simpson didn't start off as a complete idiot, he just slowly devolved into one. He had nobility in the beginning.
Kevin... he... err... hmm. OK, you have a point with Kevin, I have no idea why he even exists in the show or why he has to be so ridiculously stupid. The point of his character escapes me almost as much as April's in this show.
I think you might as well be describing Flanderization just as well... even though Ned never becomes a complete idiot (I think), it's surprising how much he changes as well.
I don't think elementary school boys would choose a fema-fascist post-wall bulldog-face as their lead role for their big comedy show, though, so maybe it's a couple of rooms full of elementary school girls with a couple of really ugly feminist 'teachers' to brainwash them?
So this show can only be liked by people who put a SPACE before punctuation (why is this a trend these days?) and who can't write capitalization correctly to save their lives?
Rrrriiiight... explains a lot.
"I like it better than The Office"
Did anyone ever notice that people that say stupid things like these, never back them up in any way? Rewatchability (not 'rewatchibility' - these people ALSO never know how to spell the words they decide to use in their incredibly short posts) is subjective, but you can't SERIOUSLY tell me 'The Office' can't be watched more than a few times?
In fact, that is how I started understanding the show, just watching it over and over until the subtle humor emerged and everything started to click.
This show is not likable enough to watch ANY episode even once, let alone many times - at least of the ones I've seen so far (not yet reached the end of the second season, mainly because it's too boring to wade through this incoherent, irrelevant, unrelatable mess).
The least you could do is BACK UP your lousy opinions so maybe people would find something to consider in case they might want to change their point, but nope. It's always just one or two 'statements' that do not explain anything, and then a firm belief that crowds will be on their side.
Try to at least explain something next time, ok?
There is only one devil, so you must mean 'demon'.
Please learn meanings of words before attempting to use them in a discussion board.
Thank you.
I don't quite understand your post, and I don't know who Tina Fey is even after looking at her photos, but isn't Jenna Maroney played by the same actress that is always playing a slut role anyway?
Also, eww, I'd rather look at old Jane Krakowski any day over even young Amy Poehler. Her face just looks like it's not constructed correctly, as in someone made a mistake. It's almost some alien in disguise trying to look 'human' but having no clue how to do it or what a face is actually supposed to look like.
At least Jane looks like a human being and has a pleasant face with likable features.