MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Faithful viewing? Can you view unfaithfully? What the heck are you talking about?
Also, there's no character by that name. There's "Pig-Pen", with a hyphen and proper capitalization, but no 'Pigpen'.
Hmm, your observation IS pretty interesting, though. I wonder why he wears glasses there, when he NEVER wears glasses anywhere else? He's also the ONLY one not jumping up (I think saying 'up and down' is illogical, as no one jumps 'down', they simply fall due to gravity, so they're really just jumping up) besides Lucy and Snoopy just before the apple bobbing.
I also noticed something - people can TELEPORT in this cartoon!
First Linus teleports from the right side of the fence to the left side (we never see him through the opening in the fence after he bumps the opening with the pumpkin), and now Snoopy teleports from behind the curtain INTO THE APPLE BUCKET! I am not sure if 'bucket' is the right word, but how does Snoopy get IN that thing from behind the curtains? We would've seen him, or at least SOMEONE would! No one's back was turned, they were all looking in Lucy's direction.
I have to stop watching movies, cartoons and TV shows or all these stupidities and nonsensical parts will drive me crazy!
Schultz was a bit of a genius that knew a lot about the world, and he reflected this deeper understanding in his work. What other cartoonist could ever have known to use a word like 'notarized'?
In any case, some of his jokes laugh at certain groups, but in a slightly disguised form - Linus is supposed to have mixed up 'Christmas' and 'Halloween', so he thinks the same rules apply to Halloween, the presents and some 'magical entity bringing good kids presents', so he invents this myth about 'sincere pumpkin patch' just like people invented the 'flying reindeer' and other crap kids are lied to about.
From a kid's perspective, there's no difference, it all sounds weird and unrealistic, but also possibly 'inspiring to imagine'. Because kids haven't yet fully grasped the rules and realities of the world, and they usually have a good imagination and love to fantasize, but don't always understand the depth of the abyss that stands between fantasy and reality, they can be fooled even by their own creations.
However, I think later on, this running gag started looking like Schultz was actually laughing at religious zealots; no matter how many times their nonsense is proven to be false, no matter how illogical their rants are, no matter how nothing they say is backed by reality, so they're free to spew any nonsense and never have to wake up to the reality, Linus is never deterred, either, and keeps flaming about the same pumpkin patch stuff he should by now know is just a mix-up and not real.
I think it's a sad statement about how certain people will never be convinced they're wrong, once they have grasped at some lunatic idea and start preaching it around. The people around them can only roll their eyes, like Charlie did.
I don't think Linus's expression changes much, he just get angry that Charlie uses the word 'stupid', and he remains just as angry for the remainder of the cartoon. I don't see his expression being ESPECIALLY scary, it's consistently 'scary'.
I mean, I could list more, but it's like.. why would anyone EVER watch movies or TV shows any other way?
The only reason I can think of is 'the social aspect' - when the corporation is brainwa.. I mean, PROGRAMMING (sounds better... or does it?) the whole village at the same time, everyone can talk about what they saw tomorrow at the water cooler.
That's it.
Why don't the masses ever compare my 8 points (and more) to the ONLY other point on the other side and see which weighs more..?
(Or maybe they do, and make the stupid choice)
You have to remember that on the OTHER side, you have to suffer the OPPOSITE of these points.. you can't go to relieve your bladder because it's not time for the 'commercial break' yet, you have to be sitting in front of the stupidity box EXACTLY when the show starts, or you'll miss it or part of it, there will be obnoxious ads crammed down your throat, you can't pause or rewatch a part you missed or whatnot and so forth and so on.
Yet people STILL choose this horrible way of 'being programmed' instead of just 'enjoying entertainment', the way I heard some people have been able to do for decades already..
(Remember, this is just HEARSAY! It could be sarcasm..)
DISCLAIMER: I take no responsibility for anything anyone decides to do or cause SUPPOSEDLY or ALLEGEDLY because of what THEY decided to read on some internet discussion board.
All rights reserved.
With this kind of setup, you can enjoy things in an optimal way..
1) You never have to endure even one millisecond of a commercial or any kind of ad, you can just watch EXACTLY what you want to watch
2) You can pause it at any point, resume it at any point, skip or back up to any point
3) You can watch any part or all of it as many times as you want, in any order you want, you name it. Anything about any video or TV episode or movie you want to watch, any way you want to watch it, you can.
4) You can adjust anything and everything - scale, size, aspect ratio, brightness/colors/etc., zoom, playback speed (slower, faster, etc.), volume (even boosting it if necessary), again, you name it.
5) Deinterlacing on-the-fly
6) You can still play it on a TV if you really want, there are TV-outs and other solutions (plenty of others as well) for that, you can use multiple monitors or monitor(s) and TV(s) simultaneously, the possibilities are so numerous, I can't list it all
7) Timing - you can watch it at any time you want, stop watching it at any point, pause it at any point - you can continue tomorrow or two years from now exactly where you left off, if you want. You don't have to be DICTATED by some corporation when you can watch it
8) You choose your 'cut' - you don't have to be under the tyranny of the corporations ('networks') or anyone else but yourself. You can watch fully uncensored, original forms of the shows and movies, and they will always remain exactly like that on your harddrive (unless your HD crashes - and I say 'HD' to mean HARD DRIVE, don't steal our old terminology, damnit, it does not mean 'High Definition', as such doesn't exist - there's only 'high resolution', and even that's subject to relativity and opinions). No one dictates to you that your 'The Terminator (1984)' gun sounds are suddenly wimpy or that your 'Pink Panther' shows are suddenly cropped (I call it 'datarápe', because that's what it is, destroying art just so it fits)
It's amazing to me that people STILL (well, 6 years ago anyway) watch things from 'programming', with ads and everything.
I got fed up with that crap decades ago, and haven't watched 'programming' ever since. Anything I watch, I watch on the computer - after all, this was already possible in the year 2000, you could watch videos, movies, TV shows, etc. on your computer monitor.
(Actually, watching videos, animations and such in a slightly more limited way and scale had been possible almost a decade before that point anyway, but I am talking about what's pragmatic for the unwashed masses - I think 2000 was the first year when it became 'truly feasible' for the masses to watch movies played from a computer's hard drive - dedicated people would've been able to do it even before this point, of course)
When I figured it out, it amazed me that most people rather do it in a more cumbersome way, for REASONS?!...
But still??
I am not going to the whole 'copyright is wrong', there are plenty of documentaries like 'Steal this documentary' or whatever it was called, and 'Good Copy, Bad Copy', so I am expressly NOT saying that people could have downloaded all the TV shows they want for free for a long time now, as well as movies, music videos and such, or even talk about emulating other systems and playing all kinds of console games on your computer (good controllers for PC have existed for decades as well)..
But think about someone who did that - just imagine having all your favorite shows and movies tucked neatly in your computer's hard drives (if it makes it easier for ya and the corporations monitoring my words, you can imagine someone having BOUGHT it all on DVDs and Blu-Rays and such).
Schultz (with a T) knew a lot more about how the world works than most people, who just run around blindly, without realizing what they're doing. He even understood the importance of notarization - those people have as much power as a JUDGE!
A tough question; do affidavits have to be notarized for them to have power/value/credibility?
It's female emotions vs. human logic.
Sometimes females can use human logic a little bit, but they live in the MOMENT, so nothing logical will matter when they are driven by their emotions; they will rationalize it ANY which way (if at all), but they can and WILL change their minds completely and then expect you to humour them, and they will always blame men - especially for the women's own emotions!
This is 100% realistic, Schultz really knew the female psyche well.
Yes, I am writing it with a 'T', because it was always like that for me, and I am not changing it. And no, Mandela Effect is not some memory problem, it's something bigger and scarier, but I understand if it's more comforting to believe it is (and I can't really blame anyone that's not a victim of it for thinking it is a memory thing, I would too).
That kind of thing can even happen in actual, live-action movies. It just depends where the camera is placed.
Instead of worrying about slightly off-camera mailboxes and pavements, how about worrying about WHAT PLANET they are on, because there are TWO SUNS..?
What about Linus' secret superpowers of TELEPORTATION or INVISIBILITY? We never see him through the fence hole after he bumps into it with the giant pumpkin, and YET he emerges from the edge of the fence - how did he get there, if not teleportation or invisibility? The only logical explanation would be that he took a super long detour, going downhill so we can't see him because the ground is on the way, and then quickly runs back uphill right to the corner of the fence, and then walks out as we see him do.
Why would he do that?
They should at least drawn a bush or tree there so it could explain why we never see him until he has gone around the fence.
In any case, pavement can be explained by some quick morning rush pavement job, but TWO SUNS can't.
Language changes over time, I have noticed many interesting sayings that have morphed into something different, that are used in the old comics and cartoons like these. Usually these sayings have been shortened from their original, longer version, this is no exception.
It WOULD be kind of lame to threaten someone with only ONE trick, now wouldn't it? Also, what kind of kid only wants _A_ treat? They want TONS of candy and no amount is ever enough!
I don't think you are being serious.
Why are so many people trying to use sarcasm in a format where it doesn't work? There are no facial expressions, tones of voice, body language, energy, or any subtleties like that you can pick up to realize someone's not being 100% serious.
In a text-based communication format, sarcasm is a really bad idea, because it takes an enormous amount of effort and energy just to detect a possibility of sarcasm, and even then you can never be completely sure.
It's best to avoid using it in text-based formats.
There is no such manual, and how do you discern between 'fine booksellers' (whoever they are) and 'crude booksellers', and how did you establish it would be available 'everywhere'? Even in my toilet?)
BTW, it's possible those were some precious, valuable rocks, or candy that's supposed to look like rocks.. I mean, some people do collect rocks.
OK, I admit that's flimsy.. Charlie just has bad luck because life loves bullying him. On the other hand, who knows what atrocities and crimes against humanity he committed in a previous life, he might have been even a... feminist! This means, karmically speaking, he deserves EVERYTHING that's coming to him.
There's one thing I hate about these cartoons, by the way - look at Charlie Brown's sheet. It's like Charlie is COMPLETELY inept and unable to do the simplest thing. It didn't use to be like this. Originally, the sheet with too many eye holes all over the place was Linus's cheet, not Charlie Brown's! The excuse was that Linus was too young to know how to handle scissors correctly yet.
It sort of fits Charlie Brown's character, I suppose, but he IS shown to be way more competent in the comics, at least in the early years, the comic Charlie would never be quite THAT clumsy, at least in the earlier years.
They made other changes like that as well, it's like they dumped EVERYTHING on to Charlie, that was originally spread out to the other characters. It's like they collected every joke that they could make Charlie look bad, and just dumped it all on the poor kid.
This is why these cartoons don't sit so well with me, even though I do like them and appreciate the effort that went into them, and would even consider them 'classics'. That darn Guaraldi jazz is just too delicious and atmospheric, too.
This is happening in the suburbs, where people have their own big back yards and thus own a 'piece of nature', therefore rocks are more common to have in their houses as well. They might have kids of their own, and kids are stupid, so they sometimes think even rocks can 'be pretty' or 'have value', before they are taught to obsess about money and capitalistic greed is installed into them by the time they reach their awkward teenage years.
Also, this was made such a long time ago, when people were 'closer to nature' than these days, when people worship demons (some poster here identifies with the lord of the flies, just to remind anyone that finds this part puzzling) and plastic rectangles more than I care to know.
Rocks are pretty cheap, you can often just find them lying around; people don't generally value them much. This means they're plentiful, free and easy to find and acquire. It shouldn't be such a mystery.
Charlie Brown is basically BULLIED BY LIFE, depressed and unlucky, plus he's a bumbling fool, and pretty stupid sometimes. This leads to 'everything bad always happening to him'. Of course his world is a cartoon world based on a comic world, so these things are exaggerated for humorous effect (though it just depresses me, as in many ways, I identify too much with him - he once said he doesn't fit anywhere, and someone suggests to him to start his own club of 'misfits', but then he realizes he probably wouldn't even fit in there).
Of course it IS a bit weird that everyone just picks on him without even knowing him, or knowing it's him under that sheet - adults are supposed to be more mature than that, or at least there should be ONE adult that's more mature than that.. also, WHO gives a rock to ANY kid, no matter how obnoxious, in that situation? I have actually been to USA during Halloween and taken part of this ridiculous ritual, and damn were the brats obnoxious, and we were expected to praise their plastic, store-bought 'costumes'.. an ordeal.
Could you please change your name? Why would you identify with the most evil demon in this solar system? I can't take ANYTHING you say seriously until you do.
Before you try to use sarcasm in a format where it doesn't work..
(text doesn't have tones, body language, facial expressions or other nuances, so it's impossible to discern whether someone is being serious or not unless you spend a long time analyzing what's being said and study the (seeming) exaggerations, etc. Even then, you can be wrong - especially in today's climate, where the insanity expressed in your post is actually realistic)
..maybe you could at least proofread your post. As you are, generally speaking, showing better-than-average linguistic skills, however, I will go easy on you.
"It's just daddy"?
That makes no sense. Replace the word 'daddy' with the word 'that' and add another comma, and you have yourself an english statement.
OK is an acronym, it's supposed to be written with capital letters (sometimes as 'O.K.', but never 'ok' or 'o.k.')!
Sadly, it's not going to take many years for us to reach a situation where your post could be written by someone without any hint of sarcasm, irony or humor.
To add, simp as a husband? That would only happen if the wife is banging thugs on the side, and doesn't actually love the simp at all (this is how real world works, movies always lie to us about mating, pairing and female psyche and sexuality).
There's no woman on the planet, even someone as ugly as the Mary Sue of this movie, that would be attracted to that BORING BETA SIMP that has no redeeming qualities when it comes to turning on a woman.
There's a reason why women are hypergamous, and why they go for the high-status men (and there's SO much confusion about this, because even the 'enlightened' MGTOWs and PUAs and other guys can't let go of the idea that LOOKS somehow turn on a woman. They don't. There's just so much projection that even women think they do. A good-looking, shy, poor, no-status Linux nerd is not gonna get a woman, An ugly, fat, rich celebrity alpha male will always get plenty of women. Is Ron Jeremy goodlooking? Jack Nicholson? Bill Gates? Henry Kissinger? Donald Trump? NO.They swim in p*ssy.)
I don't care how ugly the guy is, but his behaviour is almost introvert, he has NO energy, no excitement, no drama, it's 'yes, dear' all the way and the woman dominates the relationship just like she dominates everyone - Mary Sue that she is. We can't have a woman in the movie that ISN'T better than all the men in movie history in EVERYTHING, can we?
In any case, this is a really stupid and plodding movie, I can't fathom why anyone would like it. Full of stupid deaths and gore - I only watch this stuff for Buscemi, as he has a great onscreen presence and charisma. And swims in p*ssy as well.
The thing is, scam artists aren't scam artists just because they're scam artists. People can make choices, they have a rational brain.
Why would someone that can afford to live in a really good neighbourhood in a really big house, able to live in wealthy enough circumstances to keep a rich wife, son, great furniture, cars, etc. and also has a good, high-paying job that he's good at, ever find himself in that kind of a situation?
I mean, I would understand if he lived in poverty and his life was going to hell, but he has a REALLY good life, even by western, rich-country standards! He has a glass floor called 'a rich wife', and EVEN if the dad hates him, because he's married to the rich guy's daughter, the money is BOUND to be spilled to his direction, no matter how the daddy tries - after all, the rich dad wants to keep his daughter happy, so he can't go TOO far in hating Jerry and trying to prevent him from getting money.
He gives his daughter 10 000, and the wife that LOVES her husband happily and cheerfully, will gladly share that 10 000 with him.
He should _NOT_ have monetary problems in _THAT_ situation, unless some kind of very expensive and important goal is explained in the movie. It isn't.
He has no goal, he has no reason, he's just somehow 'moneyhungry' and 'needs a lot of money' because 'personal matters'.
What it boils down to is BAD WRITING. "I couldn't think of anything, so I wrote 'personal matters', there, problem solved'.
Can't wait for the pitch meeting for this lying travesty.. nothing makes any sense. Why would Buscemi's character even team up with the psycho guy, and how can the psycho end up working for him and not raise any suspicion until the cop asks Buscemi's character to step out of the car?
Also, why not LET him step out of the car, what's the worst that could happen? I am not even going into the whole 'freeman on the land'-phenomenon here... nothing about this movie makes much, if any sense.
He can't have been already absent nine times, if what Ferris says about '9th sickday' is correct. The movie is contradicting itself!
(It's a similar fallacy to think you turn 20 during your 20th birthday - if you think about it, you realize you turn 21 during your 20th birthday, because your FIRST birthday - the day you were born - you are 0 years old, and your SECOND birthday is when you turn ONE (1) year old, but people on this planet seem to lack the brain capacity to think this far)
- Why does the number have to go down one by one? This is not some complicated spreadsheet (and even if it was..), this is just a simple database or heck, it could even be just a text file. WHY can't Ferris just erase the number 9 and input number 2? It makes NO SENSE that he would have to sloooowly go down to number two.
Also, WHAT would stop Ed from just reversing what Ferris did?
Ed KNOWS the real number, he should be able to put it back.
Also, maybe disconnect the modem from the principal's computer, or at least uninstall the server software or whatever allows Ferris to connect to it - computers can't just be connected to like that, you have to have some kind of server or BBS or terminal software active that not only answers to an INCOMING CALL (which should be very loud and detectable, or maybe even make some phones ring in Ed's office), but also accepts EVERY SINGLE RANDOM CONNECTION without authentication!
What kind of sense would it even make JUST to think that Ed would have a DEDICATED MODEM LINE on his work computer that he needs to keep track of student data? Why would he ALLOW incoming connections to that computer?
Nothing about this makes any sense, even if it happened today, you can't just log into someone else's computer just by telnetting to it or something, even if it is connected to the internet. You have to know passwords and the host computer would know the IP of the connecting computer and so on and so forth..
Aww, that's touching.
Did you just learn the word 'obvious' yesterday or something?
It's obvious you should not use a keyboard again until you have come to terms with your obvious 'obvious-obsession'.