MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Whenever I see a number after a title, I hesitate and I lose most, if not all of my interest. In over 90% of the cases, it's not worth even a glance.
When something becomes a 'franchise', you can bet it sucks for the most part.
A movie is good because some visionary or visionaries poured their finest self into it because they cared about the project, they loved the story, they had a good premise and so on. Not because it has famous actors or because it has a number '2' after its title.
For some reason, masses flock to sequels - maybe they're stupid, but it horrifies me to see people BEGGING for sequels to good movies. 'There should be Ferris Bueller's Day Off sequel!' I hear some people scream. Unbelievable... what could a sequel do better?
Movies used to be considered art, and people experimented with all kinds of concepts - but now they're just formulaic moneymakers or 'woke preaching' that doesn't sell.
I always wonder, why do people with money GLADLY waste so many millions on 'woke movies' and TV shows, but those same people wouldn't give a dime to 'a new, untried story written by someone unknown', no matter HOW good the story is. THIS I can't understand.. if they're ready to waste their money on formulaic woke crap that they KNOW won't sell, why not at least finance SOME unknown writers and moviemakers that could otherwise never make their story a movie? Perhaps we'd get to see a good movie some day that way..
I would settle for one more good movie, but I guess hollyweird is never going to give us that again. Time to look elsewhere, I suppose..
..it's too bad that I have a 'drawerful' of great ideas for stories, some of which would absolutely make great movies - I can't predict if they'd be popular or make any money, but I can guarantee if done well and with love for the craft and story, they WOULD make interesting and exciting, and even refreshingly new kind of movies.
Too bad.
Still, it's guilty of the same sequel problems - they didn't dare to veer off from the Rocky-formula in almost any of the Rocky movies, at least not too far. What if Rocky became a philatelist and chases a valuable stamp all over the world? I know that would be silly, but think how SHOCKINGLY DIFFERENT it would be!
In any case, a bad sequel is too dependent on the first movie and thus, has no personality of its own. Even though 'Rush Hour 2' was better than the first movie, it still doesn't say anything too special or different that the first movie couldn't have already said.
Most sequels just take the first movie, same actors, similar permise, and just repeat it in a slightly different variation, without bringing a NEW PERSONALITY for the sequel, like this movie does.
It's like people are afraid to be CREATIVE with a sequel, and 'let it do what it wants'. They want to forcibly tie it to the fist movie, because they want it to be as successful. The people with bags of money never understand WHAT makes a movie good, so they just take 'key points' and repeat those, and then build some crap around that.
That's not how it works, that's how you KILL THE SOUL of a movie. Soul is important - all the soulful movies are popular moneymakers. Sure, there are a few 'soulless wonders', or really stupid movies, like Jurassic Park (this movie is like someone found a 'cauldron of stupidity' and poured it all into film and that became the movie - there's not a single thing about this movie that's not absolutely idiotic), but you can't make a sequel to a soulful movie by just looking at its material side and trying to replicate it as much as you can.
So many sequels are guilty of this, and are made just because of money. This is why most sequels suck, they kill the soul of the original and try to replicate the 'interesting bits' in a really manufactured and fabricated, soulless way and then people wonder why the sequel doesn't make as much money.
I mean, even 'The Terminator (1984)' makes no sense, and I have proven it in its discussion boards, but HAVE SOME RESPECT for the craft at least - how can you carelessly group soulless trash turds made PURELY for cash without ANY creativity together with a REALLY soulful, well-crafted, creativity-oozing, inspirational, 1980s-atmosphere-filled EXCITEMENT FEST?!
HOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????
"Terminator 1-3 hold up as a trilogy,"
What?
First of all, that franchise has like zillion movies by now, and it was NEVER meant to be any friggin' trilogy.
Secondly, 'The Terminator (1984)' is the ONLY movie of those three that makes any sense, or has any quality, original story, and where the bootstrap paradox actually makes sense (except for the name 'John').
Thirdly, T2 BREAKS and MESSES UP the perfectly well-constructed boostrap paradox of the first movie, RETCONS the _FK_ out of everything and then presents us with a diluted, G-rated, juvenile, childish, stupid, moronic RIP-OFF of the first movie - same plot, same everything, except "more advanced digital effects" and "truckload of money spent", and Arnold looks old and flabby instead of supermuscular superman robot, and the 'new robot' (which shouldn't exist) is a really stupid and way too unrealistic idea, and no offence to Robert, but you can't look 'scary' if you are thin and wimpy, just by tilting your head down and looking forward.
What a childish piece of diluted claptrap that destroys EVERYTHING that was good about the ONLY actually good Terminator-movie.
The less said about EVEN STUPIDER 'T3' (I don't even want to bother to research what its name really is), the better. "Talk to the hand", really? "Elton John-sunglasses", REALLY??
Destroying EVERYTHING we've been told even in the most childish crapmovie sequel cashcow that has nothing original, unique or good about it (even the music was 4/4ized from the more interesting .. what the heck was it, 11/4?, so it's easier for the masses, and the amazing, atmospheric 1980s synths were replaced by more plasticky, boring, soulless mainstream stock sound), let alone in the actually good movie.
So _HOW_ the hell do you deduce anything "holds up"? What do you mean by "hold up"? Like a bank robber holds you up to get your cash without giving you anything in return? SURE!
But PLEASE, never again group 'The Terminator (1984)' together with those TURDS!!
There should NOT have been a Marty in Switzerland (or SUPPOSED to be..) and Doc being committed, because they were supposed to be 'missing' from that timeline until they return, so the 'returning Doc and Marty' should've been the ONLY Doc and Marty.
It's like them returning to the 'normal 1985' and there being suddenly two of both. That doesn't make sense, because they aren't there until they return from the future.
To simplify, let's say Monday Doc and Marty leave for the future, spend 10 years there, then return to Tuesday. There's a chunk of monday where they didn't exist in 1985, but they will continue their existence from Tuesday onwards, because that's where (or when) they returned.
Just because Biff alters the past, shouldn't affect this fact, UNLESS it makes Doc NOT invent the time travel, or in some other way tampers with them being able to LEAVE for the future, so they never leave on Monday.
However, if they never leave on Monday, then the Marty and Doc that DID leave on Monday (in normal 1985) should just DISAPPEAR, because they NEVER LEFT for the future.
This movie makes absolutely no sense.
There's nothing scummy about it. How is she more 'rescued' by knowing about 'the nightmare 1985' and having to live in it consciously, and having to go back to 1955 and sleep there? Nothing bad can happen to her, because from her perspective, reality changed INSTANTLY around her to the good 1985, and ALSO from her perspective, she fainted in a 'dreamy future', and woke up in 'normal 1985'.
What's to rescue and why? Rescue FROM WHAT?!
Some people really have difficulty thinking fourth-dimensionally. She's not left anywhere, and she doesn't need rescuing, when you have a TIME MACHINE.
Even if it takes 200 years for Marty and Doc to change the timeline, the end result is still the same; from her perspective, she's never in any danger, and as soon as Marty and Doc leave the 'nightmare 1985', everything instantly changed into 'normal 1985' from her perspective, and she even remains unconscious.
Even if she was murdered in the 'nightmare 1985', it wouldn't matter, because she would become 'un-murdered' in the 'normal 1985'.
The only problem is, she was put to her veranda or whatever in the 'nightmare 1985', so how come she's there in the 'normal 1985'? I mean, Doc and Marty would have to have carried her there ALSO in the 'normal 1985' for some reason, and ..
..well, it's a time-travel movie, the more you think about these things, the less anything makes sense.
But there's no 'scum' element here, EVEN IF you think as stupidly as you can, because Marty and Doc's motivations are pure, and they genuinely BELIEVE nothing bad can happen to her, because reality will change 'around her'.
It's the MOTIVATION that makes someone 'scum', so what's your motivation trying to paint Marty and Doc as scum??
""3. Childish ""
Have you looked at people that seek partners, have you listened to what modern women have to say, especially about pairing, relationships and men?
I GUARANTEE you will not find ANYTHING as childish in any TV show, even those meant for kids, including this show - women are the most childish, pampered, spoiled brats of this planet, even worse than actual kids.
Childish.. yeah, that label applies to so many people outside this show, the characters on this show actually look LESS childish than real people.
""2. Shallow (only dated a woman to get a massage)""
By the way, mating game amidst animals AND humans, _IS_ shallow. Get over it.
No one, ABSOLUTELY no one does, will or would mate with someone purely based on the qualities of their soul. No one meets 'soul to soul' - the shallowness is the only way people get attracted to each other.
Women's shallowness is just not as obvious, but take my word for it, women are just as shallow as men, when it comes to pair selection.
Just like no man would choose an old, wrinkly, fat, blue-haired feminist over beautiful, good-bodied, feminine, long-haired, humble and fun asian girl that genuinely likes him, no woman EVER chooses a shy Linux-nerd that lives in his mom's basement and can't look women in the eyes, has no wealth or any other form of status, and is completely law-abiding people-pleaser, a nice guy over an outlaw biker, a rapist criminal prisoner, a wealthy CEO, a useless celebrity, an 'exciting alcoholic/drug user' that drinks all her money, a rockstar or alpha male / PUA.
Before you accuse anyone of being shallow, look at your own 'sexual preferences' and what kind of people you have chosen in your life as your romantic and sexual partners. Have they been RANDOM, have you selected 100% based on their SOUL, or has status or body been a BIG (or even only) part of your selection process?
There's a SHALLOW reason why man's job or car he drives is so important to a woman, but a woman's job is not important to a man (Seinfeld even made a stand-up bit about this, how a woman can be butcher and the man is still interested, but if the man has the wrong job..)
In Europe, it actually does.
I had a cell phone around that time, and I considered myself a 'late adopter', as everyone seemed to have them before me. We had intense fights in SMS messages, which is kinda funny thinking about it now. People just sitting silently in a train, fuming from rage, tapping away and getting even more angry after the BEEPBEEP, and continuing the whole night.
Cell phones were definitely very popular in europe around the 1998-1999 era, so yeah, it DOES speak 'on behalf of us all', no matter how sarcastic you tried to be (sarcasm doesn't really work on text-based format, because there's no tone of voice).
Meal can be defined in many ways, but from a quick research:
" The food served and eaten in one sitting.
A customary time or occasion of eating food.
The edible whole or coarsely ground grains of a cereal grass."
I don't think that leaves much room for interpretation. When they talk about 'three square meals a day' (I don't get why the shape of the meal is so important, round meal can be just as well-rounded), I think soup counts.
I think the confusion comes from the word meaning so many things, it can mean 'occasion of eating food' (Jerry's interpretation of 'act of sitting together and eating'), or it can mean just 'food'. I don't know why Americans wouldn't consider 'soup' real food for some reason, but in my opinion, it is.
ABSTINENCE, not ABSISTENCE.
No wonder you can't grasp a simple concept, when you can't even write a simple word correctly. Sheesh.
I hate when everyone tries to be funny or just mindlessly quotes the show instead of actually discussing your point.
I actually kind of agree, but I think it's because the actor is such an anti-charisma joy-sucker for some reason, every time I see him on the screen, I just want to punch him so hard he falls through some reality portal into non-existence and is erased from everyone's memory as a consequence so I never have to suffer his smug face or irritating voice ever again.
But I do like the character, he's hilariously egotistical and pompous, people like that actually do exist.
What makes you think that?
Are you saying teenagers or adults do not have mothers?
He hates baths. He loves hot tubs.
What's your problem? There's no plot hole or even inconsistency. It's like saying he hates bananas, but he loves strawberries. Two completely separate things.
He doesn't hate water, or sitting in water - he loves going to the beach and adores his shower.
It's just TAKING BATHS he hates, and sitting in a hot tub is not TAKING A BATH. It's not TEPID, it's not 'pool of my own filth', it's FLOWING, HOT WATER, completely different thing and situation.
Seinfeld getting laid makes a lot of sense.
1) He has a lot of money (look at the episodes where Elaine gets completely seduced by Jerry's wallet, and can't take her eyes off Jerry once she learns how much money he makes - I forgot which episode this was, possibly one of the 'Cadillac' things)
2) He is a success in stand-up comedy (women love funny men - up to a point. If funny is all you are, you're just a clown, but Jerry is smug and horny, so he takes the situations from funny to the bedroom fluently and smoothly, so he's very attractive to women. Comedy is one way to attract women - you HAVE to be able to make women laugh if you are to seduce them)
3) He is popular, and even had a TV-show pilot - he is a high-status man
4) He is a bit of a psycho that doesn't care about the women's feelings, which means he's never a doormat for a woman (unless the story requires it), so he's above 'regular men' that simp for women all the time and care about women's feelings
This also means he doesn't fail the sh1t-tests women constantly vomit on men's faces. Only clueless simps fail these tests.
5) This is not a documentary, everyone gets laid too often compared to how it would be in the real world.
6) Jerry is somewhat lucky as well, when the stars align and the situation is just right, it can happen almost 'automatically' sometimes, without much effort on Jerry's part. This is a comedy show, so of course this kind of stuff happens, therefore, it's not really 'too often'.
If you think women are turned off by 'obnoxiousness', you have a LOT to learn about female psyche, human mating, and PUA stuff.
Research and learn, my simp.. you will some day realize how wrong you were.
George is not 'unpopular with women' because he's obnoxious (and if anything, GEORGE is the one that gets laid too much, because someone like him would NEVER get laid in real life), but because he's an insecure, low-status nerd, that's even lower than 'everyman' that women absolutely avoid when it comes to mating and pairing.
The poignant episode about this is when George THINKS looks are important, and gets a hair piece, which then gives him confidence, because he thinks it's the hairpiece that attracts women, when in reality, it's the confidence he gets from thinking that (a bit circular, but works in real life, too).
It shows George being really confident, and it's that confidence that attracts women. This is actually what he REALLY expressed even with the 'opposite' stuff, when he went to tell that woman honestly that he's a low-status man - but being so brave and confident about telling that, he actually expresses one form of status - CONFIDENCE, so he actually SHOWS that he's a high-status man, which is why the woman gets interested in him.
Understand female psyche and the psychology of mating, and everything falls to place and clicks, it's all explained (except how George in his unconfident nerd-form gets laid so much - not realistic).
Elaine is the most 'meh'-character on the show, and she's ONLY there because 'affirmative action'-type crap, where they HAD to put a 'woman' into the show. They just SHOVED a female character in.
Of course it's not gonna be good, or anything close to comparable, when everyone else comes from writers' vision, and this character is FORCEFULLY SHOVED IN.
Elaine could've been replaced by probably 1000 other characters without affecting anything very much at all, and I bet some of those would've been better than the Elaine-character. Can you imagine some funny man comic insted of Elaine? Your mind can probably list at least ten men that would've been funny as another quirky man in the group.
Seinfeld can't act, and isn't anything too funny or special in the show, BUT his merit is that this whole show is based on him and his stand-up act, and his stand-up act IS actually really funny, so he gets a pass. Plus, the very fact that he can't act and is not that funny makes him a perfect 'straight man' so many times, and that creates a lot of humor.
Seinfeld contrasting with Kramer and George by basically being their opposite, is absolutely hilarious, and elevates the craft of both Richards and Alexander.
But elaine? She's just a "female character" that tries too hard to be funny with 'facial expressions' and 'weird dances' and saying 'blahblahblah with too much tongue'. She's never all that funny, even though she does have her moments.
The writers use her as just the 'female character', doing things male characters couldn't (and yet let her be misandristic female dog, always punching, pushing and winning over men in fights, beating up Kramer in one episodes and all that - like, what the F was that about..??)
She was funnier in the earlier episodes, when she wasn't as crazy, and when the humor came from a 'typical female reaction', like the fur-stuff, instead of 'her not being able to drive or dance well' (as realistic as that is).
Elaine can be 'OK', but she's 'meh'.
Legal system is optional anyway - most people probably don't realize this, but it's true.
Law you must obey, because it guarantees protection of human rights. Break the law, you violate someone's rights, and we can't live in a world like that, so you have to go to prison.
Break legal system.. well, if you don't have to obey it in the first place, you can't even be punished, and usually, it would be a 'victimless crime' anyway.
Law is basically 'don't murder/injure/touch anyone's body without consent, don't steal/damage/take/use/touch anyone's property without consent, don't fraud'.
Legal system is zillions of acts, statutes and codes, like a set of corporate rules employees must obey. If you're not an employee, you don't have to obey.
If you research where obligation really comes from and what creates it, you might be shocked to realize you have freely given your consent to being governed by the legal system, even though you never HAD to do that.
This movie has no 'anti-legalism' (I didn't know there was even THIS kind of 'ism'!), it just says isms are not good, and the message is PRO FREEDOM!
School, like so many other institutions and corporate wage slavery, is OPPRESSION. Making everyone work or feel guilty for not working (although enough work is done already), is just keeping people oppressed although the goal should be to set everyone as FREE as possible. Land of the free? More like land of the institutionalized, shamed, guilted work drones and wage slaves. Who is really FREE, when you're expected to work like a good work slave camp victim?
In any case, this movie DARES stand against this institutionalized, systematic oppression, and give someone some FREEDOM to enjoy and celebrate life and humanity! It's shocking that people in this world see something wrong about this... (especially considering the teens in this movie do not do anything TOO destructive, despite trespassing, stealing someone else's electricity (jacuzzi), water, food, etc.)
Ten times. This is the tenth time, you see. He has already been absent nine times, he hasn't (at the time) yet been absent this tenth time - THIS absence is just beginning (well, it does happen and end by the end of the movie, but my point is, when Ed is talking about absences on the phone, it has barely started, so it can't yet be called a full absence, maybe 1/10th of an absence).
I don't know who you are talking about - Ferris' mother? Rooney's assistant?
In any case, Ferris did pretty good deeds in this movie; he released Cameron from his debilitating and oppressive fear that caused him to escape into victimhood by becoming a hypocondriac - now Cameron can live a healthy life with ACTUAL SPINE.
Basically, Ferris is a spine-creator.