MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
So before revealing your ignorance and your OWN stupidity (sorry, but this had to be said), please understand just how much meaning there is about flags, especially historycally speaking, and for an added point of interest, research "American Peace Flag" or "Peacetime flag", and be amazed at the beauty of the 'similar to old glory, but very different colors'-flag. White background, blue stars, and so on.
It's sad how USA can't exist in peace, and how a WAR FLAG is still flown - that's the stupidest part I can think of when it comes to flags.
It's also a little bit weird how SEVERE the punishments can be if you do something 'bad' to a flag - you can even go to prison if you accidentally drop a flag to dirt, so it gets dirty, during some ceremony, I think. Or am I just paranoid or is this info obsolete?
In any case, I think there SHOULD be a healthy respect of flags, at least after you realize what they are for and how they create authority, signify what kind of legal system is in operation, and inform about diseases and other important things, but I still think it's a bit weird just how MUCH respect you are expected to have for what's nothing more than a piece of colored cloth, in essence. LIFE should get more respect than a flag, but it doesn't.
You can probably punch someone and get smaller punishment from the system than if you 'desecrate' or burn a flag.
I don't think Ferris is all that informed about flags, many teenagers just do 'whatever' and don't get the signifigance or possible consequences of bringing british authority to their own room - it's probably safe, as no british authoritarians or even bureaucrats would probably know about that flag if it wasn't for this movie, but technically speaking, it COULD create a lot of problems.
What I am trying to say that flags are actually POWERFUL, more powerful than people usually even know or think, and there's a BIG REASON for them being waved around so much, historically speaking. A flag denotes a LOT.
"All flags are stupid"
No.
First of all, a flag doesn't have sentience, therefore, they lack the ability to be stupid. Stupidity is 'someone that could have intelligence, lacking intelligence' - if an inanimate object can't have intelligence in the first place, it can't be 'stupid', either.
Secondly, you obviously have not researched this topic - how childishly easy it is to just point at something and scream 'stupid'? You can say that about anything, but if you are going to say it in a discussion board, it might be a good idea if you could BACK UP your claim at least a little bit.
Thirdly, flags have not only legal signifigance, they create authority as well as give information, and that's why they should be respected. There are 'quarantine' flags and other, VERY important and informative flags in seafaring. All flags are stupid? Really? When flags can SAVE LIVES due to their informational nature, they're still somehow 'stupid'?
Could it be the stupidity lies somewhere else..?
Flags can also tell whether there's a war going on, or if there's peace. USA has a peacetime flag, but it's VERY rarely used, so most people don't even know about it (yes, any 'Old Glory' flying area is technically at war, because it's a war flag).
Yellow or golden fringe around a war flag denotes MILITARY authority, so when you see all those 'national guards' and whatnot having the flag with GOLDEN EDGES sown to their jackets, it means they're under strict military rule.
So basically old glory = war flag, golden edges = military authority the flag creates and informs about.
All flags are stupid?
If you are on a ship, you better understand what flag that ship is flying, because it's the most important thing when you are on that ship. If you just think 'all flags are stupid', you can put yourself under obligations without knowing about it, consent to authorities you have no knowledge about, and so on.
I suggest you study and research flags, meanings of flags, the authority, etc..
It's not 'Sloan', it's 'Sloane'.
Therefore, use 'Sloane's', not 'Sloan's'.
Also, when are we shown Sloane's backyard in the movie?
"We never identified where this was or whose house this was. I always presumed it was someone else's house. This wasn't really Sloane's house. It certainly wasn't Matthew's house and it wasn't Cameron's house. They just sort of stopped and used someone else's Jacuzzi."
MATTHEW'S?
Doesn't he mean FERRIS's?
How can he not even get his own character names right? Why use character names for everyone else, but the ACTOR'S name for Ferris? I wouldn't trust such a quote that's THAT inconsistent that it can't even get the names right. That can't be him saying that, OR he's so bad at making decisions and movies that nothing he says is trustworth, and therefore, it CAN be Sloane's house, or anyone's.
The thing is, if it WAS Sloane's house, she would have had a better wardrobe system, and Cameron couldn't have seen her naked. Not that he would anyway, because there's NO WAY a teen girl would show a simp-type nerd her naked body JUST because she thinks he MIGHT be 'catatonic' or whatnot. It wouldn't have mattered to her how 'catatonic' he is, THAT would not have been enough of a 'dressing room' for her, she would definitely have wanted to undress in private REGARDLESS OF CAMERON'S (PRESUMED) CONDITION.
Another thing that doesn't make sense.. I have to stop doing this or I can't enjoy this movie at all anymore.
Sounds like he gave this movie exactly what the movie deserves. What's your problem?
In a world, where all 'heroes' are named 'John' or 'Jack' (just watch your favorite 1980s action movies and look at all the characters from John Connor to John Matrix to John Claine to AAGH), I think it's REFRESHING as heaven to have greatly QUIRKY names like that.
It's a breath of fresh air to see a name like 'Ferris' or 'Sloane' instead of 'John' and 'Sarah' or 'Mary'.
Cameron is also an interesting name, and although 'Kendall' and 'Madison' sound more clichéic and boring, I'd welcome them ANY day over 'John', 'Jack', 'Mary', 'Sarah' or 'Jennifer' (as beautiful as Claudia Wells was, for those that get my reference),.
So if anything, this scene, if we look at it from a less racistic perspective, shows that - using your racial judgment - 'mexicans' and 'dark-skinned people' can have FUN and know how to enjoy life - and do it all without drugs, alcohol or anything unhealthy or harming anyone in any way!
It can be seen as sweet moment of fun in life, instead of doing anything bad.
Only a really psychotic nutcase can see THIS scene as something so twisted as 'racism against jews by saying it's OK for mexicans and the n-words to steal from jews'.
I don't even want to know HOW anyone's mind can be sick enough to produce such twisted thoughts, in my opinion, nothing any movie does is as horrible as what your post proves about how your warped mind works.
Get help.
It's definitely NOT semantics, but a very important point.
If you claim someone 'stole from jews', then the owner turns out to be NOT a jew, you can't just call it semantics and change the subject. You have to admit you were WRONG about your WHOLE PREMISE.
Also, if it's not explicitly stated, they're not jews - at least they're not confirmed to be jews, so you are working on assumptions here - it doesn't matter what the actors are, only what the characters are. Ferris is not a 'jew character', even IF his character is meant to belong to such religion (or is it race?).
Ferris is a freedom lover and maybe manipulator, that just wants a day off. THAT is who he is, that is his identity, not any religion. He even says he doesn't think isms are good, and judaism (jewdaism?) is an ism.
It doesn't matter what objects you spy in their house or on the movie, that could be prop department doing whatever.
Also, can't a non-jew own or have objects that you think are proof of 'being a jew'? Just watch Curb your Enthusiasm to see that even a swedish lawyer can own 'jewish objects' just fine, without being a jew.
Also, isn't 'negro' a racist word anyway, and who says the character is a mexican?
Also also, isn't it racist that you pay only attention to people's (assumed) races instead of who they are as human beings, and why would 'race' matter when it comes to stealing - if you are really suggesting this movie is saying it's ok for certain races to steal from certain other races, you are insane, and a certified nutcase, besides also being hypocrite and a racist.
To add one more point, they didn't STEAL anything. Stealing is TAKING AWAY from people so they don't have something and thus suffer from loss. Copying is not stealing, borrowing is not stealing, etc.
They didn't steal the car, they 'borrowed it without consent', which is still unlawful, but at least we can get the facts straight here before starting to accuse things.
If anything, they were having FUN!
No, he didn't. No, they never even had that talk with his father. The movie ends before anything like that happens. Cameron is a fictional character, therefore, ONLY what the movie expresses happened to that character, the end. The movie hints at a future where the father and Cameron will have a talk, but we don't get to that point before the movie ends. Therefore, it never happened, so nothing happened to Cameron.
To add some more questions;
The principal sees Jeanie arrive and enter the house. Why doesn't he ring the doorbell NOW? Surely Jeanie would come to the door and answer it.
Instead, he just enters the house unlawfully? This makes absolutely no sense, what respectable (or even disrespectable) adult would do this? Adult people in this world, at least law-abiding ones, always go for the 'proper channels' before they get desperate enough to even THINK of breaking the law.
Instead of attacking the dog and entering unlawfully, he should have, at least realistically speaking, have sat in the front of the house and waited - then he could've talked to Jeanie and all.
WHY DOES HE NOT USE THE DOORBELL WHEN SOMEONE CLEARLY ARRIVES?? WHY?!!
Did you ever consider that this movie was never about revenge or 'killing bad guys', but it was about friendship, loyalty, and most importantly..
..FORGIVING.
The main character accomplished what he set out to do, forgiving Frank.
Whatever else has to happen, fine, but the main point was forgiving Frank, and he did that. Who cares what happened to some boss villain? Maybe the boss learned his lesson and became a monk to try to atone for his sins.
Your period doesn't make your stupid joke true.
This is actually the typical trope of the old Asian 'blind sword man' stories, epitomized by the Zatoichi stuff in Japan. It's pretty cool stuff for its time, and I think this is where the character 'Daredevil' actually came from, or was at least inspired by.
"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"
Myouhou-rengei-kyou, you mean?
Why does everyone have problems with japanese long wovels? Is it because english wovels are so often said in a way that sounds like japanese long wovels anyway, that americans and other people of similar intelligence level do not realize there's a difference between a short and long wovel in japanese?
Tokyo is completely wrong, it should be Toukyou, Tōkyō or Tookyoo, because both wovels are supposed to be long, not short. If you pronounce Tokyo in kana, it would sound very weird with the short wovels. No japanese would EVER write that word as ときょ in kana, let alone say it like that! It's definitely とうきょう！ Why did the world let all this happen?
Well, japanese people don't care or understand much about 'roumajization', meaning, transliteration of kanji and kana to alphabet, since they don't really use alphabet in their daily lives, especially with japanese words, and native english speakers pronounce the words close to perfection anyway without doing that, because of how english language works with wovels. So only a tiny group of people would ever even see a problem with this.
There are even more insane roumajizations around - that stuff is so messed up - like 'Tohkyoh', but let's NOT go to that kind of stupidity.
If only people would realize to use Hepburn, things would be so much better, but the japanese people think 'Mitubisi' is correctly written, and can't distinguish between that and 'Mitsubishi', so there's no hope.
He's a legitimate character in the movie, I wouldn't call that a CAMEO.
Do you know what that word means?
"A cameo role, also called a cameo appearance and often shortened to just cameo, is a brief appearance or voice part of a well-known person in a work of the performing arts."
It usually also means they're uncredited or that their character doesn't have much signifigance in the movie, a cameo appearance isn't usually even really a 'character' per se.
Shoo Kosugi or Shuuichi Kosugi (小杉 正一) is one of those 'superficial ninjutsu' people of the eighties that learned all kinds of moves and such, but I wouldn't consider him an actual ninja, I doubt he actually knew honest ninpoo at all.
In any case, he's pretty cool in this movie, like in so many other movies, and makes for a good 'final battle' opponent.
By the way, you might want to check your english before you type your topics.. "posseses"? If you don't know how to say 'possesses', maybe it'd be better to use some other word.
Also, how can a movie POSSESS anything anyway? What's wrong with the word 'has'?
Yeah, 'G' is the masonic definition of 'a higher force' that the novices think means 'God', but which, in fact, means something completely different. 'G' is probably the most masonic letter in the alphabet besides X and A.
In any case, this movie is not SUBTLE about 'G' being 'God' - Jeff Goldblum's character even REALLY unrealistically suddenly says at one point (in the highway scene), 'because he knows all and sees all' and then grins weirdly.
This is so unnatural and weird, no one would say that! He even says it as if it's a really well thought-out, funny joke or quip, but it isn't. It's clearly just BAD WRITING, because the writer didn't know how to HINT that, they put a character to literally SAY that. Show, don't tell.. I guess the writers didn't have many 'godlike powers', when they had to use this kind of blatant, blunt shortcuts instead of carefully crafting a good script.
So yeah, this movie is crappily SAYING he is God, and no one questions that someone's name is just 'G'. Gee..
Do you realize it's kind of racist or culturalist, countrist or something like that, to just ASSUME that people will like or hate something just because of the manufacturing location of their physical body?
It's the kind of movie that you can watch once without problems, but it's advisable to keep your brains at 20% and expect every single hollyweird trope you hate.
It's not amidst top 50 worst movies you have ever seen, but it's not amidst the top 827, either.
I don't think nationalistic fake identity or 'cult of choice' has anything to do with whether you can stomach this polished turd, or not. A good movie is a good movie regardless of where your physical temporary vessel was manufactured, a bad movie is a bad movie regardless of what cult of choice the keepers of the manufacturing ingredients of your body have assigned to your unsuspecting, conditioned mind.
This is not a good movie by any means, but it's one of those movies I can watch just out of curiosity every ten years or so, just to re-evaluate whether it's as bad as I remember, and every time I am disappointed.
I don't care about boxes or offices, I don't look at how much MONEY some piece of supposed entertainment and escapism 'made'.
I only look whether something is a turd or not.
This movie sits steadily in the turdland, only the big names elevate it a bit, but not high enough to escape its smell.
Eddie Murphy in a role he doesn't fit at all, Jeff Goldblum in a role that just brings stress to the viewer (where is his charm??), a story that's basically a watered-down, capitalistically mixed-up rip-off of a much better movie and more poignant story (Network (1976)), and so on.
A big part of the important character introduction happens in a darn highway, of all places. The most annoying place in the world is right next to where cars constantly whizz by with their loud noise (which is why most of America is such an annoying place, because they think more cars means better country, and not understand that adding more lanes does not mean better commute, less congestion or faster commute).
What's any good about this movie is basically rip-off of other movies, and although I wouldn't classify this movie as completely bad, it's not a movie anyone would want to watch many times. It doesn't say anything interesting or important, it gives a message that capitalistic greed is good (almost worse than Gordon Gekko), that God is a black guy that supports shopping TV networks and so on.
It's a horrible attempt to cash-in on the big star power.. it's like the 'story', such as it is, was patched together from some leftover scrapts from some producers' kids' neighbours' drunken birthday brainstorming session.
How can anyone think this movie is good, I can't understand..
Is that all you have to say? Just talk about looks and call it a day? How superficial are we, when we're discussing a movie that SUPPOSEDLY tries to awaken something more meaningful and spiritual in people..?
The word is BALDY, not BOLDY, geez.
They had to come back inside at some point.