MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
The way the Black woman (and I don't mean her skin color, I mean her surname!) ABSOLUTELY TRASHED attacking Susan, was enough to make me want to live in this world a little bit longer. It was sublime, it was surprising, it was hilarious, and it was balm to the wounds to see a woman defending her man so furiously!
Have you EVER seen that anywhere else? I want to see more of this 'genders reversed' stuff just so people can truly realize that genders DO exist and there aren't billion of them, and they should absolutely be able to define what a 'woman' is.
The thing is 'woman' has become so deeply entrenched as some people's identity, any definition can be deemed as insulting. However, the simples, easiest definition in my opinion (besides 'opposite of 'man'') is:
A soul living in a female bipedal physical body.
That's it. You can't be a woman without a physical female body - once you leave such body permanently, you are not a woman anymore, you are not a man, either, you're just a human being, or just 'energy', if you will. Gender ceases to exist once the body ceases to exist.
'Woman' is technically not a gender, though, it's more of a 'philosophy' about someone that lives in a female body, 'female' would be a gender, or sex. I don't know why these two are separated, though, but that's the way it goes.
In animal world, there are no 'women'. No one calls an animal a 'woman', do they? But they call them 'females'. Ok, there was a crazy female dog calling her dog a 'doberwoman', but that kind of cringe is better left unremembered, isn't it?
I think the thing people forgot to mention is that sometimes the hilarity comes from ABSURD SITUATIONS.
Many times I found myself laughing without even realizing it, or thinking something was funny at all, I just couldn't help laughing at the absurdity or the profound stupidity of some comment, and I had to afterwards admit.. that was funny.
This show can be funny in surprising ways, I thought the later seasons would just disappoint me, but I am actually surprised as to how much I wasn't disappointed, but instead, found myself laughing.
Maybe I should give it another chance and watch it from the beginning, perhaps it's not as 'irrelevant show about nothing' as I earlier thought. Perhaps I have matured and can have a different perspective on it.
It's DEFINITELY not an easy show to like, respect or find funny at first, it's not immediately accessible, you have to kind of watch it a lot to 'tune yourself' into what the show tries and wants to be. Then it can be kinda funny and you can forgive a lot of the things that would make you turn it off previously (and I don't mean any SJW crap or social commentary, I simply mean it being 'not funny' or 'people just screaming too much', and Susan being an absolute demonic monster-b1tch)..
It's not as good as Seinfeld - can anything ever be? But it's a passable entertainment, that can sometimes surprise you by actually being funny. The episodes ARE crafted well and structured expertly, things are built up and then the joke is delivered. It's not some kind of random crap like Family Guy or such with all those flashbacks.
I mean, you gotta appreciate the effort to craft a whole story structure into each episode, and even have story arcs.
The best moments for me, are when the show DARES do something other shows usually don't. It, for example, showed me something I have NEVER seen before; a WOMAN defending a MAN!
Men are always expected to protect women so it was AMAZING to see this FINALLY happen!
This IS a 'bald hating show'.
Bald guy HATES a lot. That's the show.
I suppose you MIGHT have meant "Bald-hating show", with a HYPHEN, which changes the meaning DRASTICALLY.
But I don't want to assume, so I will just reply to what you said, so it's your responsibility to use correct grammar if you want your message to be understood the way you want it to be understood.
So did you mean 'Bald hating show' or 'Bald-hating show'?
Just because you exist in a particular-type body doesn't mean what you are saying stops being 'sexist' or starts being 'sexist'.
Your BODY does not define the level of 'sexism' in your post.
Having said that, who cares if you are sexist? Why can't we be sexist? People are already sexist against men, people are already racist against white people, wouldn't equality DEMAND that we extend both of these to EVERYTHING POSSIBLE so we can all just be human beings, and who cares how racist or sexist we are?
Racism and sexism isn't really that insulting in my opinion, because they're not about insulting or attacking the HUMAN BEING, they're just attacking or insulting a TEMPORARY BODY. I don't care if you say my big toe is ugly, it's not always going to be my big toe. But if you say my soul is ugly, I can get insulted.
It's like insulting your car, who cares, you're going to have a different car some day anyway, or at least that car will be destroyed at one time.
Cheryl is supposed to be a realistic woman, so they did a REALLY good job. Sometimes she tolerates Larry, sometimes she laughs with Larry, sometimes she laughs at Larry, and she NEVER has his back, she's selfish to the max.
It's perfectly done, works beautifully and fits this show. The actress can 'handle Larry' very well, so it works.
She's really annoying, but she's supposed to be. In earlier episodes, she was also almost charming in some weird ways, her facial features are kinda weird, so that can become 'exotic' in a charming way.
The thing is, the actress aged, and yet she's still treated as if 'every man thinks she's a hottie', which just isn't realistic, especially in the places this show was 'filmed' (shot at? Hard to use modern, appropriate terminology when we don't really use film anymore), you'd think there are teen and twenties-type hotties all over the place, so would someone really oogle at some 50-year old as enthusiastically as some restaurant staff worker did in the show?
Rethinking this point a bit further..
How about Peter GETTING his wish of 'doing nothing' - his bills would somehow be paid, for example by the 'disability' idea I had, or something else. Perhaps he could find a community that can live off-the-grid (or he can just establish that kind of lifestyle), so he doesn't HAVE to be tied to money.
He could spend a long time in meditation, contemplation, relaxation, just sitting and doing nothing, until he starts to realize, THAT is not the key to happiness.
Simply removing annoying, exhausting busywork and hellish corporate office life from his life is not enough. Simply removing BAD stuff from his life is not enough - he has to add GOOD stuff.
So he starts learning more about not only 'being in the moment', admiring the nature, and so on, he starts to realize that computers are not bad per se, they're just used for boring stuff at work, and he can use them for entertainment instead.
He can also start learning his own creativity, maybe painting at first, then starting to make sound effects, composing music, creating animations and all kinds of things, until soon his life is just as busy and full as it ever was, but this time, he's enjoying every moment of it, as this time, he CHOSE all those 'busy things' in his life.
He could start taking trips to faraway places, learning of ancient and modern cultures and lifestyles, viewpoints to existence, different ways of thinking about life and everything, until he would eventually become enlightened and he would be able to naturally go back to 'doing nothing', but this time, every second would be euphoric bliss, until he leaves this world (and even afterwards).
Of course at some point he would be come a spiritual teacher, but not like the charlatans we usually see in movies and even in real life, he could teach Kung-Fu from the spiritual viewpoint and Tai Chi and Qigong as well, and after pondering about the 'meaning of all existence',.. meh, crappy idea, that.
But because EVERYTHING has to be tied to money and measured in (usually virtual) coins, suddenly even these blessings are a curse to huge international corporations that want to bleed people dry, so it's "immoral" somehow.
When you look at the crimes against humanity corporations have done all throughout their history, it's a miracle that ANYONE thinks anything done to lessen their power and profit (and remember, it's debatable, because it can't be directly proven anyway, as it has to do with 'intentions' more than anything measurable - do you intend to buy something if you can get a copy of it for free, etc..) is somehow immoral or bad.
These corporations keep kids doing wage slave jobs in sweatshops, and then claim it's somehow wrong that some 10-year old kid copied a bad quality version of some movie made in the eighties.
It's like.. I can't understand these attitudes.
In any case, the 'copying the otherwise rounded-off fractions' is TECHNICALLY stealing, but in real terms, it's like stealing TRASH that would've been thrown away anyway. It's NOT something anyone would miss, because they wouldn't GET it anyway. The corporation wouldn't get those rounded-off fractions, so they wouldn't LOSE any money, they wouldn't get LESS money than otherwise, they wouldn't get less money than usual, their business wouldn't be affected, etc. etc. etc.
So while very very techically, it WOULD be 'stealing', it would NOT have the usual effect of stealing, which is what makes stealing bad - DEPRIVING someone of something they would otherwise have and own.
In filecopying and this fraction-copying, the same thing applies; although you can claim copyrights and such, and you can claim it's stealing (only the latter actually is), it's a 'harmless, victimless crime', where no one is DEPRIVED of anything.
Therefore, _IS_ it really stealing? I don't think it is.
I could've also explained "How is that not stealing".
First, STEALING is bad and immoral, unethical, unlawful and wrong, BECAUSE it deprives. It deprives the owner of the thing they own. If I have a Commodo 64, and you sneak into my house while I am sleeping and take that Commodore 64, when I wake up, I DO NOT HAVE IT.
I have been deprived of a valuable possession, now I can't make music with it or play old classics. I am hurt, because I LOST something I used to own.
That is why stealing is bad.
However, when you just COPY something (which is insanely called 'pirating', which ACTUALLY was cutthroating, bloody murder and ritualistic skull&bones-crap - yes, that's where it came from, look at 'Jolly Roger' - it's completely ludicrous to even compare harmless manipulation of your hard drive's ones and zeroes to any of that!), or when you 'round off' something the original 'owner' (which isn't even a human being, but a feelingless, soulless corporation) would NOT have owned in the first place, OR would still continue owning without even knowing about your actions..
..then HOW is that stealing, or even immoral?
If you have a beautiful car, let's say Edsel, and I secretly COPY the car, and due to some futuristic tech, can quickly make an exact replica of it (let's say out of the energy in the air or something - just rearranging molecules and such), I haven't DEPRIVED you of anything, have I? The only logic to why it is 'financially harmful' (and even that is highly debatable), would be that now there's one POTENTIAL buyer less if you want to sell that car, because I don't need to buy it because I copied it.
So basically 'free abundance' is labeled 'pirating', because some super wealthy and rich cutthroat corporations can't make EVEN MORE money out of that something.
Copying files freely regardless of some 'copyright' crap, would be a big BLESSING for the masses, for the people, for the individuals, for the human beings of the planet.
Thinking about this a bit further ..
First of all, Peter never WANTED a promotion, it was never his goal. He didn't want 'more money', he wanted to 'do nothing'. When he realized his buddies' jobs are gone, it WOKE HIM UP.
In this 'woken up'-state, he started thinking about things more deeply, and with his newfound confidence he would be able to DO something about it. As he philoosophizes in the bar, while all Michael can do is curse his lost job and how he árse-kissed the layoff people, 'human beings were not meant to live like this'.
This means, no matter how much money he gets or what position he ends up in, he won't be happy, if he has to just come to the building and work at that corporation.
He needs a big change in his life, and he wants to have it while helping his friends. In his new viewpoint, it would not BE helping his friends by letting them waste their lives by stagnating in a cubicle with an infuriating printer aggravating them every day. It's NO WAY TO LIVE!
He doesn't want to be a 'manager with more money' while his friends suffer, and life goes on that way indefinitely.
He wants CHANGE, he wants to return to a more natural lifestyle, and at that point, he's BEYOND just 'making sure Michael and Samir can keep their jobs' (that suck to begin with), he wants to bring them to a more elevated position in life, and in his mind, that 'non-crime-crime' is the only solution he sees for this problem - to RETIRE EVERYONE would be the only good solution.
That way, everyone could do whatever they wanted, ahh.
By the way, when Joanie (or whatever her character's name is) asks Peter 'How is that not stealing', I could've counter-asked, 'how _IS_ it stealing, when those fractions would've been rounded off anyway'? I mean, the corporation doesn't lose even one dime, because it wouldn't have HAD that 'dime' in the first place, it would've been ROUNDED OFF.
(I am sure it doesn't work like this in real life anyway, though)
"its a badly wtitten teeny soft porn in disguise."
Nice summary, but learn capitalization, punctuation and apostrophes. Also, you wrote the word 'written' wrong (why are stupid people's typos always so ironic?).
In any case, it's a nice summary, but it's not JUST badly written, it's also badly acted, there's too much staring, injected romance, dragging scenes, and unsatisfying ending. It's a bad mish-mash of other movies, and it doesn't work at all. As someone said, this is just artsy-wanky crap pretending to be something good, so pretentious people will lap it up and together praise the non-existent clothes of the Emperor..
"Simple people see the world in simple terms. They never, ever grasp that anything is more complex than they're capable of understanding. T"
Movie isn't good just because it's a mess. Ever heard the story of the Emperor's non-existend clothes? People praising this movie are the same people that praise the Emperor's clothes - they don't want to FEEL stupid (though they are).
Only honest people are brave enough to tell the truth DESPITE SEEMING STUPID, they know they aren't.
Anyone that doesn't understand that "everything" (even simplicity?) is more complex than it seems, should simply watch Koyaanisqatsi - it makes more sense, is more realistic, and has better and more plot and story than THIS arty-wanky garbage (told ya I'd use it).
"I did not understand all of it, but I still loved it and was in aah during the entire movie."
What kind of mind-expanding drug is "AAH", exactly? A Psilocybin variant?
There's no way anyone can enjoy even five minutes of this mess without being on SOME kind of drugs.
"I get what its doing, but the constant jumping around was nauseating,"
You mean 'nauseous'.
People really don't know english anymore, geez.
Nauseous = causing nausea.
Nauseating = THIS WORD DOES NOT EXIST.
Nauseated = feeling nausea.
Try to learn the basic english at least, ok?
"I was like "Yes we know their screwing. Can we get back to the plot please.""
You were grammatically incorrect when watching this movie?
"THEIR"???
You mean "THEY'RE"?
How can people still make this mistake? "THEY ARE" becomes "THEY'RE". The SPACE and A are replaced by apostrophe, THAT'S IT.
How the HELL do you go from that to 'THEIR'??! HOW?!
Also, 'plot please' needs an Oxford Comma. How illiterate are you?
It should be "plot, please".
Also also - - - WHAT PLOT?! THIS STUPID CRAPFEST DOES NOT HAVE A PLOT!!
You faill in all levels, go home.
" It's set in the future because as old Nemo says, it's all the creation of a 9-year-old child. "
"I really don't understand what you mean that children were sexualized. There is a difference in representing teenagers having sex with each other"
So, a 9-year old child imagining teenagers having sex... and you don't understand?
There's SEX ACT in the mind of a 9-year old CHILD! Clear enough for ya? (Just using your own examples)
You can also take a drink every time this movie reminds you of or references another, usually better movie.
Butterfly Effect is mentioned.
The whole premise is stolen from Space Odyssey 2001 ending (which makes sense if you get it, but this moviemaker team didn't get it).
Forrest Gump 'feather flying' scene is repeated with a leaf.
I think even The Terminator makes some kind of appearance, and everyone should think of Donnie Darko with this movie.
It's a mish-mash of other movies, but not done very well, and it tumbles down the pit of its own gimmicks and never gives the viewer anything coherent to chew on, except thousand tons of injected romance.
If I TRIED, I couldn't make a movie this bad and badly messed up.. and I don't even make movies.
So in other words, this movie is another one of those gimmicky "It was all just a dream, so nothing means anything"-things that people should already hate with a burning passion? My thoughts exactly.
Wanna get wasted?
Take a drink every time someone stares with a 'surprised look' straight into the camera that's zooming either in or out.
You'll pass out before you have a chance to even get bored at this crap.
Artsy-wanky is right.. I am gonna use that.
The problem is not that they're somehow trampling on 'freedom' - the problem is that instead of letting those morons confine their insane body-destroying and air-polluting vice INSIDE of these drinkers' paradises, now they are OUTSIDE, polluting everyone ELSE's breathing air, so the situation is horrible for non-smokers that JUST WANT TO BREATHE that are forced to walk by these groups of 'mom didn't breastfeed me enough so I have to keep sucking SOMETHING'-type weaklings, and kill their lungs, whether they want to or not.
THAT is the problem.. that now non-smokers are forced to breathe the poison smoke that was neatly confined indoors previously. Someone didn't think this through.
"My "3" key is broken so I'm putting one here so i can cut & paste with it."
Wouldn't it be easier just to buy a new keyboard? There are very cheap ones, you know.
Also, 'fanatacism'??? WHAT?!
Can't you even spell 'fanaticism'?
"i could not remember nothing. "
Double negative, and usage of lowercase 'i' as the word 'I'?
Where did you learn english?
If you could NOT remember "NOTHING", it would mean you DID remember something, because 'nothing' was not the thing you remembered.
Don't use double or triple negatives... it's not only bad form, bad grammar and bad english, it's something people of mediocre intelligence or higher just would never do. You absolutely can't write a double or triple negative, if you belong to the aforementioned group.
The thing is, why PROVE your stupidity, ignorance or low intelligence by writing on these forums..? The least you can do is avoid double or triple negatives.