MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
Now, cigarettes are physically addicting (probably better word), you can actually smoke quite a long time without realizing you are addicted, and you can also smoke quite a long time BEFORE you become addicted. There are so many variations and factors, some people might become addicted after a few days of smoking, others can smoke months every day and not become addicted.
Addiction is more than the physical craving, and you can mistake that for something else anyway.
If you get some kind of 'joy' out of smoking, it's more probable that it becomes addicting. If you smoke after dinner, that becomes a habit, and that can add to the addiction factor.
I noticed that at certain times, I could 'quit' smoking without the usual craving symptoms. With meditation and such, those symptoms didn't practically even exist, but I wouldn't use that experience to claim cigarettes are not addicting.
I am not sure nicotine itself is the addicting factor; has anyone ever tried smoking cigarettes that contain NOTHING but nicotine?
Usually those things contain thousands of chemicals, designed to be addicting.
If a cigarette gives you a 'release' or 'joy', that you don't normally get any other way, you could say it's addicting, you start psychologically craving for that 'joy' or 'release'. Maybe cigarettes are the only 'joy' you get in life - in that situation, breaking the habit would be indeed difficult.
There are many levels of addiction, there are many reasons for addiction, and it's usually layered between physical and physiological, even esoteric.
Five cigarettes one day a week might not be enough to create an addiction - however, perhaps you sleep unusually long the next day, so by the time you are awake, the craving has become mild enough that you can be 'over' it, and not need more cigarettes until next week.
It could also be that you secretly crave them all week, but because you know you are going to get them friday, you can endure, and as it's very mild, considering it's only five cigarettes, you don't think of it as 'addiction'. What would happen if you deliberately DIDN'T smoke for a month? Would you be able to not smoke for a month?
In any case, that's how it often starts with people - they 'only smoke when drunk', and they CAN keep this habit going on for a LONG time.
Five cigs aren't enough to accumulate or build some kind of strong addiction, because your body starts to cleanse itself immediately, it starts to process all the poisons once you stop inhaling the smoke, so every week, your body has repaired itself, so there's no addiction.
Try smoking five cigarettes every day for a month, and tell me you have no problem staying away from cigs for the next month. (NOTE: I don't condone anyone smoking cigarettes at all)
There is also the possibility that you do not know how to smoke properly, and you waste most of it by not even inhaling, or blow out most of the smoke before inhaling. The cigs could be extremely mild variation. You might not smoke them fully.
There might be something in our life habits or substances you ingest that balance it out or compensate. Perhaps you are on meds or do drugs, or have strong emotional life.
Addiction can become much stronger if the life situation is miserable, the cigarette becomes a crutch, something to lean on when everything else is bad. If you have a balanced, good life, addiction doesn't happen.
Well, something in the body can break if you abuse the body, so that it will have an overly adverse effect to some substance, even if the body mostly functions otherwise well. It's like sensitizing your body to react a certain way to some substance.
I read this story of a guy who drank so much coffee that the doctor told him he has to go cold turkey immediately or probably die, and he suffered powerful withdrawal effects that almost did probably kill him, and now if he drinks coffee again, it would be very dangerous to him.
I don't know how much of this story is true, if any, but I don't see why it couldn't happen. Strange things happen.. body can't always heal itself to 100% after an abusive era. Sometimes malfunctions remain, but you are OK if you don't abuse your body again.
Of course, in the end, every single body will lose its capability of sustaining a soul, so then you return to where you came from, but that's another story for another day.
The old TV show, 'Yes, Prime Minister', actually dared to air a show about this very thing; the Prime Minister wanted to stop people from smoking and wanted to DO something active about it, but little did he realize just HOW many complicated problems would be between his desire and reality. It's a brilliant TV episode that perfectly illuminates this issue, and I urge EVERYONE to watch it, you will thank me for it (and you will probably also laugh a bit, as it's a funny show, although realistic).
I can't remember the name of the episode, but I am sure you'll find it.
The problem is exactly that people smoke in PUBLIC places, where many non-smokers want to breathe fresh, healthy air, but can't. It feels like a right, but it isn't (it's very frustrating that it isn't, but that's how it goes).
No one can basically outlaw smoking in public places, because it would open such a can of worms, we could never close that can again.
They banned smoking in restaurants in some countries, so now people gather outside the restaurant door to smoke, where people have to walk by. The air was cleaner OUTSIDE before this stupid ban. I would rather the restaurant-goer drunk smokers just gas each other with that poisonous smoke, than all the innocent people that have to go by to buy groceries.
They can't ban smoking outside, because outside is a public place, and restaurants are a privately owned business that have rules to obey - 'outside' can't be controlled by a government.
They can't ban cigarettes themselves, because it would be very costly - people would live longer, and rack up their health expenses. There would be no tax revenue. The cigarette corporations would go bankrupt, and get bailouts.
They can't ban 'behaviour', because that would be dictatorship and a police state, and impossible to enforce anyway, plus, it would trample on the human rights in the most hideous way.
In a free market (which doesn't exist, but let's pretend), you can't really ban someone from buying something stupid that will hurt them. They have to be able to sell knives, for example.
I mean, let the buyer beware is basically the law. Sure, there are 'controlled substances', and they could add cigarettes to that list, but they won't. Also, there would be 'bootleggers' anyway. Tobacco plant can't be patented, so nothing would stop someone from making cigarettes anyway.
So this whole thing is very complicated and problematic on many levels, no matter what is 'done' about things.
Well, it's not really a 'seeing', 'believing' or 'debatable' stuff.
Your human rights are unalienable, and according to Badnarik, are based on ownership. You own your body, so you have the right to do anything you want to it. You don't own the hospital staff, so you don't have right to 'healthcare' (which is pretty abstract a concept anyway).
Rights are very immediate, they're very important, we all have them, and they can't be taken away by anyone or anything, ever.
If you have your own house on your own land, there's no force in the Universe that can lawfully stop you from doing WHATEVER you want there. You can explode your house, you can dig graves in there, you can basically pump poison into the ground if you want (I wish you wouldn't, though). Of course if it seeps into the drinking water, wells or something like that, you could be responsible for murder, so it's not advisable.
The point is, this naturally includes ingesting any kind of smoke or gas you d4mn well please. No one can lawfully stop you from doing that sort of stuff.
You also don't own air, so you don't really have right to good-quality breathing air, which is where it gets kind of interesting.
I think every planet, every government, every corporation and every individual should absolutely respect people's healthy and free air. How are you going to keep yourself healthy if someone else can just freely poison or pollute the air you breathe? I absolutely hate walking near anything where there are bars, like shopping mall-type things, because I am basically forced to breathe in poisonous smoke, whether I want to or not (and who would want to).
There's no law against someone smoking right next to you in a public place. If someone comes to YOUR land to smoke, you have the right to dictate whatever rules you want on your own land. Any visitor would have to stand on their hands, for example, for the duration of the visit. If they can't or won't do it, you can kick them out. Anything you wish.
I guess enough has been written about your inability to type a simple english word, like 'cigarette' correctly, so I can talk about the point itself.
There are levels of addiction. Nothing is 100% addictive, not even oxygen.
Cigarettes can be said to be addictive, because it's hard to just stop smoking at any given time, but they can also said to NOT be addictive, because there are people that have been able to quit the habit. I never 'officially' quit, I guess that's why it's so easy for me to avoid smoking, because I don't have any pressure about it. I can smoke any time I want, because I never quit, I didn't become a 'non-smoker' - I am still a smoker. I am just on a pause that can end any second.
The only reason it doesn't, is that I choose to breathe air without pain, and enjoy the experience of smells of nature and such. I can just as easily choose to smoke a cigarette any time I want to, there's no rule or anything about it.
This means, cigarettes are not 'addictive' per se, and I think the word should probably be 'addicting' anyway. It just means cigarettes create a craving of certain strength that you can overcome, if you choose, and adjust your attitudes correctly. I mean, if you listen to the addiction, it's probably impossible to 'quit'. But if you expect and anticipate the 'craving' to come, you can be more at peace when it does, and you will know it goes away, too. You can even focus on something else, like eating chocolate or playing video games to your heart's content, whatever tickles your fancy.
So, the answer would have to be, yes and no - depending on YOU.
This movie is a lot like the old TV show, "Yes, Minister", and it's not-as-good sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister".
It shows what happens behind the curtains, it shows how things get done, it shows how powerful people think, and what rhetoric and machinations they use to get their win.
It's a VIEW to the corrupted corporate power, just as the TV show's is a view to the corrupted political power.
It doesn't take a position, it just shows us, and expects us to laugh at the ridiculousness of how the world works. It's rather poignant, really, and although it's rather cartoonish, that the 'evil people' consist of a few individuals eating crappy food in a tiny room, only one individual representing a whole evil industry, a lot of this movie can't be far from the truth when it comes to this type of manipulations and machinations.
This movie is like a mixture of Gordon Gekko's speech in 'Wall Street' and the amazingly truthful and downright scary view into politics shown by that TV show. It shows how clever people can always turn black to white, lie to truth, evil into good and so on. Only seemingly, of course, by the usage of rhetoric, emotional manipulation and eloquent speech and intelligent tactics.
Evil won't really change into good, but if you can whitewash it so it looks like it did, you have fooled the masses and the evil can go on behind the scenes, now that it 'appears' as good. Just like the petrol car corporations have always had these 'green' campaigns to cleanse their tarnished image, just like factories were suddenly changed rhetorically into 'plants' (because it sounds better), this movie shows how cigarettes can represent freedom and how the cigarette corporations can be responsible, because they don't want kids to smoke.
If anything, this movie reveals how manipulative these evil industries and their representatives are, and if you don't see that, you don't understand what you watched.
It's a movie about cigarettes that doesn't show anyone smoking, and barely features visuals of cigarettes at all.
It's a movie that talks about 'skull and crossbones' enough to give every freemason an orgasm, and yet doesn't show an ACTUAL SKULL at all, but some 'weirdly deformed face' instead.
What do you expect would happen with tits? This movie just TEASES you by talking about things it never has the balls to show.
Now that you mention it..
...well, to be honest, I DID notice that Nick (as in the devil?) is never shown smoking, but he's supposedly a smoker, but then he's devastated when he's told he can't smoke anymore, and yet we have never even SEEN (show, don't tell) him smoking.
I thought I was missing something, I missed some scene, or it's just bad moviemaking or something. I didn't realize it might've been made on purpose that way - to make a movie about cigarettes and yet no one ever smokes one.
It kinda throws you off, it's hard to believe these people are smokers, when they are never shown smoking. It's also interesting and maybe self-referential, that this _IS_ a movie, and they talk about putting cigarette-smoking people in movies, so they had the perfect opportunity to do just that by lighting one when the cameras were rolling.
Of course the characters don't know they're in a movie, so for them, the cameras aren't rolling, but.. agh, one could go crazy thinking about this.
It might be predictable and 'lame', too, but would it really be less predictable or less lame to have cigarette smoke curling at every scene seductively, embracing the camera and flirting with it, like in "One Hundred and One Dalmatians", where Cruella DeVil's cigarette smoke is almost like an extra character in the movie..?
Memento isn't really that interesting if you watch it in chronological order. The gimmick obfuscates the simplicity and stupidity of both the protagonist and the story quite a lot.
Having said that, wouldn't it be interesting if Leonard and Tyler had a fight? They're both in great physical shape, and seemingly know how to fight. I don't even care which would win, because the most amusing thing would be - NEITHER would remember it!
I mean, Narrator would be like 'I never fought anyone yesterday' (because it was Tyler, Narrator would have no memory of it) and Leonard would have NO clue what's even going on, as he can't remember anything anyway.
So they could have the MOST EPIC FIGHT EVER, come out heavily bruised, and the next morning treat each other like perfect strangers, while checking their bruises on the same mirror in some men's room or whatnot. It would be hilarious.
"Poor film redeemed by excellent fight scenes"
You just described Jackie Chan's whole career.
But seriously, his movies are never that good 'as movies' - if it wasn't for his screen presence, stuns, fight scenes and maybe even some of the slapstick humor, I don't think many people would watch these movies.
There are some exceptions, of course, but you know a Jackie Chan movie, when:
- acting is ridiculously bad
- everything looks dubbed
- the story is simple and predictable
- the cinematography is passable
- there is clearly no 'vision' in directing
- stuns are amazing
- fightscenes are deeply engaging and enthralling
- fight coreography is super imaginative and interesting
I mean, put your hand to your heart; does _ANYONE_ watch Jackie Chan movies for the story, plot, characters, directing - - - to put it another way, for ANY other reason but Jackie's stuns, fight scenes and maybe some of the slapstick humor?
HONESTLY - does anyone?
It's amazing how CONSISTENT this thing is.. I usually just go straight to the fights and stuns and skip the rest, then just watch the ending and that's it. You can list 10 Jackie Chan movies from the top of your head and I bet at least 9 of them would fit my description; great stunts and fightscenes, mediocre or sub-par everything else.
That's just how these movies are, but that's OK, because that was probably the goal anyway.
Having said that, in many movies, the fight scenes are a bit 'over-edited' - whenever Sammo Hung is involved, you can bet SOMETHING is majorly ruined - he has an unpleasant screen 'anti-charisma', that makes my stomach turn for some reason, and I never liked him. I have no reason to hate him, but I guess he's just one of those people that rub me the wrong way.
It might be a coincidence, but every time he's involved in almost any capacity beyond a short cameo, the movie is somewhat ruined or gives the viewer a bad feeling for one reason or another, and even Jackie can't completely save that movie.
I was expecting it to be dubbed, but when I look at the guy with the moustache talk, it looks exactly like it would if he was actually talking in my opinion, so I agree, it doesn't look dubbed.
"I don't think his fussiness is simply because he wants his house to stay clean. The impression I got was that this is his way of reminding everyone that he is in charge, i.e. asserting his control."
Yes, I agree, I forgot to mention this in my post, although I meant to.
This guy, as most 'villains' in movies, are all about IMAGE and POWER - if people think he's in charge, he has power. So he has to take care of his image, the neatness thing and cigars both work towards the same goal of projecting an image of someone powerful that is in control.
Well, I am sure he's neat with the cigar, so the ashes are always controlled properly.
Maybe it's always the SAME cigar, that he just always happens to have with him when he's on camera..
In any case, cigar is a symbol of masculinity and power, as well as source of slight euphoria, so obviously a 'bad guy' would want to emphasize these things - the perceived benefit outweighing the neatness fixation.
Also, maybe that cigar habit is the REASON for his 'neatness fetish' - perhaps he considers he can't afford to be any MORE messy.
However, the fart-thing doesn't make sense, as the smoke and smell of a cigar would DEFINITELY overpower even the stinkiest fart.
That's an interesting thought, but I am sure it was just a coincidence, or there would've been way more similar 'coincidences'.
I never even realize 'Game of Death' is 'GoD' - but then again, the small letter, like 'of', is not an official part of the acronym, si 'Game of Death' should be 'GD' or 'GoD', where the 'o' is small, so not the same as 'God' or 'GOD'.
By this kind of logic, this movie is 'AoG' anyway.
I think a better case can be made for using the word 'DEATH' in your movie title, as there are probably more numerous examples of that kind of curse. However, I an inclined to think even that is just a coincidence, as why would animalistic utterances, like letters have that kind of power over life, death and injuries, unless there's so much supestition that the supestition itself causes carelessness, and through that, injury or death.
"I thought Jackie was the same age that Bruce was when they had those accidents, but Jackie's accident happened a few months before his 32nd birthday."
Are you sure you are not making a typical mathematical mistake here?
How old are you when you are born, your FIRST birthday?
A year after, your second birthday (2nd birthday), you are one year old, right?
Then if you mean he was going to be 32, it would've been his 33rd birthday.
Also, WHAT THE HELL does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
So, in your opinion, racism against white people and asians is either OK or not racism?
How or why would it be racist to repeat what _HAS_ actually happened in history?
What does the woman's half-nakedness have ANYTHING to do with anything, let alone racism?
I think you are the racist here, and not only that, you're overly sensitive, dogmatic, obsessive, brainwashed snowflake that doesn't understand history or know what's going on in the world.
Is depicting ANY cultural fact now racism? If tribespeople in Africa did sacrifice virgins, is DEPICTING that fact racistic? Why would it be?
Also, culture is not a race, and no one in this movie is saying that someone should be murdered because of their skin color, which is what real racism IS.
Just sit down and shut up, before you embarrass yourself any further. If we go down YOUR path, soon black people are not allowed to use computers, because black people didn't invent them, so maybe just LET IT GO, ok?
""high up on high song""
No.
There's no such song.
That's also not how the english language works. It's "High Upon High", the word 'UPON' being one word, not two.
Why can't anyone type english anymore?
In any case, there are WAY more than two (and small numbers you can surely type as words instead of numbers, can't you?) versions, when it comes to this movie's soundtrack.
Some versions have COMPLETELY different musics, others have different dubs, etc.
It's very difficult to find the same version they used for the VHS release, where the dub is great and the musics are excellent. Too bad, but that's just the reality of modern world.
What death?
Murphy didn't die, watch the movie all the way to the end - what is the last word said in this movie?