5.9 SERIOUSLY?

Care to explain why he would even be in the restaurant?

You forgot that a person with heart problems was being discussed- why wouldn't he go to a more healthy establishment? You'd have a better chance of remembering that if it didn't take you months to respond.

And when you don't respond until months later, it's assumed you're not interested in holding a conversation because most people don't expect to see replies to their older posts.

No, I didn't forget anything. I was just astounded that you could be stupid enough to think that people with heart problems don't go to diners.

We're done. If you have any more brain-farts please keep them to yourself.

I don't see any point in attempting to have a conversation with an individual who is incapable of working out something so basic. Good day.

If you think being robbed for a few seconds would cause PTSD, I'd like to know what you think happens to kidnapping victims.

Are you suggesting those who fought for civil rights movement, but did not see their dream come true in their lifetime, failed? Rosa Park refusing to give up her seat and ended up being arrested, failed? And a kid fantasizing about killing other kids in school, then made it a reality, would be empowered? Because he made his fantasy come true?

Things ending my way, is all that matters?

Rosa Park did see her dream come true in her lifetime- she didn't die until 2005. Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla did fail to free Mexico from Spain. He never lived to see the Spaniards defeated. Yes, Mexico did get its independence later, but in a film's world, unless there's a sequel, we don't find how impactful the actions of the protagonist were when it ends. There's no indication of Babydoll's lobotomy changing anything. A kid with a gun does hold the power if no one stands up to him or brings him down. It's an abuse of power, but it's still power.

You should never settle for coming close to your goals. You won't know if what you fought for will ever be achieved.

A kid sick of schools and 9 to 5 jobs. Kill classmates, or, in this case, kill drug lords. Nothing is changed. School condition and workplace condition don't get better. It's the same. That's not empowerment. Getting self satisfaction is not empowerment. Having the ability to better the lives of others is. And abusing power, is not empowerment. It is just abusive.

You mentioned girls ended up losing their fight in Sucker Punch. Did the female doctor ended up apprehending the abuser? How do you know lobotomy was not shut down because it? How do you know future end of lobotomy was not due to cases like those episodes. At least ones not unauthorized by her had been shut down. That's the reason I brought up many civil rights activist did not get what they want. But they still did achieve something. Getting caught, or being suppressed back down, does not mean nothing was achieved.

Difference is classmates have a chance to do good in the world and (typically) aren't felons. Drug lords are nothing like classmates. When a drug lord and his men are killed, drugs stop being sold. You think that's not an improvement? Guess the DEA is just wasting their time going after Cartels.

The biggest problem with your analogy is Brit and Candy never fire their guns on innocent people. They kill those who fight back. Triumphing over capable opponents is empowerment. You had the power to achieve satisfaction, that's empowerment. The keyword is power. A high position in society doesn't mean anything if you're not happy. Brit and Candy achieved happiness. They got what they wanted out of life.

Blue was apprehended by male cops and that's after Babydoll gets lobotomized. How do I know the lobotomies weren't shut down? Because nothing in the film said they would be and once the movie ended, so did the world of Sucker Punch. Beyond Sweet Pea leaving on the bus, nothing else happens. Similarly, it's only verbally implied that Babydoll's evil stepfather will get busted for his role in the unauthorized lobotomy. We never see him pay for what he's done and we never will. There's no subsequent events describing what happened after the credits rolled.

Again. So Rosa Park would have done nothing if they placed her in jail, and she died there? And we would have forgotten about it if that was how it ended?

It's never about seeing the outcome, in your lifetime. It's about not submitting yourself to oppression. Just fight against it. No matter the outcome. Fight loud, fight proud, and the world will notice and change for the better, for other oppressed. Empowerment, is finding courage in yourself to do so. In Spring Breakers, the girls were never under any oppression. They were just bored. They were as free as birds, to indulge in anything they want, weeds, vacations, educations, families, all that.

I'm not saying their classmates who end up with good jobs will be happy. This is not about being goody two shoes, versus being bad. When I mentioned life of criminals, I was pointing out, criminal life, is just as routine and mundane as anyones, if not more. Calling parole officers on timely basis, limited areas of travel, and so on. And no boss in civil world knocks down your door and start nagging with threats in the middle of the night just because he's not happy with you. Work these into criminal life's routine. And that's when they're out of prison. We all know how routine prison life is.

I'm not on good vs bad, or social-status vs dream, or other cliches. Notice how I never compare them to Faith. I'm on the issue of empowerment. Flinging guns is not empowerment. How about don't think of them as bikini girls. Just two person. Two thugs with guns, killing other thugs, in a situation where bullets picks no sides, is empowerment? So, if the girls had died like Alien did, that means they weren't empowered, because they did not get what they wanted? Which narrow empowerment down to luck with bullets?

Again, self-indulgence, is not empowerment. Those are two very different things.

And we don't define who was empowered by looking at who got what they want. We look at the impact they had done to the ideas they were opposing. The Mental Ward's lobotomy authorization procedure changed. Screening process for caretakers definitely would change. What did the Spring Breakers change by going on a massacre? Made college less boring for future kids? Made drug lords stop pimping young girls? Made Spring Break more affordable for college kids? Nothing.

What does "a powerful film" mean? A film that got what it wanted? Transformers wanted money, it got its money. Were those powerful films? No. That's what Spring Breaker girls achieved. City of God was a powerful film. Why? Because it challenges people to think. It forces people to look at things they otherwise won't have. That's what Sweet Pea achieved for the asylum.

Off topic. By the way, I still don't see fantasy dance segments in Sucker Punch as girls using seduction as power. Those are empty. Those are for the enjoyment of men ( dance for men in film, what we saw for male audience, but eventually, the same ). Again, Sweet Pea reminded us so. And those meaningless and empty battles are the film's contrasts to the girl's real struggle of confronting fear, letting go of guilt, freeing herself, expressing herself.

Again, real life scenarios are not applicable to scenarios in film.

Since you ignored this, I'll have to repeat myself. Once a film ends, so does the world it created. What you see on the screen is the final outcome. In Sucker Punch, the world does not notice the oppression. You may think the world does, but the movie never shows this happening. Would you argue Django Unchained would be better if Django was captured and killed in the end? Would he still be empowered?

The girls in Spring Breakers were under the oppression of the norms of their hometown. If they were "as free as birds to indulge in anything they want", why didn't attend parties whenever they wanted? Why didn't they join a gangster right away? Because they couldn't.

The girls knew nothing about criminal life before their vacation. To them, it was not routine because it was different from their normal lives. And you're forgetting the girls are shown leaving the criminal lifestyle at the end of Spring Breakers, which prevented such a life from being boring to them. They went home when they wanted, they had the power to do so.

Defeating those who were capable of beating you is empowerment. They had the power to emerge victorious and they weren't fighting those who couldn't fight back. By your logic, you might as well discredit every action hero in film. Even you know this is empowerment, so you make up a bunch of excuses and technicalities to pretend it isn't.

I never said self-indulgence was empowerment. Again, you forget that Spring Breakers ends with Brit and Candy returning home. I said achieving happiness is empowerment.

How do you know things changed in Sucker Punch? How do you know the lobotomy authorization procedure and the screening process for caretakers changed? You don't. You think you do, but you're only presenting theories, not stone cold evidence. The movie never says there was change. You don't even know if the stepfather gets punished for what he does. The movie only implies it, but never shows it. All we get is Blue trying to lay the blame on the stepfather. Also, how do you know Blue got punished as well? He could have escaped justice by helping the police implicate the stepfather for the unauthorized lobotomy.

You ignored what I said about the DEA. If nothing changes when a drug lord and his gang are killed or arrested, then they must be wasting their time.

Who said anything about powerful films? We're not discussing the films being powerful, we're discussing the power of the characters. On Deadly Ground empowered Steven Seagal's character, but nobody would call that movie powerful. If you try to compare Sucker Punch to City of God on the City of God message board, you'll get laughed right off the forum.

The fantasy segments occur while the girls are secretly overpowering the men. They use their femininity to distract the men as they take the objects they need. They have power in one sequence and a different form of power in the parallel sequence. But it's still power. And they get what they need for the time being, which negates the claim of these parts being "meaningless."

What? I was stating males under the age of 18 is the group that rated Spring Breakers highest! The boys loved it. And I was pointing out people rate it after they saw the film.

And exactly. Do you view men abusing their physical threats as "male empowerment"? No, it's just abusive, that's all. So when girls do it, it's the same. It's abuse, not empowerment.

I'm not talking about which film is "better". Read my posts carefully. They are very, very different films.

And in fact, Sucker Punch's fantasy bits were pointing out, giving guns to girls in sexy clothes is not empowerment. It's still meaningless hip gyrating dance for male appetite, in a different form. Which is what Spring Breakers images are. And that's why boys under 18 love this film more than any other group.

Wearing bikini at night, in a shoot out, does not make sense. No place for extra ammo and it's freezing. Wearing bikini in court, is not allowed. The filmmakers know all these. They are not dumb. Yet, the girls were wearing bikini all the time. Because the film is taking images from a "ganga rap" culture where girls wear nothing but bikinis. Always.

Just giving them guns do not make them empowered. Otherwise, anyone with enough cash to buy a gun to pose physical threat, would be empowered. What's the point of learning and growth then?

And are you suggesting Dali Lama, Gandhi, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks has/had less power than hoods in the ghetto killing each other, because they don't pose physical threats? And those hoods learned empowerment by killing each other?

Was Ishmael Beah more empowered when he was a kid with a gun killing other kids, or now, with a pen and papers posing no physical threats?

The group that rated Spring Breakers the highest is the IMDb staff and if you're working for the IMDb, odds are you're over 18. Most people who are under 18 online claim to be older. This site doesn't ask for your birth certificate when you register online. Less votes from certain demographics results from the poster turning those people away from the film.

Even if it's abuse, it's still power. The girls in Sucker Punch can't stop the men in the real world by themselves. In Spring Breakers, the girls didn't even have the ability to follow through with their threats when robbing the restaurant and still controlled everyone else.

I never said you claimed which film was better.

Like I mentioned, the fantasy sequences occur while the girls have control over the men, as they distract the males to get what they want. These fantasy scenes represent the power the girls have, just in a different context.

The idea of boys under 18 loving Spring Breakers more than any other group is contradicted by the higher ratings from professional critics on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. To be a professional critic, you have to be over 18. Meanwhile, the YouTube community, which is composed predominately of little kids, hates the movie.

Since when did people reload in movies anyways? Not too often, unless it was necessary for the plot. They wore bikinis to remind the audience of their femininity. With the masks on, you wouldn't know what their gender is without looking at their bodies for clues. What's the issue of them wearing bikinis in court? They had more clothes on after Cotty gets shot.

It's not the fact they had guns that made them empowered. It's their ability to beat armed thugs in a firefight.

What relevance do these people have to the issue at hand? Empowerment differs on the scenario. Neither of these movies were about changing the world for the better. In the world of Sucker Punch, the only girl to survive couldn't escape on her own. She never had the power inside herself to win.

It's not the fact they had guns that made them empowered. It's their ability to beat armed thugs in a firefight.

The technicalities mean nothing. They killed all the thugs, which is more than can be said about the Sucker Punch quintet. What next, did Arnold have no power in Commando because he fired a M60E3 one handed and without taking cover?

In Hard Boiled, one of the greatest action movies ever made, Tequila never reloads in the opening shootout. Nor would he be able to because he uses pistols he just found. I don't see anyone complaining about him never reloading there. And by the way, Hard Boiled is a 90s film.

Being a movie, the world of Sucker Punch ended once the ending credits appeared. We don't know if things really did change in the asylum. All we know is three girls are dead, one is a vegetable, one is a fugitive, and it's only implied that the evil stepfather will pay for his crimes.

Likewise, we don't know what life will be like for the girls in Spring Breakers. What matters is they got what they wanted and they voluntarily returned home. Keyword: voluntarily. They went home when they wanted to. They had the power to do so.

But Rosa Parks lived to see what she accomplished. And the world experienced it. Babydoll didn't and whether change took place in Sucker Punch's world is unconfirmed.

Nothing is better or more important than personal happiness.

In Sucker Punch, it was obvious authorization process of lobotomy would have changed. And if there ever were another girl who start burning down the asylum, they won't think the female doctors "acting on stage" treatment failed. They would be screening caretakers.

We should not be fixated on what we see specifically and lose what's in the film. In film, implying is always better than showing.

I never said forgo happiness to obey law. I'm not talking about morals.

You seem to think, "I can do whatever the fk I want, whenever I want" is empowerment. It is not. And they already had the freedom to do whatever they want from the beginning. They had money for weed, but still whining about money for vacation. They already were free to do whatever they want from the get go.

Where in the film did any of the girls call home and said, "I love it here. I'm gonna quit college and become a scuba instructor here, and party everyday." And the parents went crazy? Were they free to do that? Sure. They had been free the whole time.

They went home voluntarily? Did anyone forced them to stay? Did anyone forced them to go home? They could go home anytime they wanted since before they were even in Florida. What did they achieve? They had always been free to go anywhere, at anytime, as they please. Since when did they not have the power to go home voluntarily?

How is it obvious? Blue is arrested, he screams about the stepfather's involvement, and that's it. What happens next is merely speculation. There's no aftermath, no proof of events occurring after the end credits appeared.

Implying is not always better than showing. Memento would not be better if it was only implied Leonard shot Teddy because that would screw up the whole point of the film. In Sucker Punch, Rocket, Amber, Blondie, and Babydoll's sister are all shown getting killed, while Blue is led away by the police and we only get a passing mention of Babydoll's stepfather getting caught. Why are the fates of the bad guys left ambiguous, while the other characters clearly died?

I didn't say you did.

Being able to do what you want is empowerment because you have the power to do so. You don't think power is necessary to accomplish your goals? If the girls had that freedom from the beginning, they wouldn't have robbed the restaurant. They could just partied in their home town. While it was under immoral measures, they made the decision and succeeded at getting the money they needed.

Making up scenarios isn't going to work. We're supposed to be discussing what happens on screen, not potential "what if" scenes. You don't know what would really happen if any of the girls decided to remain in Florida.

That just further proves they had the power throughout the film. They were capable of being wherever they wanted and nobody could stop them. Not their school, not the gangsters in Florida, no one.