MovieChat Forums > Underdog_73 > Replies
Underdog_73's Replies
[quote]thomas998 6 hours ago:
Sorry but a 1 hour show can't handle a Game of Thones size cast.[/quote]
But Game of Thrones IS a 1 hour show....You mean unless the 1 hour show is a show other than Game of Thrones?
Sorry, I couldn't resist! I do agree with you about the cast though. They definitely added too many characters, and also fell victim to what I like to call the "Abby Factor". It seems every show nowadays needs a kooky, annoying, immature, unlikable CSI tech like Abby from NCIS.....It's been done to death.
That's neither here nor there. Zombies were still a defined term. They've been known as the walking dead for centuries. They're prominent in the voodoo "religion". The movie White Zombie, made in the 30s, is an example, of true zombies and the fact they were known.
This movie had nothing to do with zombies, and it's not because zombies were unknown. They weren't.
I thought they were doing the same thing, but it can't be done. Oliver Queen, Cat Grant, Maggie Sawyer, Lena Luthor, and Jimmy Oleson (and more) were all on Smallville. All completely different characters that don't fit with the same characters on Supergirl or I. The Arrowverse.
This is just another example of the horrible brainless writing plaguing all entertainment platforms.
Yep...you're doing exactly the thing you're negatively describing. You're quite the genius, aren't you. And a hypocrite to boot. Is it necessary to display your stupidity with every post?
Don't simply read. Try to comprehend what the words mean. Then try to comprehend the meaning of the sentences. Then the overall intent. I know it's hard for you, but try.
You're an idiot. You want the world to know? Fine with me. I can't dumb it down any further, and you don't deserve the courtesy. I showed you where YOUR article claimed they didn't build it, yet you've proven you want to be moron. Insisting just the parts you agree with matter, and ignoring the rest, doesn't make one true and the other not. Your intentional stupidity, in addition to the unintentional, says all I need to know about you. And as if you didn't display your idiocy effectively, you want to take it a step further by crying about my rude reply to your initial rudeness. Wow. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
No slave was a skilled laborer. Deal with it. You clearly don't have the brains to possess any skills, so I'm certain that's why you want it to be true. Try reading the entire article, dumb ass.
Me, gnatpicker am too toopid to undertand.....
Per your wish, I used Sesame Street talk. Is this better for you? I chose Cookie Monster since I figured all the others spoke too eloquently for you to comprehend.
Even your last post, which you hoped was an insult, only resulted in further proof of your idiocy. You say it'll be Sesame Street terms, then you seem to drift off like a moron....um, you actually have to follow up, when you make a comment like that, dumb ass. As you can see, I did it for you. You're even too stupid to know how to insult someone intelligently.
I can cut and paste too, moron. Do you only include what you want to? The article also said:
---------Washington Monument Historian John Steele Gordon stated "I can't say for certain, but the stonemasonry was pretty highly skilled, so it's unlikely that slaves would've been doing it. ----------
Did you intentionally leave that part out, are you truly too dumb to read it all? Like I said though, wikipedia isn't always accurate, so why even use it in an argument. You literally just proved that for me. Unintentionally, I know, but stupid people can't help themselves. Can they, dumdum?
You're intent on advertising your stupidity, so I won't even waste my time attempting to enlighten you. Don't just look at words and sentences. Try to actually comprehend them. Another idiot missing the point and arguing against a stance never taken. Dumb ass.
Are you honestly stupid enough to somehow take from my statement that any form of slavery wasn't bad? How thick are you. I'm in disbelief anyone can't read and comprehend. You're a fool, using as an argument, articles that you're too stupid to understand are making my point. This is a special kind of stupid.
One last time. The argument here is simply the statement "slaves built the monument". They didn't. 85% of it was built after slavery was abolished. And if white men used slaves to build some of the first 15%, that still doesn't lead to the conclusion that slaves built the monument. Try to actually understand what's said, before you reply with irrelevant nonsense.
Like I said, you're having your own argument. If you can't follow the discussion, simply give up.
The points you're attempting to convey have nothing to do with anything I said.
Are you honestly stupid enough to somehow take from my statement that any form of slavery wasn't bad? How thick are you. I'm in disbelief anyone can't read and comprehend. Slaves were used for grunt work. It's a fact. I'm sorry you're too stupid to get it. My saying it doesn't make me the offender, moron.
One last time. The argument here is simply the statement "slaves built the monument". They didn't. 85% of it was built after slavery was abolished. And if white men used slaves to build some of the first 15%, that still doesn't lead to the conclusion that slaves built the monument. You unbelievably, idiotic, mouth breathing dolt.
I was never speaking of what characters thought. I was speaking of the ridiculous direction the writers were taking the show. Regardless, since many characters over many years have been injured with weapons that previously killed walkers, then no, your theory on character assumption holds no water. They've already witnessed nothing happens when they come in contact with blood.
Granted, at the beginning of the series I thought that would make them turn, but again and again, I was proven wrong. The writers can't now do a 180 and pretend now it's all of a sudden possible and have a mass turning like they did. That was some of the worst writing in the history of the written word.
Back to my original point though, the writers proved their idiocy with the most recent episode. This new behavior does not coincide with anything that's happened in the TV universe. Ever. This was a complete farce.
It was sarcasm, and partly my point.
Unfortunately I think your post was too lucid and intelligent for dractarashv2 to comprehend.
I'm appreciative of it though. It's nice to see intellect still exists.
Jeanine Basinger is one of those people who sees things incorrectly, and then wrongly convinces herself she's deep.
The captain was real. That wasn't even left ambiguous. It was clearly defined. He was real. Other people heard him, and were aware of his existence before Mrs. Muir even came along. A figment of someone's imagination can't have a past of its own, or have interacted with irrelevant people during that past.
Regardless, great lengths were taken to over explain the fact his spirit actually existed, and truly interacted with Mrs. Moore. Jeanine Basinger still couldn't comprehend that. She likes to take a minority stance, however foolish, and then feel as if she sees what no one else can. In reality, others don't see it, because it's not there to be seen. People like her are a real pet peeve of mine.
Was Mrs. Muir's spirit also dreaming? Jeanine Basinger's nonsense isn't even intelligent enough to warrant a [i]maybe[/i]. She clearly missed the entire movie, including the ending.
I can assure you I have no doubt Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks on 9/11.
Why can't [i]everyone[/i] comprehend this?
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, and clearly, neither do you. The discussion was never about whether or not they were slaves.
I probably watch more movies than most, and the OP hit the nail on the head. This one was too ridiculous. And I watch and enjoy, all the old cliffhanger serials, so that should prove my ability to suspend disbelief.
[i]Some[/i] inconsistencies? Some inconsistencies are fine. Hell, most people have learned to live with many inconsistencies in movies. But what the OP said was the entire movie was crap, from the first second, to the last. And the OP was completely right. This movie never let up with the idiocy and overly far fetched garbage
There's more to complain about here, than enjoy. If you feel differently, then you're lucky you don't feel as if your time and money were wasted. But your argument can be ineffectively replied to any opinion and serves no purpose.
The oddest thing to me is what stands out most in my memory. With all the cringey junk in the movie, I just keep thinking about the insignificant line he said to gun store guy. "Show me where the bullets go". Seriously??? Has a dumber line ever been written? There's not a human alive, with a brain, from the age of 4 and up, who doesn't know how to load a hand gun, whether it be a semi automatic or a revolver. That was a failed and cheap way to try and show he wasn't prone to violence. It failed, and was just one of many straws that flattened the camel. If they wanted to show he wasn't familiar with guns, they could have had him ask how it works once it's loaded. Even that's a stretch, but I can accept some people don't know how to pull a slide back or turn off a safety.
See, I've even given evidence to prove my first point, of being open to accepting inconsistencies, nonsense, etc, in a movie. Just not the entire movie. Maybe the original French version was better. I'll have to watch it someday.
And don't even get me started on the ridiculous premise that a city would be shut down due to a prisoner escape. That's a level of ridiculous I didn't know existed. Oh, and the idiotic scene with the woman trying to keep from a moving car because she may have to wait a little longer to see the kid she hasn't seen in 3 years. . There's just too much to cover. Especially the way the cops caught wind of everything and pieced it together in seconds.....just utter drivel.
Is that honestly your perception and comprehension of what I said, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
The stones were cut by skilled workers, the stones were placed by skilled workers. The monument was built by skilled workers.
Is it the term "grunt work" that throws you?
Unskilled labor, only assisted by steam engines? Seriously? You're right. They found the stones already cut to size. It was an amazing find. Nature did it all. And operating steam engines was in itself skilled labor, so I can't even fathom your point.
I'll agree with one of the foremost historians on the monument, and I'll use the common sense I was fortunate enough to be born with. Please do a little of your own research. If you come to the same conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.
Oh, the historian doubts much slave labor went into it.....and not just any historian. One of the most knowledgeable. I'm sure you know better though.
I'll concede slaves were involved in grunt work during the first phase, but the issue at hand is the ridiculous statement that "slaves built the monument". That's simply not true in any sense of accuracy.
Slavery was bad enough on it's own, in a different time, but let's not frivolously attempt to infuse it into every aspect of history. Wanting to consistently put a negative spin on history is childish.