MovieChat Forums > Mynvosa > Replies
Mynvosa's Replies
It is remarkable how they managed to take such a gripping topic and turn it into something so blandly acted, paced, scored and told overall.
Interesting take. At least everyone can agree that its ahead of Crash.
In the hallowed history of bad but very, very entertaining movies, this film is among the best I've seen 🤣
That's quite a selection! Thank you for the recommendations and for taking the time to put this list together.
It seems like only non-horror fans have replied to the post 🤣. Not to say that I don't appreciate the suggestions, because I do, but I'd also like to hear from some horror fans.
<blockquote>But I don't think its right to insist that any other possibility is flat out wrong, and to do so in such a condescending rude manor. You did that with the OP. </blockquote>
You said you'd read through the replies, but there's one thing you should know about our conversation that MovieChat's simplification of time-stamps into months and years can't reveal. I was non-reactive to many of ice-cutter's comments for over a week. Only after he replied to my comment to another poster did I start responding to him again. Just as I'm only responding now because you chose to message me. So, let's make one thing perfectly clear: You two keep pulling ME back into the conversation, not the other way around.
It's not uncommon for people to feel personally hurt when they're arguments have been dismantled, including myself in the past, but that's not my fault. I haven't broken guidelines, I've attacked your arguments not your character, unlike you (right now) and ice-cutter who happily called over people "idiots" and "psychos" on other boards. I doubt you can find such behaviour in my own post history.
<blockquote>And now you bring up nonsense about shapeshifting aliens with me.</blockquote>
I agree that it's nonsense... that's my whole point. Either baseless speclations should be accepted as potentially valid or they shouldn't. I obviously believe they shouldn't. You have asserted several times that a theory "isn't as outlandish" as I claim, because (however devoid of evidence) it could theretically be true. However, as I've already highlighted, you don't accept your own reasoning as a sound basis for an argument when used to theorise about LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE. Is your logic sound or is it not? Because, according to you, it's "nonsense".
<blockquote> "We get very little backstory on the characters in this movie. That alone means that there are possibilities other than the most obvious that you dogmatically insist is the only interpretation of the word "lose"" </blockquote>
I mean... words have meaning, so yeah, it matters. In your original post, your argument was that she misused the word because she was delusional and lying to herself. Also you've paraphrased the same argument 2 times now.
<blockquote>"We get very little backstory on the characters in this movie [...] That alone means that there are possibilities other than the most obvious."</blockquote>
<blockquote> "Since we don't get any more details on what drove her character to willingly be a part of Victory, there are possibilities outside the most obvious one." </blockquote>
Both boil down to information not being in the script and the audience therefore being free to interpret things that have no basis in the material as long as they theoretically could have happened. I already acknowledged this viewpoint and presented you with 3 other possibilities using the same logic, which you all seem to think are ridiculous. But naturally, you were unable to explain why your logic can only be applied to a very specific senario and in all other instances can only produce theories that, by your own admission, are "nonsense". This brings me to my next point.
<blockquote>Not as ridiculous as you assert. </blockquote>
Why, though? Why is it more plausible or less ridiculous when every example I provided follows your line of reasoning and, like the ice-cutters theory, is based solely on speculation that cannot be justified by the source material? You can't just assert things without justification and expect people not to point out the flaws in your argument.
Since your entire point boils down to believing that anything, regardless of the lack of evidence, could theoretically be true, then yes, shapeshifting aliens would be as plausible as what you're suggesting. After all, "there are possibilities outside the most obvious one." Or do you only believe the things you write when they support a very specific narrative about abortion?
There is also no evidence beyond your speculation that the script is open to interpretation in this matter. I'm not emotional because I'm advocating for logical arguments based on the material instead of entertaining a theory that no one has been able to provide evidence for, especially one that feeds into very nasty, real-world social perceptions. On the other hand, perhaps you should consider that your irrational resistance to a fact-based analysis may indicate an emotional distortion of the presented material, just as the ice-cutters theory did.
I enjoy a good debate, but when every response I get to debunking the fallacies and biases being presented amounts to, "it's like, my opinion, man," it starts to get really, really boring.
Soooooo your interpretation is that rather than what the script is literally telling us happened happened, she's actually misusing the word because she's delusional? And of course theres no direct evidence in the scipt for this, but its enough for you that it could theoretically be possible?
I mean, if you're bending logic that much to support his theory, you may as well say that she never even had kids at all and she's just delusional. Like your theory, it has no evidence, but hey, they don't expressly say otherwise and even if they did, you apparently don't believe what the scipt is presenting anyway. Theoretically you could use the same logic (or lack thereof) to say that literally anything could be true about anyone in a film, or real life for that matter.
I'd like to present a few of my own theories using this brand of logic:
1. They're all shapeshifting aliens (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
2. None of this actually happened it was all a dream the protagonist had, (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
3. The movie never existed at all and we're all just suffering a mass delusion, (no evidence) but theoretically possible.
I hope you see how dumb this line of thinking is now that you've seen it applied elsewhere.
May I ask what cut of the film you saw? The 2 hour cut or one of the 81 to 97 minute versions? The cuts with the lower run time are notoriously bad.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There are many metaphors in the movie, are you alluding to a specific part or the movie as a whole? If you're talking about the monster, then yes, I can certainly see how nurturing something corrupt and toxic even to one's own detriment could be a metaphor for the couple's relationship. But overall the depictions of a breakdown in a marriage are portrayed very litterally.
Thanks for the suggestion. It's very rare that someone can name a movie I haven't seen and you just gave me 4.🙂
I've already seen <i>Jacob's Ladder</i>, but thank you for the suggestion.
Are you talking about the original or the remake? I think I have the same feeling about the original <i>Hellraiser</i> that you do about this movie 😂. I still like it's style though and I agree that the tone is similar, so if anything else comes to mind, I'd like to hear it.
<i>Kuroneko </i> (1968) has a wonderful style, it's a shame it never got the same recognition as <i>Onibaba</i> (1964).
Almost certainly no. But isn't that really the case with most revenge films? The everyman transforming into a Liam Neeson style avenger after the death of a loved one is a staple of cinema at this point. Revenge films are more about getting the audiencce to revel in the catharsis of vigilante justice being dispenced when traditional systems have failed. I think this is particularly true in rape revenge films where a large percenntage of the audience can identify with the protagonist's turmoil. The end of <i>Promising Young Woman</i> probably renders the most realisitic depiction of what would actually happen if an every-person attempted to take violent revenge. But most rape revenge films aren't trying to be grounded docu-dramas, they're lite fantasies. That's my take anyway :)
Throwing around a lot of big words? I'm literally using the correct terms for what we're speaking about. I'm offended by most of what you've written on this board - that someone would post about a serious topic knowing so little about it. That horrid pamphlet that misrepresents reproductive abuse in a time when women's reproductive autonomy is already heavily under attack, resorting to using your friend's (supposedly) real regretted abortion story to make your claims seem more believable even though that obviously has no bearing on what's written in the script of a movie. These aren't good things for a person do, and I have no obligation to engage with this conversation as if they were.
Of all the ridiculous things you've posted thus far, this takes the cake.
"I'm sure coersive reproduction is a thing yes but why say it's the "true" abuse?They are both true forms of abuse IMO."
First of all, the term I used was reproduction abuse. That's the name of a series of actions and behaviours that strip women of autonomy over their reproductive system. This type of abuse includes but is not limited to coercing or forcing an abortion, the exact thing you've literally been talking about. They're not BOTH abusive, because it is only one type of abuse. Basically what you just said was:
"I'm sure coersive abortions are a thing but why say it's the "true" abuse? They are both (referring to the same topic) forms of abuse IMO."
You just made it known that you don't even know the term for the thing you're trying to talk about 😂. Great job!
If you were paying attention, you'd know that I linked to information about true reproductive abuse to make a clear delineation between the propaganda version you posted and it's actual meaning. And yes, trying to claim that medical professionals are coercing you by letting you know that you're medical decisions have a time limit on them is pretty damn propagandist.
You're using a borderline propaganda poster about women IRL to say that it's not so crazy that you invented a back story for a character in a movie that involves coercive abortion even though said character explicitly said that it's not what happened. Nope, that idea is still pretty damn wild man.
Also even on the leaflet you showed, they don't use any examples of coercion 😂, one of the examples was literally "I feel rushed". Do you not realise that there are time limits (a certain amount of weeks per the law of each individual country) on abortion and that telling you to make a decision within a certain time frame is literally just a responsible medical practice 🙄?
The other examples were needing someone to talk to and the prospect of single motherhood should the person not have the abortion . This isn't coercion either, by any metric. If you know you'll have a lack of support after giving birth then that's a factor an expectant mother needs to consider in her family planning decisions. Just because you're in a bad situation doesn't mean you're being coerced, it just means you're in a bad situation. If you make a decision you regret in a bad situation, as I'm sure many people have, you don't get to use that against other women or medical professionals.
Edit: for the record, coercive abortions are a real thing, and is typically perpetrated by an intimate partner. If you want to learn what true reproductive abuse is here is a good place to start: https://utswmed.org/medblog/reproductive-coercion/
Your argument is that it could have happened to the women in the story (even though the script literally doesn't not say that nor hint to it anywhere as I've already explained to you) because it occasionally happens to women in real life... A fact that is irrelevant to this movie. Even the person who objected to my tone still didn't even try to defend such a nonsensical argument. The script doesn't say what you're alluding to anywhere, you're using irrelevant arguments and no one on this board has defended your stance. You are still the potato.