MovieChat Forums > Threadkiller > Replies
Threadkiller's Replies
[quote]TLOU female lead is lesbian. There was two notable LGBT episodes in the first season.[/quote]
If you are trying to argue that the female co-lead being a lesbian was a significant reason for the show's success, then you're not being honest. You can make the argument that including "some" alphabet content won't necessarily hurt a show's popularity but there simply is not enough broad appeal to ever suggest that it's significantly contributing to the success of a popular media with significantly broader appeal, like TLOU & Euphoria. It's good for signal boosting on social media but will always be limited & niche in terms of viewership.
Eh... Neither of you are correct. The "Aryan invasion theory" has largely been debunked. India does however have people with varying phenotypes, including ethnic minorities like any than country with thousands of years of history. Most Indians look a lot more like Vivik Ramsalami than Nimarata. She honestly looks more Parsi(Persian ethnic minority) than a typical Punjab but she's still not passing as a white European woman. No way is she ever being invited to a Klan meeting. Also, The British never colonized India in terms of population to any significant degree so any intermingling with the locals during the occupancy would have had negligible impact on the population. India was too densely populated & the British were more interested in controlling India's recourses.
This has been debated for years but most people agree that it's more likely that he was assimilated at some point by Norris or Palmer thing while locked in the shed. The Thing pretending to have a mental breakdown & destroying its means of escape would have been too much of a counterproductive, desperate move at that early stage. The theorizing required to make it make sense is always convoluted. The Thing getting to him in the shed is the more straightforward & probable scenario.
Yes? Well good for you then. You recognize context.
Would you take your kid of whatever age (not sure why you arbitrarily decided on 5 years old) to stay over at "anyone's" house, under any circumstances, if they happened to be a close family friend or associate who you trusted? If no, then that's your prerogative & completely irrelevant.
Literally none of that is true. You proclaim that "facts are facts" then immediately precede to go on a tirade consisting 100% of sensationalized tabloid fiction that you pulled out of thin air which shows that you're arguing in bad faith. This is commonplace for obsessed anti-Michael Jackson slanderers because you know the "actual" facts that can actually be verified do no support your preferred narrative.
I always enjoyed Episodes 1& 2 despite their (greatly exaggerated) issues. The only thing people ever really bring up as a criticism for Episode 2 is the awkward romance dialogue & maybe "too much CGI". I still love TPM but I will openly admit that a few key changes would have easily made it a much better film and strengthened the trilogy overly. The main problem with the romance was that it had to be rushed. Where Han & Leia, met and slowly fell in love over the course of the entire trilogy, Anakin were forced to meet (essentially for the first time on screen) and fall madly in love in a single movie, giving no time for the relationship to breathe & develop more naturally. Decisions made in episode 1 are largely to blame for this. Some changes I would make to Episode 1 that I feel would have strenghed Episode 2 & the trilogy overall are as follows:
1. Age up Anakin a few years, casting Hayden Christensen from the start. This allows his onscreen relationship with Padme to develop more naturally & plant the seeds of romance for the sequel. Get the actors to establish chemistry with each other as early as possible.
2. Reduce Qui Gon Jinn's role in favor of Obi Wan or write him out entirely. As much as I liked Qui-Gon, the trilogy simply didn't need him to exist but if he HAD to exist, he should have stayed on the ship & Obi-Wan should have discovered Anakin & bonded with him, taking it upon himself to train him (making it consistent with what he said in 'A New Hope'). This also similarly allows the three main heroes to establish onscreen chemistry with each other from the start. The result? We have meaningful relationships already established by the end of the first movie, creating a much more natural narrative transition into Episode 2 for our main characters.
I have slightly mixed opinions about this situation. Masterson always gave me the creeps, even way back in his 70s Show heyday, when i was a kid. I literally couldn't watch the show because of him. Masterson being charged & convicted of drugging & raping women was the ultimate "had a gut feeling along" confirmation bias. That being said, I'm uneasy about the precedent of convicting people of sex crimes without physical evidence, decades after the fact, even if the circumstantial evidence has merit. I think they got it right this time but i think the door is open for a lot of potential BS.
For years Robson's testimony in Michael's defense held up unflinchingly under harsh scrutiny. Why? because he was telling the unfiltered truth. It wasn't until recent years, where he and Safechuck transparently made-up new stories for a payday did their new accounts completely fall apart under the mildest amount of scrutiny. You can choose to live in a "I'll just believe what I want" anti-Michael Jackson hate bubble for as long as you like but the evidence has always been stacked against you & only increasingly so over the years.
P.S. Elvis' behavior WAS repeated. He had already been known to have private, handsy "sleepovers" with adolescent female fans (i.e. groupies) well before he met Precilla. If Jackson had been revealed to be gay & groomed a "totally nonsexual" romantic relationship with an underage Macaulay Culkin & later "married" him after he turned 18, the way Elvis did with Precilla, don't pretend like that would not have been well beyond enough to crucify him legally & in the court of public opinion. Precilla publicly admitted to Elvis spending a lot of time with her in his bedroom for "passionate" kissing & caressing sessions when she was 14 for crying out loud. It's extra disturbing when you realize THAT is obviously the "clean" version.
Have they? I don't know but what I do know is that the Boy Scouts as an institution has never been scrutinized as some secret child molester front operation on the basis of "Why else would grown men want to spend time with boys?"
Boy scouts? Big brother programs? Feed the children? Do you believe those all to be secret child molestation operations? Helping children happened to be one of his passions. It's well beyond the point it being a "YOU" problem for anyone who still clings to that fallacy about Michael Jackson. There's literally more evidence available that explicitly supports his innocence than any other person falsely accused.
It's anyone's prerogative to feel it "strange", no matter the context, for a man sleeping in the vicinity of family friends, guests & (including but not limited to) their kids but that does not denote anything inappropriate beyond one's own personal conjecture. After the first extortion case was dismissed, Michael may not have dramatically altered his life by refusing to associate himself with kids (like any innocent person not wanting to their life to be controlled by tabloid fallacies wouldn't, especially when helping children is one of their passions) but he did in fact impose strict boundaries to protect himself in the following years. Measures that helped the Arvizo grifter family case get laughed out of court. The fact that it even made it to court was a disgrace.
Instead of just hearing "sleepovers with boys" & allowing your imagination to take it to a perverted place, (with the help of anti-MJ tabloid press) you need to listen to firsthand accounts from people like Macauly Culkin who for years have provided a clear context of the "sleepover" scenario & how thoroughly innocuous it was. Details like how Michael's "bedroom" was a two story flat with multiple bathrooms and MASSIVE beds, where he was known to host guests of entire families, not "just boys". If the mere idea of a man sharing small amounts of his time with and mentoring boys is in & of itself inappropriate to you, then maybe you should start scrutinizing institutions like the Boy Scouts & Big Brother programs. It was never a scenario where he was snuggled up with boys in a bed. Not at all like other well-known figures such as Elvis Pressley who was known to do with underage girls eventually, starting a relationship with one when she was 13-14 years old, eventually marrying her. Tangible evidence that there was always a sexual implication with Elvis' "sleepovers" Evidence that does not exist with MJ, yet Elvis is given a pass. Funny how double standards work.
For the past decade, I've been absolutely baffled by Kristen Stewart's inexplicable career. For whatever reason she was handed the Twilight franchise. A role that a thousand other young actresses could have played even better & somehow she's been riding that wave ever since. Hollywood seemed determined to keep her relevant, so she continued receiving a steady stream of high-profile starring roles for over a solid decade, despite almost all of it flopping. Why? Nepotism? I've never heard of her being related to anyone of influence & even nepo kids only get pushed so much for so long if everything they do fails to have an impact, which just makes Stewart's case all the more baffling. There's no way the casting couch could explain it either because that alone doesn't get anywhere near what Stewart has gotten. Her entire career has been gift wrapped & unearned.
It's surprising that Cavill would even be interested in doing another project about a supernatural swordman so soon after quitting 'The Witcher' show.
This is a common opinion from casual anti-black racist types who willingly choose to ignore the context of black Americans being systemically terrorized by white supremacist culture for the entirety of the country's history. She's a character who understands this reality as a black American which is why she said if the world falls apart that trust shouldn't be given out easily (in general) but especially to white people(unfortunately). It's not difficult to see it as understandable from her perspective if you're not an anti-black racist & are actually able empathize with the black American experience. It's also important to note that she never suggests that all white people are bad or that none of them can be trusted.
Julia Robert's character was very realistically portrayed as someone who is hardly some mouth frothing racist, but still harbors some casual, semi-unconscious anti-black racial tendencies. She had every right to be cautious & question the man and his daughter but her bias is clearly shown by her condescending tone of disbelief when asking "This is 'YOUR' house?" (which is noticed by the daughter) & insistence that they must be the hired help.
Those of you who fully empathize with & see nothing wrong with the initial attitude of Julia Roberts' character yet are quick to be dismissive & accusatory towards the black daughter, rather ironically validate her paranoia about trusting people. I believe the film sets this up intentionally which is pretty clever.
In my "old age" (Millennial) I must be reverting back to my naive youthful innocence or maybe just plain getting old because I seriously thought you meant that he should get some sort of special employee discount because of his heroism. Then i read the comments...
That's quite an unnecessary & over the top rant but I actually agree with the general view that actresses such as Jamie Lee Curtis & Sigourney Weaver were far from great beauties, despite being marketed as such. The 80s were weird.
🤣 Not sure the OP was being entirely serious but still...