MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
Being an old Grandfather played by William Hartnell was a core part of the Doctor.
Then being a totally different actor with different personality and demeanour was a core part.
Proceeding with younger and younger actors changing the core personality, demeanour and appearance in that direction was a core part of the doctor.
But the show isn't about you or how you feel about your physical gender which is fixed to whatever it is without intervention, regardless of what gender your inner self identifies with.
Yep. It's wrong to assume that gore is a prerequisite of any war story made these days.
That's because not all war stories are the same.
The violence of action and the chaos that defines battle is definitely present in the film.
People who are squeamish about being trapped underwater or in a sinking boat will not have an easy time.
Ok so you have no argument. Just a load of pish.
So what your'e saying is that the Doctor manifested as a reflection of our own society.
Society and gender are two separate things. If society's attitudes towards other people's gender (and The Doctor will always be another person. Not the "self" of any one audience member or members) are not fixed then the show is going to reflect that.
The only way that this could unduly alter someone's perception of their self withing the context of gender is if they got the notion that they ought to be able to transform from Peter Capaldi to Jodie Whittaker.
It's not a core part of a fictional alien timelord.
Again. Read the question
Why is the gender of the person doing the things that the Doctor does in the show more important to you that the personality and manners etc of that person?
It's not your self that's on screen. It's the doctor.
The Doctor is an alien. A Timelord with a totally different perception of time than human beings. That's a much bigger obstacle to relating to his character than gender.
Only for the sake of your complaint does it mean that.
Contrived?
It's actually rather familiar to many veteran's stories of constantly being interrupted while trying to relieve themselves during combat.
I'll tell you what's contrived. The germans shooting "target practice" at the hull of a boat below the water line. The first three bullets are just above the water line. But then the rest of the bullets that follow are below it because the water comes in immediately.
A) Why would you aim below the water line for "target practice"?
B) Bullets would not penetrate the hull if they have already slammed into the surface of the water.
That whole bit was unnecessary an stupid.
Yes I do.
Shouldn't be hard for you to name a millennial movie that fits your argument. Not one title from you to be seen in this thread so far.
Trying to ditch without knowing if the carriage was already partially down or what had happened would have been extremely dangerous.
When the gear started to come down it was land with gear down and locked or nothing.
I recommend IMAX.
70mm exhibition is great but it is not that much better than the IMAX digital presentation.
IMAX-70mm would be best but it's not available everywhere.
The story doesn't dwell on combat. (like we've seen many, many times)
The camera doesn't dwell on fallen soldiers with their live's bleeding out of them while the escapees rush to the sanctuary of the beach.
In fact there's very little "objective" shots of the the effect of a weapon fired in the previous shot etc.
While on the beach the bombardments are so massive that gore is lost in the diffused destruction. Casualties are from direct hits which tend to virtually vaporise the victim.
There's no aid station or surgery on the beach so there is no gore filled scenes of that nature. There are wounded being stretchered onto a boat and they all look pretty bloody, as do the victims from the sunken troop ships floating back in with the tide.
Most of the violence comes from the dive bombers attacking ships in the channel. It's not a combat film but it has by no means been sanitised.
Yeah. I made it.
Why did you first say that you don't need to be a pilot to know that it's impossible, then claim that you know it's impossible because your fiance, who is a pilot, told you so?
If pointing out all the facts you've got wrong is defending the movie then it's a fact that I'm defending the movie.
The Spitfire was just such a well designed plane that it could glide very flat and therefore without too much drag. 15 miles was possible.
The Kent coast to Dunkirk is about 20 miles. They were already nearing the French coast when his fuel ran out.
I'm sure your fiance isn't a Spitfire pilot.
It wasn't even half an hour before the end of the film anyway.
Also, you're also forgetting the narrative structure meant we kept cutting to scenes that take place before the Spitfire has run out of fuel. The time it is gliding for is actually broken up and spread out in the ending of the movie.
The Spitfire could glide for about fifteen miles after cutting its engine at speeds of around 400mph. So it's not that ridiculous.
However it was extremely lucky for the pilot to come across a Stukka in the process of attacking and was therefore able to shoot that down without any power.
I thought the Avengers, with Captain [b]America[/b], was a millennials film. And the Transformers are about loyalty to America... I mean earth.
I can't think of a "millennial" film which isn't a very white cast.
I'm glad you abhor war. But your comments are incoherent.
How does that make it poor writing?
It would have been easier to set down near where troops were still being evacuated from the beach. Rather than to risk a bail out which could land him in the water or a sitting duck for the enemy.
The landing gear foul up caused him to land way further down the beach than he intended. He wound up outside the perimeter.