MovieChat Forums > Darren > Replies
Darren's Replies
No, assholes usually can't resist being assholes. Like the story of the frog and the scorpion, it's your nature.
It wasn't "an attempt to save face." Nothing I said was "stupid" -- that's <i>you</i> being an asshole. Again. There's nothing "stupid" about observing that the new FF movie might be set in the same universe, merely in the past, when you haven't read anything official that indicates otherwise, especially when we've seen <i>precisely</i> that sort of thing done before with X-Men: First Class.
There are polite, diplomatic ways to point out when someone might be wrong. You didn't use any of them.
You're just an asshole. That's all.
Spare me. You don't have the moral high ground. You cannot make a comment like that -- one that <i>any</i> rational person will almost certainly construe as disrespectful, and then claim <i>you're</i> the one being disrespected when someone does just that. Stop playing the victim.
On the other hand, your comment is <i>entirely</i> rude. For someone else who was half-right, it was Mike Tyson, when he pointed out "Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it." It wasn't just social media; it was the whole internet.
Okay, so we're both half right. It's in a different universe, but it's also in the 1960s like I said.
<blockquote>Na, sorry you're talking nonsense. There's literally a talking sentient robot in the trailer.
</blockquote>
So what? In the movies, they advance technology by decades or even centuries regularly. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, the HAL-9000 computer is supposed to have existed a quarter century before our present time, and it exhibits a level of self-awareness and independent intelligent far in advance of anything we have in the real world even now. In Blade Runner, they postulated not mere clones of human beings, but artificial organic replica humans, stronger, faster, more agile, more intelligent, and as smart or smarter than natural-born humans. We are probably <i>centuries</i> away from being able to make stuff like that, if we ever can. In the MCU, Tony Stark is able to build a fully sentient AI (Jarvis) decades beyond anything the real world can realize, and a suit of powered armor that can be assembled on his body as he walks around the room, and he can fly for hours in it, even though it has no fuel storage to contain the reaction mass he would need for the rocket propulsion the suit uses, even though it needs no ground crew of technicians the way, say, a much simpler fighter jet needs. Real world rocket packs, with huge, backpack-sized fuel tanks can allow you to stay in the air for around thirty or forty <i>seconds,</i> and travel couple or three hundred yards, but Iron Man can fly with F-15 fighters, and that doesn't bother you.
Sorry, your argument amounts to "this can't be because it's ridiculous, handwavium technology from sixty years ago that didn't exist, that's stupid. But ridiculous, handwavium technology from <i>today</I> that doesn't exist... well, that's different."
No. No it's not. The movies don't represent technological limitations realistically. They never have, but it's supposed to be a deal breaker now? I don't think so.
No, they'll just have to make some explanation as to why they <i>they didn't mention them</i> in the MCU before. And sorry, it's <i>not</i> hard to come up with an explanation. If they do set the FF movie in the early sixties, same era the team originally appeared in the comics, think about how long ago that is. Let's say Reed Richards in this movie is forty -- almost a full decade younger than the actor who will be playing him in this film, who will turn fifty in three more months -- how old would he be in 2012, the year the first Avengers film was released, and in which the action takes place?
Yeah, he'd be around <i>eighty.</i> He'd be around <i>ninety</i> by the time of Endgame in 2023.
How likely do you think it would be that he'd still be out there on the front lines, fighting the forces of evil at that age? If he's even still alive.
If Reed is the same age as Pedro Pascal, then he's pushing <i>a hundred years old</i> by the time of Endgame.
All of the FF would be in rest homes by then, <i>if</i> they're still alive. They'd have been retired for <i>decades</i> by this point. Makes no sense? It's <i>easy</i> to explain why you wouldn't see them in the Avengers films, if the FF is postulated to have started up in the early sixties. That's three, almost four generations ago.
Wrong. They would absolutely <i>not</i> get a mention. There are legal reasons. When the Avengers movies were made, Marvel Studios <i>did not own the rights</i> to the Fantastic Four. 20th Century Fox did. So Marvel <i>could not use</i> the characters, could not even mention them.
Remember, when Stan Lee stepped down as Marvel Comics' publisher, and moved out to California in 1981, he spent the next several years shopping Marvel's IP around to various studios trying to get movies and TV shows based on the Marvel characters made. Different studios bought some of the characters. For years, Spider-Man could only exist in a completely separate movie universe, because Sony owned the rights to the character; Spidey could only appear in the MCU after Sony and Marvel Studios made a deal. Likewise the Fantastic Four could not be in the MCU either, because they were owned by 20th Century Fox. This also explains why both Spider-Man and the FF kept getting rebooted so soon after a movie flopped or a series of movies petered out; the deals Lee made stipulated that if the studios did not use the IP for a specified number of years, the rights to those characters would revert back to Marvel Comics in toto, who would then be free to make a new deal with another studio.
So no, the FF would not have been mentioned in the Avengers films, because Marvel Studios would have been infringing another studio's legally-owned property if they had, and would have been sued. And at the time, Marvel Studios had no way to see into the future and know whether or not they'd ever acquire the rights to the FF. Well, now they have, and they can easily go back and retcon the FF into the MCU if they want.
I think perhaps not. If you look at the clothes, hairstyles, furniture, some of the cars, this looks to me like it's set in the 1960s. I'm not totally certain of this, because it's just short clips of various film scenes being shown in the trailer. But the original comic book team was introduced in 1961, and from what I see in this teaser trailer, it looks as if Marvel might have chosen to set the film in that era. If this turns out to be the case, there's no reason why it can't be the same universe as the Avengers, it's just decades before Cap thawed out or Tony Stark ever put on his first suit of armor. And this would also explain why the Fantastic Four weren't still around for the events of the Avengers films.
It's not about how it looks. He did his research and went back to the original vampire folklore. He actually explained the reason for this:
<blockquote>"Now obviously you can't pierce a breastbone, so it doesn't really make sense. It makes much more sense to drink someone's blood from their neck," Eggers told SFX magazine.
He continued, "But in folklore, when people are experiencing vampiric attacks it's similar to old hag syndrome [a colloquial term for sleep paralysis] where you have pressure on your chest, so people interpreted it as vampires drinking blood from their chest.</blockquote>
So Orlok feeds through the victim's chest because that's what legendary vampires from some of the old folk traditions were believed to do. It's also why Orlok looks like a rotting corpse; that's also from the original vampire lore. And in fact that this looks so grotesque and repulsive probably serves Eggers' storytelling purposes better anyway -- this is not the romantic, seductive, or tragic antihero vampire we've become so used to over the past few decades; this is vampires the way the people who actually believed in them looked at them: as repellent, disgusting, malevolent, and terrifying monsters.
In fact, this is really the key to understanding Eggers as a filmmaker. He only makes movies with historical settings, and he is always trying to get you to see the world he shows the way the people of that time saw the world, and more importantly, the show it as <i>real.</i> So in the VVitch, there <i>really is</i> a coven of evil witches serving Satan, killing babies, blighting crops, etc., all the things 17th-century puritans feared. In The Northman, Odin truly favors bold warriors like Amleth, and when he dies in combat and is carried away by a Valkyrie to Valhalla, that is a great <i>victory</i> to a man like him, not a tragic, early death. In this film, Orlok is a fiendish, reanimated corpse who would make you recoil not just in fear, but also in <i>disgust.</i>
He understands it just fine. What you who hate Trump clearly do not understand is what use he thinks tariffs have. He doesn't use them for economic protectionism, as a permanent measure to try and keep jobs from going overseas and foreign goods from displacing American made ones. He views them as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations, or in applying economic pressure on a country he wants to take certain measures he sees as in the United States' interest. He threatens tariffs, and is willing to impose them, but when the other country offers a better deal, or undertakes the measures Trump wants them to take, <i>the tariffs go away.</i>
God knows, you <i>ought</i> to understand this by now, since we've seen several examples of him using tariffs in precisely this way, and successfully against both Mexico and Canada mere <i>days</i> ago.
And yet he didn't set it on fire like Biden did.
<blockquote>Who said more qualified applicants were passed over in an effort to be more diverse?</blockquote>
You keep pushing this nonsense, and that's what it is: nonsense. If you are prioritizing anything other than merit, than the most meritorious people are not going to get as many slots, <i>because that's <b>not</b> what you're selecting for.</I>
Everyone understands this.
<i>You</i> understand this. And you are <i>pretending</i> not to.
And I'm done wasting time with a stupid, intellectually dishonest, deliberately obtuse ideologue. You're on the ignore list.
Yeah, when you are passing over more qualified applicants in order to select people who check the right diversity boxes, that means DEI was "done in a racist manner." No shit. This is because DEI -- which is just affirmative action under a new label -- is itself racist. It doesn't cure the problem, it keeps it alive.
Henry Rogers, AKA Ibram X. Kendi.
Wanting the most competent people in public safety jobs, regardless of color, is not assigning blame.
Yes. Racism is bad. That includes DEI, which is racist, because it favors some people over others, purely on the basis of immutable characteristics. You are woke for supporting it.
Nope. Henry Rogers is wrong. The solution to racism is not <i>more</i> racism, just going in the other direction. That just perpetuates division and resentment. The indulgence in this stupid philosophy by people like you is why race relations are worse now than they were twenty years ago.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1687/race-relations.aspx
Race relations were getting better. Racism was declining. Until you damned wokesters had to go put it on life support.
<blockquote>Why does diversity, equality and inclusion actually mean it is not merit based.</blockquote>
I've already explained it, this is you being deliberately obtuse. You know why <i>exactly</i> why, and you're just being oily and disingenuous.
<blockquote>Surely you understand that DEI was considered necessary back when inclusion only applied to white males and and hardly else?</blockquote>
This is not just a lie, it's despicable horseshit. That kind of discrimination has been illegal for the past sixty-years, and you damn well know it. Stop pretending you've never heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or that you think the FAA has been blithely and willfully violating it without consequence for the last three generations.
The thing they both have in common is that the people in these prisons are far better, more decent, more likable people than prisoners in maximum security or on death row are in real life. Think of for just a moment. In this movie, Andy is innocent, but all the guys he befriends inside -- Red, Brooks, Heywood, Floyd, Tommy, et al. -- are decent, likable characters. <i>The guards</i> are worse, especially Hadley. Boggs and his crew are the only evil convicts we see, and they're shown as being arguably a minority in the prison. Likewise in <i>The Green Mile,</i> John Coffee is innocent, and the other death row inmates -- Eduard Delacroix and Arlen Bitterbuck -- are shown as decent people who are sorry for the crimes they committed, with only a single exception: Wild Bill. Once again, we have a guard who is worse (Percy Wetmore). How are the <i>majority</i> of convicts on <i>death row</i> decent, likable people?
In real life, the kind of people you find on death row, or locked up in maximum security, are very far from nice, decent people. They have long records and heinous crimes in their histories.
I might be inclined to attribute this to Stephen King's liberal political views, as liberals tend to have a more charitable estimation of violent criminals, but most prison movies do this. Then again, most Hollywood screen writers are also liberal, so there you are.
<blockquote>DEI does not require that the most qualified people be passed over to allow less qualified to be hired or promoted. DEI means that anyone most qualified (merit) can be promoted or hired.</blockquote>
Yeah, this is a lie. You are lying. You know you are lying. Stop it.
As the article I referenced notes: "The FAA’s focus on diversity began under the Obama administration. In 2013, the FAA started using a “biographical assessment” <b>to increase the hiring of preferred minority racial groups at air traffic control centers.</b>" (Emphasis added.)
It goes on to note also "More than 3,000 rejected applicants filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination."
This is the FAA <i>passing over</i> more qualified applicants, in order to hire applicants who are not as qualified, but check the right diversity boxes. That's what DEI is, it is NOT merit-based, and you know it.
Stop. Lying.
<blockquote>Trump clearly wants the days of the "most qualified white male" be hired or promoted. DEI prevents that.</blockquote>
Yeah, this also is a lie. Trump -- and most other people -- don't want "the most qualified white male." They just want the most qualified. Right now, most of that pool happens to be white and male, and that sticks in the craw of you stupid SJW's, but the rest of us don't care. When I am on a plane, <i>I don't care</i> if the air traffic controller is white, black, or green with orange polka dots. I couldn't care less. I just care that he (or she) is competent, and will not guide the plane I'm flying on right into a collision with another aircraft.
There was a good reason Trump pardoned them, and I agree with the pardons. He was absolutely right to do it. The treatment of the ANTIFA rioters during the "summer of love" stands in stark contrast -- they injured police officers and federal officers as well, I remind you -- and this proves there is a two-tier justice system in operation. All of the J6 prosecutions are illegitimate, not because the actions of the J6 defendants are all pristine -- they weren't -- but because the defendants were, in most cases, punished <i>far</i> in excess of what their conduct warranted. Most of the defendants, who should have received a trespassing conviction and a fine, spent years in federal prison. The DA's egregiously overcharged. Virtually no prosecutorial motion was denied, and virtually no defense motion was granted. And the fact that the venue was D.C. meant that the defendants couldn't get an unbiased jury.
These convictions had to be struck down for exactly the same reason we let even clearly guilty defendants walk if evidence against them was obtained via illegal search, or if they were denied their right to counsel, or if they were coerced into giving a confession: they were denied due process, and their convictions are thus irredeemably tainted.