MovieChat Forums > Darren > Replies
Darren's Replies
Well said. If I had been Rick, the only way I would ever have returned to the Heapsters' compound was with an armed raiding party to eliminate them as the threat they have proven themselves to be. The Heapsters are crazy, treacherous, and sadistic, they are not neighbors with whom one could hope to coexist peacefully.
And to the comments about people wandering off all too often, I'd add that the writers are also having them get surprised way too often. When Carl went out and met Sadik, and they got attacked and Carl looked like he was about to get a bite taken out of his arm by one of the two zombies he was struggling with, I kept asking myself (in disgust) how the hell this party of zombies got close enough to surprise them. You ever walk through the woods? The ground's covered with a carpet of dead leaves. A group of zombies shuffling along, dragging their feet like they do, would have made noise you could hear coming a mile off.
Your source for this?
I enjoyed the movie as well. It wasn't great, but I was entertained. I disagree about the 2 hour run time though. And I also can't really see how you can claim the 2 hour run time worked, and then turn around and note that the Flash and Cyborg were underdeveloped. They were underdeveloped [i]because[/i] of the 2 hour run time. Ditto Steppenwolf. The 2 hour time made it impossible to fit that in and still have the rest of the story take place. I think those two heroes and the villain could have been fleshed out much better with a 2 1/2 hour run time. That wouldn't have fixed all the problems the movie had, but it would have helped develop those characters and even out the pacing -- as it is, I thought the first part of the movie felt rushed, like they were in too much of a hurry to assemble the team.
It really is a shame. This could have been a great movie, but as it is, it's a mediocre one with some really good moments, and some very good character interaction, which I thought was the best aspect of the film, especially the dynamic between Bruce and Diana. I liked the scene where Batman snaps back that HE'S not the one with real problems moving on, and then taunts her for being in hiding for a century, and not living up to her potential to be an inspirational hero like Superman, because she hasn't gotten over Steve Trevor's death yet -- that's classic Batman, pissing people off and pushing their buttons to get what he needs out of them.
Uh, no.
No, but he is someone who thinks there is only one legitimate way to represent these characters, which is mighty odd given how many different times they've been reimagined. Good thing not everybody thinks that way, or we might still be stuck with campy Adam West Batman.
Nope, sorry, culturally as well as legally. Guns weren't much an issue in Victorian England because ALL crime was low by today's standards, not because nobody had guns. Guns weren't much of an issue, but that was not because they were unavailable: they were totally unregulated in any way whatsoever, and the only thing stopping ANYONE from buying one was an inability to afford it. Gentlemen quite commonly carried weapons on their person if they ventured anywhere near the seedier parts of English cities -- sword canes and pocket revolvers sold in very large numbers in the period. There was a thriving gun culture in England in the Victorian era, and the right of English subjects to keep and bear arms went back to medieval times and was actively exercised. And the official attitude of the times was quite favorable to the exercise of this right as well. In 1900 Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury, said he would "laud the day when there is a rifle in every cottage in England." That same year, there was a cooperative effort led by the Duke of Norfolk and the mayors of London and Liverpool as well as a number of prominent gentlemen, to promote the creation of rifle clubs for working men. The Prime Minister and almost all the rest of the aristocracy viewed the widespread ownership of rifles by the working classes as an asset to national security. When the first gun regulations were enacted in England in an effort to disarm anarchists and other political radicals, not criminals, and the first really stringent controls were passed in 1914 as a World War One national security measure aimed at curbing any possible domestic trouble fomented by foreign agents.
It really is lamentable how well the media of today have succeeded in changing people's attitudes about guns, not merely to where they are different, but where they are woefully ignorant that attitudes were ever different, and most people did NOT view guns and gun owners as evil.
A man like the H.G. Wells of this story -- a utopian dreamer who believes there will one day be an ideal society without violence and with nearly perfect justice -- might envision a day when no one had or needed weapons, and he might have been saddened to discover they were still widespread, but the idea that he would have been shocked, shocked! by their widespread availability is simply absurd, given that he came from exactly such a society himself.
Yep, and I checked out before the end of the episode.
"Are you a Doctor Who fan?"
"I am since the Doctor was as woman. Hashtag, feminism."
Hashtag: GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!
I am so goddamn sick of this shit! EVERY show has to have multiple gay characters, because, you know, social justice. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with homosexuality. If that's your thing, fine. It's your private life, I genuinely don't care. But Hollywood is making a concerted effort to promote LGBTQ because they are crusading for social justice. Not telling good stories; crusading for social justice. EVERY show has to have feminist characters, because, you know, social justice. I'm all for gender equality in law and morality. Women should have all the opportunities men have. But Hollywood is making a concerted effort to promote third wave feminism because they are crusading for social justice. Not telling good stories; crusading for social justice.
Fuck you people!!! Tell me good stories. That's ALL I want from you. If you can't do that, fuck you, I'm out. My time is valuable, and I have other things I can do with it. I have had it up to my fucking eyeballs with goddamn SJWs politicizing EVERYTHING! Go fuck yourselves. I just want entertainment. You people are NOT wise philosophers who will make a better world, you are fucking entertainers. That's all. Stay in your damn lane. If you can't stop shoving social justice down my throat, I'm out.
I agree. I also always thought the story simply worked better and seemed more meaningful if Deckard was human. After all, here was Deckard -- a blade runner tasked with hunting down and exterminating replicants -- coming to see the humanity in these synthetic humans and deciding instead to protect Rachael from others who would try to kill her. If he went on to have a romantic relationship with her, it reinforces that still further: he's reached a point where he really doesn't care if she was born or manufactured. Either way she's a sentient being who has value, and is entitled to the same rights as an ordinary human. I think the story works better showing replicants developing emotionally and becoming fully human in ever meaningful sense of the word, and regular humans beginning to realize this.
I disagree. And while I can certainly understand your assessment, for me the only part of the movie that hasn't aged well are the special effects, which obviously can't hold a candle to those of more recent superhero movies. I think this film has aged far, far better than the Michael Keaton Batman movies. I think this movie is hands down THE best origin story of any superhero yet seen on film. The music, the acting, the setting, it gives it all an epic, almost mythic quality that's entirely appropriate for an iconic hero who has basically become an integral part of America's mythology.
Others have addressed the alleged plot holes, so there's no need for me to go over that again; I basically agree with what's been said. As for Luthor being too comical, I kind of agree, but you have to remember when this movie was made, and what had come before it. This was the first time a comic book superhero had been the subject of a feature film. Prior to that comic book superheroes had only been adapted in TV and movie serials (which were the pre-television equivalent of TV, and had a cast and a budget to reflect this fact). It may be difficult to keep in mind today, when A list actors are lining up to take parts in movies in this genre, but this film was made when comic book superheroes were not that "respectable" as a subject matter for movies. (The success of this film is the major reason that began to change.) In 1978 there was still the feeling that a superhero in tights was rather silly, and a fear that if the movie appeared totally serious in tone, it would be too hard to swallow, given the "kid-stuff" subject matter. So they made a creative decision to balance Reeve's completely serious portrayal with a lighter, more comedic performance from Hackman. It probably was the right decision in the context of 1978, though it hurts the film with some viewers today.
Actually, no, I agree with him completely.
"Anyhow, I couldn't understand why Cersei keeps calling it treasonous that Jaimie met with Tyrion."
It doesn't seem reasonable, but then Cersei does not seem to be a particularly reasonable person. She may have been once, but I think she has a naturally vindictive streak, and it's getting worse, she's getting more malevolent the more she tries to hang onto the power she's seized. I think Jaime is quite aware of it as well, and I think at this point, he still loves her, but he no longer likes her very much. I think he also realizes she's embarked on a suicidally dangerous course of action. He even pointed out to her that if the dead win, they're all doomed, and if their living enemies win, those enemies will remember the betrayal, and they have dragons and a bigger army. What's more, both Jon and Dany have the genuine loyalty of most of their followers, while Jaime is probably literally the [i]only[/i] one who is selflessly loyal to Cersei.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the popular theory that Jaime will kill Cersei (just as he did the mad king, and for the exact same reasaon) proves to be true.
Bran may have gone back to see Littlefinger's betrayal of Ned right there and then -- he was able to go back and view Rhaegar and Lyanna's secret wedding instantly upon request, after all -- but I rather got the impression that his trial had been set up in advance, and Sansa had already got Bran to go look at Littlefinger holding the knife to Ned's throat before the assembly had ever been called, so that the revelations were all prepared in advance.
Maybe, that's what he wants another double for, but then again, maybe it's for something else entirely. If I were Cooper, I'd stick with Janey-E. The years have not been especially kind to Audrey, while Janey-E is still pretty smokin'.
And that aside, what evidence do we really have that he wants to go after Audrey? He wasn't in any kind of relationship with her before entering the Black Lodge, both of them were with other people at the time. Yes, Audrey was originally intended as a love interest for Cooper back at the beginning of the original series, but Lynch and the rest of the show's creators went in another direction, and it's difficult to see how they could put the two characters together now in any way that doesn't appear forced or artificial, so I hope they don't.
I don't see it as out of character at all. We haven't seen Littlefinger display weakness before now, but that's only because he's such a skilled manipulator, he's thus far managed to avoid being caught in a position of weakness. By his own admission, he was ineffectual at direct confrontation -- when he tried to fight for Catelyn Stark as a young man, he lost. So he learned to get what he wants through scheming and manipulation, and it worked for him, since he was smarter than almost everyone else.
But all his schemes are undone, because they all depended on his being able to manipulate people, and that, in turn, depended on his being able to dig up dirt on people, discover secrets, keep secrets, keep people in the dark, etc., use information selectively to manipulate people by controlling what they know and what they think. But that doesn't work anymore if all the secrets are revealed. And Bran has the ability to see almost [i]anything[/i]. Once he discovers a thing might have happened, he can go back and observe it, and learn the truth. This enables him to discover everything that is hidden, and reveal it to others, and it takes away all of Littlefinger's power.
So once Littlefinger is robbed of the source of his power, he shows his true weakness and lack of courage, which was part of his nature all along. I don't find it out of character for him at all. Quite the contrary, I think it revealed his true character, the one his intelligence and ruthlessness enabled him to keep hidden up to now.
It's interesting that although he's back, he seems fully aware of his alternate life as Dougie Jones, and who Janey-E and Sonny Jim are. He also seems to want to stick with them -- after all, he promised to return, and appeared to mean it sincerely.
Will she? It's hard to say. There are a couple of possibilities. For one thing Jon's a man of his word, and he's sworn fealty to her. Asserting a claim over hers would abrogate that allegiance he swore, and he might not be willing to do that. Dany herself [i]might[/i] be willing to admit that his claim trumps hers (though admittedly that seems unlikely). And it's also possible that they could mutually choose to sidestep the whole issue by a marriage of alliance. The Targaryen's have practiced incest for centuries, so their being blood relatives is no impediment in that sense. Jon has the allegiance of the North, which he gained independently of any birthright; Dany has her dragons, and the Dothraki and Unsullied. An alliance makes all the sense the world, and no other prospective mate brings either of them anywhere near as much advantage as they get from marrying each other. And they're attracted to each other to boot. So there seems very little to stand in the way of a marriage of alliance. Doubtless Tyrion will counsel Dany to make such an alliance as well, when the time comes. Varys will probably also add his support to the idea.
I have little doubt that in season 8, to maintain the dramatic tension of the show, the writers will come up with something that puts such an alliance in doubt. But I also think that issue will probably be resolved, and we will see Jon and Dany marry in the end and unite the seven kingdoms under their rule.
(As an aside, I wonder if we will see Jon proved beyond any doubt to be a Targaryen by displaying the same immunity to fire that Dany has.)
I agree. People are assuming he was blind because he had a braille Bible, but that is quite literally the only evidence for him being blind, and absolutely everything else is against it. A far likelier explanation is the he simply learned to read braille.
Sorry, you're 100% off base.
Pike formations as used in late medieval/early Renaissance Europe were squares. They presented a hedge of pikes on all four sides; there's no flank to get around. And they were [i]completely[/i] invulnerable to cavalry. The pikes outreached cavalry lances, and the horsemen simply could not get close enough. Dothraki have even shorter weapons, and also lack the armor that protected European heavy cavalry. It doesn't matter how significant your numerical advantage is when you can't bring any force to bear on the enemy.
In Europe the answer was swordsmen. Archers weren't really enough by themselves; the pikemen were heavily enough armored themselves to stand up to missile fire quite well. What brought about the end of the Swiss and German pike formations was Spanish infantry using sword and shield. It was actually a replay of the way the Roman legions, using swords and shields, had defeated Greek hoplite armies armed with pikes at Cynoscephalae in 364BC. Pikes have long reach, but they're unwieldly and no good at bad breath range, so if a more maneuverable enemy can get past the pike points and into your formations, they can chop you to pieces. Sword and shield infantry can do that, but cavalry cannot. It's actually a paper/rock/scissors situation. Swordsmen can get into pike formations and use their greater maneuverability and handier weapons to gut those, pike formations; but their weapons don't have the reach to hold off cavalry. Heavy cavalry can ride down and crush non-pikemen infantry with their long-reaching lances and devastating impact in the charge; but they can't get close enough to break pike formations. Pike formations can hold off any cavalry charge by presenting a wall of pike heads that cavalry simply can't break through; but they can't stand up against swordsmen who can get into the formation.
I don't see how that will make any difference. Flint-knapping is a totally different skill than forging steel, and that's essentially the same technique that one would use to make blades and spearheads out of obsidian. Gendry shouldn't be any better at it than he is at basket weaving or shoe making.