MovieChat Forums > CupidDeLocke > Replies
CupidDeLocke's Replies
I wish filmmakers would realize that subtlety, stillness, quiet, and tension building are often more intense than loud sounds and fast cuts. I was more engaged while watching the original and got less bored even though it was over 3 hours long. Movies should be about storytelling, not making a spectacle.
Overall, the kid actors in the original were more convincing, especially Bill and Richie. Each kid was more distinguished and fleshed out. In the remake, Stan and Mike are just kinda there. Richie and Eddie are one-note over-the-top caricatures, as are Bev’s dad, Eddie’s mom, and the bullies. The bond between the lucky 7 was really felt in the original- something that’s lacking in the remake.
I totally agree about the Georgie scene. I just knew the movie was gonna blow when they couldn’t even make that scene decent. He was too trusting, even for a little kid. What kid would be that trusting towards a menacing clown in the gutter? Georgie in the original was more realistically cautious.
The character of Pennywise was just a CGI-looking joke. The original had some bad special effects, but Pennywise himself should look and act like a real clown that kids would be drawn to.
Finally, the two tones of scary and comedic clashed and just didn’t mesh together well. I’m not saying the original is a masterpiece. It had its flaws, but it’s certainly more watchable than the remake.
Adult Richie is annoying, but kid Richie is the best. Richie in the remake is also annoying.
There’s such a thing as age-appropriate. Hitting on someone who’s over a decade younger than you is innapropriate. I’ve always hated being hit on by much older men.
All of these accused men so far- that I’ve read about at least- have basically admitted to wrong doing with their fumbling, indirect responses or straight up admissions. If someone falsely accuses you of something, you would make clear that you are NOT guilty of wrong doing and that that person is lying.
Psycho/Bates Motel
There’s sometimes ridiculous scenes where a small-framed woman with no superpowers will fight off a horde of men unarmed or with a non-firearm weapon. Or where a violent, buff man will suddenly become sheepish once the small woman threatens him. Women can be portrayed as strong and courageous realistically without this laughable nonsense.
I don’t know why you brought up the women of the Walking Dead as an example of defemenized women. They have no choice but to be fighters and survivalists in a desperate situation.
I don’t like the stoic spy, man in black type character ala James Bond. It’s disappointing they seem to be making more movies with women in these roles. Regardless of the action, if the leads have the personalities of cardboard, then the movie is boring.
Are you fuckin kidding me?! A grown-ass married man who cheats on his wife is at least 90% responsible for destroying his family. The ‘other woman’ is just taking advantage of his lack of respect for his wife and family and if she doesn’t aid him in cheating, it will be with someone else. She can’t be the ‘other woman’ without the husband’s willingness to destroy HIS marriage and family. He’s the one who took a vow of fidelity and faithfulness through trials, tribulations, and temptations. The other woman took on no such responsibility. Nor does she necessarily have any relationship with his wife and kids. It’s not at all manly to refuse to take responsibility for your actions and to claim that women are responsible for your actions, as if you are 5 years
old. Grow the hell up and be a man. You wouldn’t be saying it’s the other man’s fault whenever a woman cheats. It’s still the woman who gets all the blame. This type of mysogyny is not rational or logical and is indicative of immaturity, egomania, narcissism, and entitlement. It has no place in a civilized society. Oh and in your little fictional scenario, the majority of the blame lies with the thieves. You’d be stupid to think otherwise.
Consequences can’t be imposed on the perps if the victims are willing to be paid off. I can see some obscure, new to Hollywood actress deciding that nothing good can come of reporting the assault, but when you’re a relatively big name and the abuse is an ‘open secret’, there’s just no excuse. People talk about how ‘powerful’ this guy was. A big part of the reason a pig like him can be so powerful is because the people surrounding him are willing to be dollar-worshiping doormats and enablers. Sadists and sociopaths will always exist no matter how they are raised and no matter how healthy society’s attitudes are. It’s the responsibility of ‘normal’ people to not be ruled by apathy and greed and to actually care about others and to NOT enable these bastards. Just think how different things would be if it was normal for anyone who knew about this ‘open secret’ to openly deride this creep BY NAME to the public and refuse to work with him.