MovieChat Forums > UpSideSunny > Replies
UpSideSunny's Replies
There was a scene in the movie where it is shown there are only 3 of those creatures suspected to be in the area. It is on some notes shown in the background.
Wait what? We went to watch this last night and I didn't catch any of that. Time to re-watch.
I get your point, but you just blew my mind with the Luke and deathstar thing. You should seriously make a post about that.
This movie was just so bad. I mean, he is on titan now and (it's exactly the point you made) now what? Bad bad bad.
Another user pointed out in a thread I made about this movie something that makes this movie fall flat on its face. If you can transform people to survive on titan, then it would be easier to transform them to exist better on earth which, despite its issues, is still better suited to human survival.
If you finished it, what did you think? If you didn't, then at least I saved you an hour of your life.
I totally understand one can have great levels of immersion in any media, whether it be books, D&D or whatever.
What bothers me in this instance is that they [i]depict[/i] the immersion of the character as though it is more than what it is. When they show "in game" scenes the manner of its depiction is inconsistent for me with the manner in which they depict the character interacting with that virtual word. In this instance he is just wearing a headset. The way they depict the virtual world would make more sense to me if the user had a deeper and more meaningful way to experience the virtual world and express themselves in it. It just seems "off" to me.
Batman (1989) created a world in which it just makes sense that characters like batman and the joker can exist. The Dark Knight Trilogy tried to create a batman, joker and scarecrow that could fit into the real world, which I felt strained the concept of batman since I was constantly wondering "how viable is that?". I prefer watching the more exaggerated "cartoonish" or "graphic novel" type movies like Batman (1989) since it doesn't make me question the physics or absurdity of it. It is for that reason alone that I argue Batman (1989) is the better movie, since it created world that was perfect for batman to exist in.
Yeah... I think you just hit the nail right on the head there. I had something that nagged at me, but I couldn't put it into the words that you just did.
I am not a religious person, but from trying to understand a religious perspective, I think your answer is probably the most reasonable one I have read that makes sense to me.
Do you think your argument for the soul dying with the first iteration, has some bearing on the argument that the consciousness of the first iteration does not continue to the next iteration, and that the second iteration is merely a "good copy"? Do you think those two arguments are the same, share some similarity, or do you think that they are two different issues altogether?
The way I understood it is that the stack is only the most current backup. Their brain is still their brain, and the stack is below it taking in information. If the brain is destroyed the stack is there (if it isn't destroyed too) to use as a backup. It is only the really wealthy that have satellites etc that can provide a further layer of backing up. But either way the principle is the same.
When you die you die. Your consciousness is ended. So if you get shot in the brain or die of cancer the thing which gives you consciousness (your brain) is gone. What is left is a backup of what you were, but it is not a continuity of your consciousness. As far as a stack is concerned, at best it is the closest proximity of who you were, but it isn't "you".
Someone above mentioned that it wouldn't matter to them because they do not believe in a soul and that misses the point entirely. All you are is the sum total of processes contained in your brain. If it gets destroyed, then you get destroyed. If it gets damaged, you get damaged. A soul is not necessary for this particular argument whatsoever. This raises an interesting idea. if you ONLY have a stack and none of the fancy extra satellites and you get brain damage, and want another sleeve, then that sleeve would do you no good, since the stack would be the last version of you - the brain damaged one.
What?! Can you elaborate a little more? I totally missed that.
Edit: there is already a spoiler warning at the top, so spoil away
Would you say it is as good as season one of Daredevil? I have had plenty of times where actors put me off, but I was won over due to how good they were. Like for example Heath Ledger as the joker or Ben Affleck as batman. If this show is any good I am willing to give it a go, but if the consensus is that it is a turd I honestly do not want to invest the time.
Is it true that other than the first and last three episodes it is pretty much just talking? I saw that mentioned on another thread. If so, i think I might skip it.
You made the effing thread! Buritto?
WTF is happening in this thread?!?!!?
I am also not sure if you were replying to me or the poster below me.
I wasn't offended at all. Although the "Jizz scene" was, I think by far, the cruder of the jokes that was pulled. My only point was that if someone was thinking of abandoning the show because of the crass humor in the first episode, that they shouldn't, as it definitely does get better as the show progresses. There are other episodes, especially with the "stress relief", that may make some people uncomfortable, but the show has much more to offer other than those instances of the extreme.
As I said, I enjoyed the show. Just don't abandon it because of the "Jizz" scene in the beginning because even if that isn't your type of humor, there is much more to it and it does get better.
Castaway is obviously the better movie, but I loved What Lies Beneath. Then again, I love the actors in this movie, so I am definitely biased. I don't think that the genre this movie is in (horror/thriller/psychological) is as popular as whatever genre Castaway was in (Tom Hanks genre?!).
I honestly can't say that there are many (if, but a few) movies that Tom Hanks is in that I don't love. Ton Hanks is an acting power-house.
I will never compare Harrison Ford to Tom Hanks, but this particular movie is excellent (in my opinion) for what it purports to be - a fun psychological horror/thriller with two great actors that were way better than the material actually justified.
I love these types of movies so once again, I might be a little biased.