MovieChat Forums > Starman > Replies
Starman's Replies
What you were imagining is your inner world that you kindly shared with me, I don't have any opinion about you or anyone else, I don't know you, but I know what subconscious you were projecting out, because that's what you basically said you did, you're creating (imagining) a world where a man is feeling like they dominated someone else. That is okay.
God changes appearances every second. Blessed is the man who can recognize him in all his disguises. One moment he is a glass of fresh water, the next, your son bouncing on your knees or an enchanting woman, or perhaps merely a morning walk.
- Nikos Kazantzakis
Thank you for projecting your own world on me, perhaps in there it is about dominance and people full of themselves, and not harmony of God speaking through us and appreciating it. You're welcome to those sleeping soundly at night and/or during the day. Happy Christ Mass.
It's bizarre that anyone would take this as a good representation of Christmas it's about harmony, I don't see it in this film as much.
Thanks for all wonderful suggestions. I would add my own personal favorite, Bishop's Wife with Cary Grant.
Even in my age of 38 I have to stop the film in the middle and focus on something else really fast, this film's power works like a witchcraft, the music score can become very dangerous to our aura as well. Some people are more sensitive and some less. A lot of people can forget the energetic power of how films can impact us, it's not what is in the film, it is all about what is behind the images and sound that is driving it. A lot of little children can feel it very well, it is a matter of frequency we are exposed to.
It is the genuine innocence and beauty of his soul, self discipline pushing themselves and others to be better, positive state of being at all times even despite the outside circumstances or him driving the repressed darker sides out of people to make things better, the master of spiritual law of attraction to self talk in the best possible ways, not necessarily the class that people are attracted to, class is made by culture, always changing based on what society dictates about what is decent and what is not. Many people have a lot to learn from the higher state of mind he's been disciplined to live by. Only few have it, and those few are very powerful abundant people, not always financially.
He's been always exuding a huge sex appeal, in the 1970's and early 80's especially, even these days at an older age he's still a very attractive man, it has a lot to do with his personality, which is a big turn on! Women love self confidence and a certain degree of arrogance in real men.
It is definitely the most naive and unrealistic film of all 3 versions (special effects don't make it more realistic), the first time I have seen it as a kid in the early 80's, as well as much later as a mature adult, I always felt the film lost its credibility after the first 3rd of the film once the characters started behaving not like level headed scientists, but just some unstable hippies, just regular average people, and the tone shifted away from something that a film like the original The Thing, The Haunting, Alien, The Entity or The Exorcist had, the intellectual psychological approach, it started feeling grotesque and comic bookey. There was a lot that could have been done to retain that initial tone the film started with, they could have delved deeper into the characters, how they are dealing with all that terror and paranoia all around them on a psychological level, however there was a decison made because of the pacing, to keep it fast paced and action oriented. Life is not like that, there are moments for introspection, and that's what this film lacked, something William Friedkin, Robert Wise or Ridley Scott would have never done if they made this film version, this is where the The X Files episode Ice gave us a glimpse of how this version could have been, more science, more sophistication, more psychology creates far more mystery through suggestion, instead of actual graphic showing, the more graphic scenes kept off screen the more powerfui the film would be, because the viewers themselves can't be witnesses to everything, and they have to rely on imagination. The film has that here and there, yet in scenes that don't make the viwers as curious enough to care to delve into imagination because the characters don't encourage them as much, which makes the film less Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians, more HP Lovecraft instead, where your imagination is not focused, but more absorbing the atmospehere of the unknown, Carpenter was probably not inspired by Val Guest here, who's been a master in using the power of suggestion rather than showing.
Goldsmith's score was the theatrical version that many of us have seen back in 1985 outside the US, that's most of this planet I think. It is the most fitting for me, because it was the most memorable, since that year, that's more than 30 years and I still remember Lilly's theme and many other magical cues. This is a fairy-tale story in its essence, and that score helped to create that feeling. Probably the most unique score Goldsmith has ever made, it does not sound like anything else when you consider all the new instruments he has incorporated. TD score feels synthetic for a film set deeply in natural elements that deserve human palpable instruments and sounds.
The way George Cosmatos shot the end dancing scene alone made this film absolutely unforgettable for me, some of those images and atmosphere in this film will never leave me as long as I live. This film has perfected what has started with films like Kelly's Heroes. It is fun, it is serious, there's singing, dancing, action, comedy, very balanced epic film, it feels like you live there with all those characters and you don't want to leave, cause the location is so beautiful.
There are no villains, in any film, more like antagonists in a sense of representing an obstacle for certain characters, but then again, even from the antagonists's side the protagonist is an antagonist too. The viewer is supposed to observe objectivelly, not to side with anyone, hence why there are essentially no villains in movies.
For me it is the exact opposite, each film in any franchise is supposed to be original, and not a copy of the previous film, the more different sequel is the more reason for it to exist, otherwise what's the point besides just making more money, studios want more of the same because they are scared of losing the money and fans of the original, that's why they push for more formula of the franchise, hardly taking risks, hence why they also tend to lower the rating, not for the sake of the story and originality, but for the reasons of more profit, the rating is supposed to be true to what the film and story requires, not the franchise, that's how studios think, including some fans who think they own the franchise as if it was one long film, or it's supposed to be more of the same. Problem why films are not more original is not only down to the influence of studios, but especially many toxic fans like this. And that's where lies the ultimate paradox.
Conan films are a good example for me, considering how the pg13 sequel was more popular worldwide and in my experience far superior for most people even today, the rating was appropriate as the nature of the story required it, as it was more fantasy like the comic books they were based on, they were for children from the very beginning. There's dozens of examples, especially outside Hollywood when filmmakers themselves opted for a different rating in the sequels, and not the studio.
I saw it on VHS when I was 8, I was quite shocked, not scared per se as it's not a frightening a film like Halloween, rather shocked and disturbed, that tends to be scary only in nightmares it creates later on, a lot of people used to laugh at me that I loved the film, as they used to call it trash, even after so many years, lesson learned, I used to keep it to myself now that I love the film, I know it's not exactly a film most people watch or like, it would flop today the same like back then. It's not a film for the masses the same like Blade Runner, which also most people tend to stay away from even today, not surprised its sequel was as much popular as the original too, yet ratings make it seem like everyoine loves it. The real world of an averge joe outside the circle of film nthusiasts look quite different.
1997 film, I don't think so, to make a campy film is one thing, to make a campy film that feels like a masterpiece of cinema is another. The 60's series and 97 film have a completely different tone to me anyway.
This is when someone like Lucas would come handy, someone who has appreciation for those serials.
Some filmmakers underestimate how much kids make films popular, I would even welcome a Pixar Batman film made in a more campy fashion... actually that seems like more of a possibility.
Most people don't go watching films for realism, but for challenging the realism, todays action movies are showing less overcoming of mundane reality, unless we watch superhero films, and that's where is the gap, why doing films like Commando when you can go all the way and make characters do all kinds of magical things. There is less middle ground, where the film is grounded and yet the hero does realistically impossible feats, which is far more relatable than a superhero character with magical tricks.
Nice, thanks for sharing. I have actually seen Rambo films for the first time at 8. These films I think really should be watched around that age as long as our parents know how much we can handle, that includes Rambo 4 as its violence images are really just grotesque and comic bookey unlike Saving Private Ryan that have a development of characters underlying its moral impact. I think 13 and 14 was the time when I was already throwing away II and III myself as well, and only cherished the first film, because of the intellectual aspect. It took me more than 10 years to watch films like when I was 8 again, more emotionally than intellectually. But we are all still different, some are prone to different things. Puberty definitely made me a lot more cynical by looking down on other films, that's for sure..
I am not using any chemicals, just the healthiest most natural body possible, which tends to help to recover some of the things that people have lost since childhood because of the damaged cells in the body. That's why I am posting this, how my tastes as well started changing after becoming more healthy and feeling younger, tastes that usually I only had when I was a child, and I know this is what usually happens to other people too when they start healing their body.