MovieChat Forums > kuku > Replies
kuku's Replies
<blockquote>Because marriage is more than a (shallow) contract, like a certificate of marriage is more than a piece of paper.</blockquote>
I still miss your argument there. That's a bold statement, not an argument. You just rephrased your previous statement with different words.
<blockquote>I was not referring to a ''civil union'' and whatever that entails</blockquote>
I don't care. <i>It was you who answered</i> and criticized my original comment. You're supposed to refer to what I was talking about. Otherwise, I don't know why the hell you were answering my comment in first place.
Good debate is not about not saying 'fucking'. It's about understanding what the original statement is referring to, and either extend, contextualize, nuance or refute it.
<blockquote>I'd need to know what specific difference you mean between ''civil union, marriage, formal union".</blockquote>
Finally. Kudos.
I think there should be different type of unions, much in the spirit pre-Christian Rome. The names you proposed are insufficient for the possibilities that should be available. 'Marriage' could be used as a generic term to define different types of unions, or perhaps, you want to save the word 'marriage' for the some specific union sanctioned by Christian clergy? Fine with me, it's always possible to go back to use 'conubium' to define the whole group of unions. In a nutshell: I don't care about the names (anyway they're far from enough), I care about the laws.
<blockquote>My bet is it will be something for you to get your panties in a knot over. Bring it on.</blockquote>
I guess you're trying to insult me there.
I guess... because it's not like what you said made much sense. But hey, it's fine, it's OK. I understand that insulting is a skill that needs practice. Practice makes progress, and I'm sure you practice this skill a lot to be more progressive. 😄
Quite a couple of women. I didn't know about Alexandra David Neil, what a woman. It would interesting to have a movie about her... or better not, since they would rewrite her as the usual proto-woke-feminist archetype when she was a mystic and an anarchist.
That's a problem I find in modern "historical" movies. Either they completely fake history (this movie), or they use real characters... rewritten to fit modern politically/religiously correct archetypes. When I watch a movie about an historical character, I can accept some degree of fictionalization (like dialogues or minor characters), but I expect the general portrait of those characters being faithful to the real historical ones.
Constantine.
Dead Like Me.
Two shows that I loved and died too early.
Interesting. But I missed what was your argument there. A marriage, a civil union or whatever formal union between two people, at the end of the day, it's a contract between two people. You want to meddle in a contract between two people, it's you who has to argue why you should have that right. You didn't provide any argument.
Personally, I think that two dudes (o two chicks) that want to formalize their relationship should have the right to do so. Call it 'marriage' or call it whatever you like. The only thing to debate would be adoption, since it involves a third person. Anything else, it's their fucking life.
You're right. 'Politically correct' is not the right term. It was beyond that. It was fully woke.
Gender equality is <b>impossible</b>. Men are genetically programmed to defend women. This is not gonna change. Biology is unavoidable. Sometimes it's even paradoxically funny, like watching white knights running to defend the right of a damsel in distress to defend herself.
What you could get is some balance and fairness, and a minimum level of freedom, so everybody can follow their calling (if they're willing to pay enough effort).
Of course the reviews are fantastic. It's politically correct mainstream media. They gave fantastic reviews to the past season too. So, what's the news?
Of course it's sarcastic 😁
However... it's still 100% accurate, and that makes sarcasm even better. The movie is obviously promoting Chinese nationalism and pro-Chinese and anti-western agenda... but... BUT... if that was a American movie, you'd probably have more blacks and Hispanics as main positive characters, with Asians being relegated to positive secondary characters, and that'd be the difference. The rest of the movie could be the same. That's food for thought, isn't it?
Interesting. Thanks.
<blockquote>It's impossible to take him seriously in a role as a warrior.</blockquote>
That's why they cast him.
And the new Star Wars theme parks and hotels are failing even worse.
Disney made a lot of money with live-action remakes and Avengers, and they're sinking it into Star Wars.
Barely. Their life span was not very different from ours.
The future is to be replaced 😟 Wokes will be replaced too.
Funny thing is that I used to like tomboyish chicks. I loved Vasquez in Aliens, or Claudia Black in Farscape.
Now, it's enough to dismiss a movie.
That seems the current trend. This is from the trailer of underwater, all very diverse, of course, with every character fitting in the proper race/gender assigned politically correct archetype, and with the main character played by a white chick that looks like a tomboy.
https://biographydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Underwater-2020-770x400.jpg
Hollywood is completely taken by the woke faith. 😞
I have edited the opening message to add it.
<blockquote>So, how is $1.3B break even?</blockquote>
Companies get roughly 50% of box office. If your cost was 650K, then you should make about 650K x 2 = 1.3B box office to pay the cost.
Be aware that this is an average. An US movie makes a higher percentage in domestic (US) and a lower percentage in foreign countries, being China the lowest of all. Check fc31 comment before.
Waititi is a skilled guy, but he's too religious. Better have somebody that it's not pushing the gospel down your throat in every movie.