MovieChat Forums > rooprect > Replies
rooprect's Replies
That would explain the double dose of wtf haha
[quote]You are basing your understanding of militias and the second off of red dawn..
Please uninstall internet explorer and stop embarassing yourself[/quote]
I vote that Red Dawn should be recognized as a constitutional document. And to argue its validity in a court of law we'll get My Cousin Vinny.
Thanks for the warning.I just checked out a review for it... dog lovers are warned to stay away.
I agree, even if it's not real, some directors use a dog's death for cheap shock value, or in some cases "humor".
I gotta say though, there's a funny scene in "Something About Mary" where Ben Stiller is wrestling with a 5 lb dog, but the dog is soo obviously a fake prop. That was pretty hilarious.
(Tough guys talking smack, ending in) "Then I'll see you in hell!"
(Character is confronted about a lie, responds with) "I don't know what you're talking about!"
Or my favorite, when a character has a nightmare, wakes up and bolts upright in bed screaming. When has anyone EVER woken up screaming?
Ah I get you know. And sorry, I totally misread your argument thinking you were anti-nonviolence and in favor of Draconian law (which does have its appeal but I won't comment).
Yes indeed, we totally agree that the next step in evolution will be toward rationality, logic and efficiency. It sounds like you're describing something like the Martians in "Stranger in a Strange Land" ...they are neither good nor evil, and they keep to themselves, but if you come at them with a knife they'll vaporize you and then resume knitting or whatever they were doing.
In my head I see that as the most rational and efficient form of existence. But in my heart I want to believe in a truly benevolent consciousness. Pure fantasy, I know, but when I picture the perfect world that has meaning--as opposed to a universe that simply operates efficiently like a machine--I have to envision some sort of benevolent intentions. Jumping to the sequel 2010, that's what we see: an intelligence that provides for the solar system, while still warning of dire consequences if you step out of line, but there's no question that it's a nurturing force.
IF there are superior beings (big "if") I'd like to think they are "nice". Sounds stupid to say that, but what's the alternative: a cold unfeeling universe where nobody has any purpose other than to look out for number 1? (Sadly all indications point to yes)
Just be sure to start with Season 1 since Season 2 sorta turns into a major cheese fest :/
But yes, you nailed both of the 2 widely proposed solutions to Fermi. The more depressing one is that civilizations fail or destroy themselves before they achieve interstellar travel. The optimistic one is that there are superior lifeforms but they choose not to visit or interfere with civilizations that are in development (sorta Star Trek prime directive stuff). But now I'm wondering if there could be a 3rd explanation, that superior beings either sacrifice themselves or are easily destroyed by more savage lifeforms--that would be the most depressing of all!
-Christopher Walken in... um, everything. But especially in "Suicide Kings"
-Michael Wincott as Top Dollar in "The Crow" (not to mention Funboy, Tintin, T-Bird, Skank, the whole jolly club with jolly pirate nicknames)
-Pamela Hensley, princess Ardala in Buck Rogers homina homina
Might be time for me to watch it again. I also really liked it, just as I really liked "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine" written by the same guy Kaufman. But wow it's like inhaling a mentholyptus cough drop right into your brain.
[quote]I think the fear here, and it's probably a legitimate one, is that neither of these fractured brands would be big enough to defeat the democrats. This is why so many Republicans who probably don't like Trump are also careful not to upset his base out of fear they'll isolate those voters.[/quote]
Exactly. That's what disgusts me about the Republican Party and the reason why I disavowed any affiliation (yup I was once a Republican). In its effort to draw in more voters it started pandering to the lowest level of society. Now it has a huge mess because it has alienated people like me who don't want to be associated with racists, the NRA, corruption, hate and vulgar old men.
Retromogul, you've touched on the great dilemma of existence: when one embraces the ethical/evolutionary high ground, one becomes vulnerable to those who don't. As you said, it would be almost like sacrificing oneself.
Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? It essentially says that given the innumerable stars & planets in the universe, and given the inconceivable amount of time that the universe has existed: the universe should be teeming with life by now. Why isn't it?
Scientists haven't agreed on an answer, but maybe it's something along the lines of what you said. A truly evolved species wouldn't be so quick to kill all its threats and may even sacrifice itself to allow a "subordinate" species to live.
Check out Space: 1999 "Space Brain" which poses this scenario. (On a side note, I've always said Space:1999 is about the closest thing TV has ever given us to 2001:A Space Odyssey)
I vote moviechat should start its own full database. Yeah I know it would take the labor of a thousand lifetimes, but then we could all say "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"
[quote]I'd be twice as mad because in my opinion he really is doing long term, if not irreparable damages to their brand[/quote]
I think that wave has passed, and most anti-Trump republicans (those who swore in the primaries that they'd never vote for him) are in damage control mode. This means not outright supporting him but not condemning him either. Just keeping quiet has proven to be an effective way of dealing with political problems.
But I guess we'll see when midterms come along. Republicans are gambling that they'll retain control, thus proving that the party can survive Trump. But if they're wrong, all hell will break loose. It'll be the quintessential "emperor has no clothes" moment, and I don't think any Republican is prepared.
Ideally here's what I'd love to see. I want the Republican Party to fracture into 2 separate parties: the traditional GOP & a new "Populist" party which means Trump's GOP. At least then everyone would know where they stand, and nobody has to hypocritically tolerate the policies & shenanigans of the other.
True, so Trump is balancing between pleasing his supporters (coming right out and admitting it all) vs. playing the political game (he wasn't part of it so it wasn't an illegal campaign contribution). He's choosing to play the political game, which is something he campaigned against. I'd love to know how Trump supporters are reacting in their hearts.
Just guessing... they're probably dismissing the whole thing as no big deal morally, then assuming Trump is being clever for sneaking around the campaign laws, so he's justified in lying. Total guess, I don't know how else they can justify it.
I'm still trying to figure out how to differentiate a "horny italian accent" from a regular Mister Geppetto Italian accent. It would be quite embarrassing to mix them up.
I'm genuinely curious as well and would love to hear 1 Trump supporter chime in.
I figure it's pretty clear cut. He had an affair, he paid her off to be quiet, that should've been the end of story. But by lying(?) about it now, he's showing he's afraid to be honest about who he is, the 1 thing people respected him for.
If he's really telling the truth that he had no knowledge of the payout, why doesn't he hold a press conference and spell it out clearly, instead of being evasive? I thought Trump supporters admired him for the direct approach.
For real. Well I might've exaggerated a little, but it's about a writer who decides to make a play about his life, and he ends up hiring actors to play everyone he knows, as he reconstructs the entire city of NY in a warehouse, and then becomes a character in his own play, and it sorta loops around forever haha. Someone was seriously wasted when they dreamed that up.
We should all be so lucky to go out hootin, hollerin & rodeo riding an A bomb.
The more I think of it, Strangelove is pretty awesome. So yea I'll go with 2001 and Strangelove as my faves. But Kubrick's other films that I've seen, though impressive, bother me in the same way Quentin Tarantino flicks bother me. They rely too heavily on shock value and visceral thrills (violence, sex, etc) rather than things that stimulate your mind. I haven't seen Paths of Glory but if you think I might like it, I'll definitely check it out. Oh and when George C Scott does his duck-n-roll in the war room, finishing his speech without missing a beat, I lose it every time (yes I know it was a "goof" but the best goof in movie history).
Anyone who can fully grasp Synecdoche NY (2010) on 1 viewing has my respect. You've heard of a story within a story? That one is a story within a story within a script within a movie within a play within another story.
[quote]Of course not. But violence isn't just unhinged brutality. Human hitting a wasp is also violence and it's not really an act of emotional grunting glory.[/quote]
Right there, again, you prove my point. Smashing a wasp's brains out for daring to fly within 2 feet of you while wasps are no more aggressive than the average dog, is a common human throwback to amygdalian savagery that we don't recognize because we aren't evolved enough to think beyond fear.
Doubtlessly you'll write me off as being in favor of some non-violent "fad" but that's the trap of being stuck in the old ways and resistant to new ideas. This movie presents evolution in 2 parables. Savage ape to refined human. Refined human to starchild. In both parables, violence is necessary but we see the protagonist growing out of it, becoming less dependant, less haphazard and more discerning or reasonable, as you say. So I don't understand your resistance to Clarke's idea that the next level of evolution would be nonviolent (anti-nukes). The starchild didn't indiscriminantly vaporize all military bases but simply dissolved all nukes. An intelligent and nonviolent solution to a violent threat. Much more evolved than any instance of humans ending a conflict.