MovieChat Forums > mav100000 > Replies
mav100000's Replies
But Two has a point, don't he? She was fired for political beliefs. Whether or not you believe her, she didn't say anything bad (I've read the original tweets and they actually aren't offensive if you understand them - I TEACH this as a Krav Maga instructor (low level) and I teach, in the intro-level class, the background, which is Imi Lichtenfeld's first thoughts about Krav. This started as a way to combat early Nazis before the Holocaust truly started. As she was trying to say, it started as harassment in media (for what it was at the time) and neighbors closing in on the Jews before more happened. Two is trying (poorly, yeah?) to say that some people are not interpreting this right (possibly purposely) and are trying to say that she is bad because she made certain comparisons, but really the people who fired her were after for months because she is conservative!
Agreed. Well put! Media has been after her for a bit now. Ok, it wasn't the best comparison, nor was it overly smart of her to make it, but it wasn't making light in any way of the holocaust... She was making a parallel to the early days and she isn't exactly wrong, anyone with a brain can see that there is a minor comparison which could be made there.
Not a good one! Everyone had motive so it really could be any of them. However, I don't think it was Jamie. He at least would have killed Rip too, to be safe.
Good insights! Ok, as for the Godfather reference, who tried to kill everyone in the family off in simultaneous strikes? (I do recommend the original Godfather, btw, but I find 2 to be slow as hell, though about half of the movie is a masterpiece, but all of part 1 is a masterpiece.) We have been speculating as to who actually attacked the family. Note that the last episode gave everyone motive!
Here's a thought: what if Beth's belittling of Jamie coupled with their history (ie: the abortion / sterilization) is actually what keeps Jamie from getting close to a woman (or guy, if in fact he is gay)? It was more traumatic for him than he realized / let on and subconsciously keeps him from getting close to a woman and potentially getting her pregnant...
Also, since you are a fan and I love the show, your thoughts on who played Godfather at the end of season 3? Who is actually to blame? My wife, my parents, a really good friend, and I have gone back and fourth since the end of the season on this and still have no true consensus!
Dude, that is a really good summation! My wife is saying from the other room that we do have to remember that Beth is not emotionally mature, even in adult level, and when you experience intense trauma at a young age, your emotional development stops. Until she deals with the trauma of her mother and family blaming her for the death of her mother, she will not actually, emotionally, deal with the rest and mature.
So, while you are totally right about Jamie, Beth is remembering things from her own perspective and that is really from a child's perspective, emotionally.
Still, such a great show!
I understand how big it is, but keeping it relevant is problematic if they wait too long. Plus, again, like other films, we will remember it more, not less, if released during COVID with so little competition! Give it to streaming or whatever and it will still be well remembered!
See I'm a big Bond fan and watch nearly all of them (I might have 5 or so I don't own) every Nov. - Dec. I was looking forward to this one as Spectre was underwheming, but at this point, should I care anymore? MGM doesn't give two shits about the fans anymore, clearly. It is all about the money. I doubt I'll see it in theaters, though I've seen a good few there!
I definitely agree that the movie could have been trimmed, but other parts could have been given more time to create a better story. It did feel a bit like the writers couldn't decide on anything so they tried to throw it all in. Unfortunately they didn't have someone there to say no once in a while!
I can see that, though I don't think I would agree to split the film into 2. I think we needed to end it where we did, and thematically it did make some sense. But I agree that there were things they could have done to help the film along. Also, they could have just made Talia a partner for Bane instead of his superior, and that would have helped a good bit.
I love your idea of improving the bat swarm gadget, and frankly you are right, bringing the bat signal back would have probably been better and would have made more sense than starting a fire. I like that better too!
I actually finished watching the movie today and I really think it was quite good and had some great moments and points, but it also feels a bit like the writers were really rushed in a few points and could have had even better ideas if they had thought a few more things through.
So to explain my number 2. The whole ending made Bane, who was larger than life in this film, both literally and metaphorically, seem suddenly weak. Talia's reveal should definitely not have been done that way. Plus, Batman technically defeated Bane, but really it was Catwoman who put him down for good, and I just didn't like that. Take her out of that fight and give her something else to do.
For yours:
1. Agree and forgot about that!
2. I'm fine without this as we got some and it took a long time to get back to Batman and the Bat-suit as it was.
3. While I really like the stock exchange heist scene as a movie scene, I agree that they should have tweaked that to make it believable.
4. I'm fine with this. Batman is a symbol as well as a fighter, and this movie did help show that a bit.
5. Agree in part, but it makes sense that the gov't doesn't want to go into the city (remember they tried) for fear of the bomb going off early.
As for my number 4, the reason I would want to see the bat swarm gadget back is that it would definitely tie things into the first film and if Bane is born from darkness and silence, Bats has modified that to bring fear and something new to it which could throw Bane off just enough to give Bats the edge. That's why I want that specifically.
Rock on dude!
Here is my question: who were some of the others who joined but were not part of the original film? I recognize Kutcher so far, but not sure about some of the others. If they mention names later, I'm not there yet so I'll find out, but still pretty cool! I'm having fun with the read despite the limitations to it.
Also graduated in 03! While I had a car later on in high school, I went to private school so I didn't go cruising around my home town. Plus, in suburban Chicago, there was less of that, but more gatherings at different locations.
This is not claimed anywhere in his book. It was apparently claimed in some interview, yet reports do not corroborate this as he should have been overseas, based on his deployment history, at the time he says he was there.
While I agree with some of this, the ball torture was in the original Casino Royale book, I believe, so that is not part of the rest of this argument.
Great reply! I did not know that! Makes sense, but I do wish they had worked that in at some point.
So here is my question on this: now that there are two delorians in the old west (the one Doc used to get there and the same one brought back by Marty), why not siphon the gas from one to the other? Patch up the hole in the tank or line and go!
Haha, no, I mentioned it to my wife while we were watching the latest episode!