MovieChat Forums > TheAdlerian > Replies
TheAdlerian's Replies
As a fun side note, Lee said that making those noises is a form of psychological warfare because it gets your enemy caught up in the weirdness and distracts them. I work in a profession where I have had to confront crazy people physically and I learned that from Lee. However, my technique is to say something really weird or ask a strange question.
It works!
I like Bruce Lee a lot, but hate discussions about him.
He was an actor FIRST and he was promoting himself to be impressive as his character in the movies. It's the same as a guy playing James Bond, he's not going to be in public or in interviews acting like a pussy or a fool because he wants to sell you that he''s James Bond.
It doesn't matter if Lee could fight as he did in movies because life is not a movie and it doesn't matter if an actor can do what his characters do. However, in the 60s they would tend to promote actors as cool, suave, tough, etc when in actuality actors pretend for a living, wear makeup, are nervous about their image, and not very manly.
From your comment, lol.
You are incorrect about the diagnosis.
Being manipulative with the feelings of others and being reckless and aggressive are the same thing. It's just a less overt form of aggression. That's why the word "passive-aggressive" exists.
What you're saying is illogical and naive. You're using the term "sleeping around" as a meaningless and empty phrase. If you think about what mating is and what it's real function is and how it tends to generate a lot of emotions, they you can't "sleep around" unless you have little emotional and little value for people you do partial mating with.
Bisexuals are a typical of sociopath and homosexuals a type of misanthrope.
You say you have strong feelings, but that could be the opinion of a crazy person whose feelings are weird compared to others.
For instance, you said "those I have relationships with" many many people, not just one or two life long situations which is the case with people who experience love.
As I said in my last post, look up Antisocial Personality Disorder.
If you like EVERYTHING then you like nothing.
If you ask me my favorite food and I say everything, then it means I have no real love for food and so I don't really like it. Bisexuals don't have a "dream type" like most people where they're waiting for that certain one to come along, they instead want to have sex with someone that stimulates them in some way, then the next one comes along.
Even worse than a sociopath, that's how psychopaths are said to operate. They see a person and that person is an object to that that will or won't provide the type of stimulation they want. When they don't get it they move on.
On a final note, what fits the description of a sociopath better than an actor as sociopaths are actors. Many actors are probably sociopaths as they rarely have relationships, typically are into drugs, have substance abuse issues, have kids right and left, etc.
I have worked in psych for a long time and if you look up the symptoms for Antisocial Personality Disorder you will see. Do the same for Narcissistic personality Disorder.
A narcissist wants recognition they don't deserve. Meanwhile, a sociopath uses people and has shallow relationships. Bisexuals fit that description.
Anyone who is bisexual is like a sociopath in my opinion as they don't have very strong feelings for anyone and are just into the physical sensations a person can give them, then they move on to the next person.
If he's like that then he's another nut in showbiz.
However, on screen I like him and don't care to know much about his personal life.
I'm sorry, but that's stupid.
The street value of marshmallows, is ABC...
That's something that is never said because there is no street value for marshmallows. So, it sounds weird and stupid to talk about candy as if it were some black market product. There is no black market for gas and people aren't gassing up their cars in some back alley or walking around with cans full of gas they just bought off a street corner.
I did read the Castaneda books a long time ago.
You're kinda missing the point that a real story has a plot.
It's okay to have modern dance moves, Indian ones, or what create some kind of effect. But, the has to be a reason why it works, why people are doing it, etc.
The octopus was the clincher for me. That told me that a bunch of idiots write this show and just throw things in just because. That has happened on many shows like Lost and X-Files. Bullshit just happens and in the end nothing is explained or matters. Such a story may present valid ideas, but that's it. If that's the case the valid ideas become stupid because the entire story is meaningless.
I could be wrong but there was too much weirdness last season with no explanation. I think they did that to create extra mystery to string viewers along to extend their payday from Netflix.
I just read this recently and was amazed.
Actors are really something else, so much weirdness.
Good explanation.
The movie is about modern life versus primitive.
It was popular in the 60s to question whether society was corrupting or not. That goes back to 1700s French philosophy. Anyway, the advanced people had no challenges and got weird as a result. The primitive people had passion and were living every day like it is important.
That's hippie 60s stuff, but we still hear it today at times.
That's not true.
You shouldn't have to suspend all believe.
Oh, they have magic balloon boots and Pepsi makes them geniuses, but it's a modern day real life setting about cars! That's too much. The amount of acceptance is based on the premise of the movie.
It's nothing like the original story.
People are now used to Epic films that are sweeping in nature and epic. The original story was huge and emotional. These Fox films are cheaply made and cut down too much to be good.
Eva Green put her all into acting intense and bizarrely!
She should have gotten an award.
I seems like a ripoff of the Bowie song.
He the first but characters like this are from books and comics. Actors bring them to life but there's plenty of room to keep them going. Batman has been in films since the 40s and there's plenty of people who like all the different actors.
If a high quality Indy film was made with a new actor people would love it.
The deal with Solo was they cast a short actor who kinda looked like Ford and attempted his mannerisms. That's an instant fail. It's like a band trying to be popular by acting like The Beatles. You can only be popular by doing it your own way. So, for Indy, Solo they need actors who have the right look but also bring their own interpretation to the role.
That's the way phone books used to work in the US.
When the internet started out there were free phone books then it all disappeared.
I disagree that these characters be messed with.
A well done character is a simulation of a real person. People get to know the and understand them. That is what's so popular about them.
I will never forget being in the audience the opening night for Superman Returns. It was obviously a crowd of fans and when Superman used his xray vision to spy on Lois in her house, the audience gave a collective gasp. I was shocked too.
Superman would never ever do that because he's too ethical to spy on a loved one like that.
We all "know" Superman. We know what he looks like, sounds like, and what he will likely do. It's like he's real and someone you know.
People who really like these characters have a relationship with them and you can't change the character. That's why all the changes made to comic book characters, making them into women, etc fail.