MovieChat Forums > TheAdlerian > Replies
TheAdlerian's Replies
It had nothing to do with Blade Runner, Matrix, or Robocop.
It's a typical theme in SF novels that someone has a computerized device that takes them over, sometimes for good, so it's not that original. But, for movies it is and the films you mentioned aren't about that.
The book and the movie are very close.
I don't see what the big issue is with people.
Shaming people for having an opinion in a country that has freedom of speech makes you an asshole.
Freedom of speech is designed to stop oppression and what you're saying is classic oppression. Before the US was formed you were an "asshole" if you spoke out against royalty, the church, and so forth which were just oppressive, but conventional, and sometimes seen as good, groups invented by people.
So, your definition of asshole is something that exists in your mind and seems factual because you are indeed an asshole.
If you have a polarizing opinion you inspire others to do the same.
So, liberals developed traditional topics that they never move from. These topics became increasingly exacting. That means you have have XZY attitude, or you're a bad person. If you have an exacting attitude it's most likely unrealistic and your positions become achievable.
The conservative response was to respond to the liberal topics with an opposite set of extremes. In addition, conservatives have always had unrealistic ideas. Capitalism doesn't work, religion isn't real, women have been aborting kids since recorded history, and so forth.
So, both sides are Fantasy Traditionalists.
Fantasies cause intense emotions about something that's not real.
I always liked him that it sounds interesting.
You don't have to agree, but listening to different opinions is great.
But he's right about "liberalism" becoming obnoxious and stupid. But, whenever small minded people latch on to a concept they ruin in view "black and white" thinking. You either agree or we hate you and will destroy you. That's what liberalism turned into.
In reality, liberalism is about create thinking and novel solutions, it's the definition. Liberal aren't that and Conservatives aren't either.
I believe both camps are actually conservative due to them being stuck on traditional issues.
Not making a movie like Falling Down isn't PC.
That film came out before it was common to have mass murders in the similar manner. The film was made as a kind of cautionary tale about not screwing people and making people feel useless. That was during a time when rich people were starting to send all industry to third world countries.
After people started murdering people in real life for screwing them, it became a good idea not to present film role models doing it. People imitate role models.
PC is about saying an ideal and ignoring facts that make that ideal not true. For instance, it's easy to see that blacks create a lot of crime, are bad citizens, aren't interested in education, and produce a lot of sociopathic entertainment via rap music. These are all problems and if you believe in equality then they need to be confronted. But, PC people prefer to stick with fantasies that everything is okay. SO, you can't talk about such problems without being in extreme danger.
PC speech is about not talking about real things, then becoming vicious when they are talked about. I view it as some white bourgeois cultural thing.
There have been serial killers recorded since the beginning of psychology.
I have a book from the 1800s, a psychology book, that explains many of them. They're pretty typical with almost all of the same causes. So, these people aren't unique at all. My work with them have proven that if you meet one, you've met them all. But, the media presents them as a kind of porn for weird people to enjoy.
If you look up the definition of porn, you will see.
I thought it was extremely stupid.
To get the stone you have to kill the person you love the most.
Neither of those characters killed the other. They wanted to commit suicide and finally one did commit suicide.
There was no desire to kill anyone. They did not see the other person are the one they loved the most.
BW would have had to love herself the most to achieve the goal, but then she would be dead.
The whole scene was a giant stupid plot hole that ignored all the rules from the last film.
PC insanity started in the 90s.
The second Robocop film had that theme. He was reprogrammed to have so many PC responses and actions he couldn't do anything.
Decades of bullshit.
That was interesting.
I think it's really interesting that a person working for a science fiction magazine knows what topics are allowed. I can understand obvious topics such as those pro genocide or stories favoring slavery, but if it's deeper than that stuff, the pressure must be coming from somewhere.
Evidence of mass media changes indicate a guiding force.
I think that's especially true when you look at movies and books that are typically being consumed by young males who look to characters as role models. The way to make money is to make that media appeal to the demographic. But, if suddenly what appeals is being eliminated, it goes against business and then must be something else.
I have actually worked in psychology with serial killers. Also, victims of very intense crimes have been a constant for me.
I can't figure out why people like "entertainment" about these people. Why would anyone want to watch actors portraying real victims getting killed?
You have to have like the mind of child to enjoy such stuff. If you step back and actually feel it, then how can it be enjoyable to watch?
I have wondered if what you've said about Stone is true, regarding being CIA, etc.
I have wondered this same thing about the media. I used to think that is was a massive jewish conspiracy, since that's a fake religious cult that views outsiders as evil, but I'm no longer sure. I do like your idea that taking a serious topic and making a well done, but bad, movie can discredit interest in the topic.
Very smart. Even if it's not propaganda, an empowered idiot can still achieve the same result.
My Big Question, Lately:
I used to be an avid reader. Then, in the late 90s I noticed this shift in fiction to what is now called "SJW" topics and characters. In science fiction and fantasy books strong male characters got replaced by female ones. Now, that is very common.
I enjoy creative writing and can only write what I'm interested in. So, I want to know how MASS NUMBERS of male authors switch from writing males characters to female ones. I don't believe a male can even do this effectively and that it would be difficult.
Do you believe the CIA (whatever) is behind the massive SJW stuff in the media? Are authors agents or are the publishing companies run by agents indirectly forcing authors and filmmakers to make the same material?
Curious about your opinion.
Most of the films are semi-comedies thus making the plot unimportant.
The serious films are easier for me to remember.
It adds a level of mystery to the stones.
The implication is that they aren't just stones but something alive and if they sense something in you, they will control you, not the other way around.
I'm reminded on Hellraiser. The idea there is that people will hear about this puzzle box that does something. Normal people will not bother trying to find it, but insanely obsessive driven people will look for it. When they find it, it's very hard to open, so only the insanely driven with figure it out. When they do open it, they will eventually get transformed into a demon based on their own obsession.
The power behind the stones knew the Skull wanted to be part of it so badly it made him part of it forever.
I was just explaining Surfer to a friend of mine yesterday.
My view of the story is that of a guy who was bored with life, really wanted to explore space and leave home, then got what he wished for because Galactus basically turned him into a living spaceship. After that, all he wanted to do was go back home.
That would be a good intro to a quality Fantastic Four movie then a big multiple hero Galactus event.
She reminds me of prostitutes I've known.
I get the impression that she has had a lot of rough times to get anywhere in the business.
I liked him but he was more of the depressed and conflicted Spiderman than cheerful witty Spiderman.
I like serious superhero films but if you look at them as science fiction where the events are real, it would be a very heavy situation and scary. So, I liked Spiderman for that.
I like the new ones too because the character has the cheerful wittiness from the comics.
I knew nothing about Endgame when I went to see it.
Moronic.
Thor is a legendary religious figure and has been in the comics since the 60s. He's got the same background as any famous character and what he is is well known.
Those details didn't make the movie bad for me. The acting was very good and the gravity of the story was good as there was no comedy, which I hate in superhero films The film itself was good, but you didn't like the details.
I massively HATE when Hollywood has a smart character and dumbs them down. Him ejaculating webs versus inventing webfluid and shooters made him an average person, not a genius. Also, organic webs are gross as he's shooting like mucus at people that would smell, etc.
MJ has been his love interest for decades and that was fine. The actors were both good. You not liking their faces is invalid.
Willem Dafoe looked like the character from the comics mask. He fact that he wore a helmet with no expression was dumb since the actor looks like the character! That's a product of trying to make the character "realistic" which is stupid. He's insane, he can wear an evil rubber mask, it's okay. Plus it would have given the actor a chance to act more.
Overall, details shouldn't ruin a movie though.