MovieChat Forums > degree7 > Replies
degree7's Replies
It’s pretty sad, but Keith Relf of the Yardbirds being electrocuted by his own guitar.
That’s not an ad hominem if you’re literally a transphobe. It’s the entire content of your argument. Also the other comment already proved it wrong.
Shutup you transphobe
I didn’t even bother reading your reply. All I know is that you gave up and lost the argument long ago and are now resorting to fallacious ad hominem attacks. With each reply you just look weaker and more pathetic. Have fun with yourself, LOL
He was good in those movies. But not in Open Range.
But it’s a family-friendly ripoff of Watchmen
Costner can’t act his way out of a paper bag
Most of those were terrible. Especially Open Range.
Polanski’s not a pedophile. He’s a hebephile.
I would call it existential horror
Okay we are both incorrect, there were no Jews or Arabs in the year Zero. The Jews were their descendants, at the time they were called Israelites. And the Arabs were originally random Bedouin tribes.
He was a Semitic jew
That’s not exactly surprising is it. Any major actor is probably going to be found in those kinds of movies nowadays if they want a career. It’s like watching Silence of the Lambs and going “Oh look, it’s Jodie Foster from Elysium and Anthony Hopkins from Thor!”
The current presidency is basically a real life version of this movie, so what’s the point?
42 is young
It's not really about technological advancement, it's about societal ones. While there were obvious drawbacks living in 200BC, there were also major leaps forward such that most of our modern discourse, politics, and cultural heritage are owed to it. Yeah there was slavery, corruption, etc, but not much as changed in this regard. The human race still has problems with all of these issues, so we are not as advanced as we like to think we are in the 21st century. We may live in a time of peace and prosperity, but only because we have the capabilities of incinerating ourselves with the push of a button. The human mind is schizophrenic. A society doesn't have to be technologically developed to be 'advanced' either, I would consider certain indigenous cultures to be higher-thinking.
So sex is not really reduced to a meaningless act in this fictional world, it's actually portrayed as being more freeing and removing the stigma and puritanical views of the act. Basically a hippie ideal, but in a science fiction setting. It would even be encouraged by the authorities because of its many advantages.
Well in a way Ancient Greece and Rome were highly advanced and were responsible for a lot of the accomplishments we have today, like progress in science, mathematics, art, philosophy, and architecture, so much so that it defined modernity. But that's another story!
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in utopian far-future settings (or dystopian, take your pick), society has often advanced to the point of being cashless, classless, and even gender neutral. To the point that it wouldn't be unusual for just about everything to be co-ed. Basically all of the petty emotional conflicts we have nowadays would be a thing of the past, and people wouldn't see sex or relationships as being a means of possession or control. It would be rather mundane, and they would go about their jobs while casually swapping out partners. Basically submitting oneself to the collective will, which is alien to a lot of modern day Westerners.
Yes, I guess I can’t argue that it definitely, for sure was happening between them. But it’s nice that the viewer can, as you said, infer it from the extended material. At the very least, even if they didn’t have a physical relationship, it’s obvious Dallas and Ripley had at least some personal feelings for each other. But the movie is definitely better for cutting out any lovey dovey stuff, which is where the sequels went wrong.
<blockquote> It would not be a good idea either for them to be doing it. No matter how 'enlightened' people are, no one is particularly good at having casual physical relations, especially if there are multiple people involved in a small proximity to each other. potentially lowers amount of respect of authority, jealousy, possessiveness and inflated desire to protect (especially from the males).</blockquote>
Actually it’s not unusual in science fiction stories for spaceship crews to be portrayed as engaging in casual flings. In an advanced society they obviously wouldn’t be as hung up about petty gender differences or prudishness. For example, in Joe Haldemann’s “The Forever War” the crew are shown to be romantically involved with one another. In a more socialist community it wouldn’t be unusual.
I didn’t bother reading your reply. Just be content with the fact that I verbally annihilated you and you’re being a little butthurt bitch about it. You completely failed to invalidate any of my arguments. You fail at logic and life in general. So long dickhead.