MovieChat Forums > degree7 > Replies
degree7's Replies
Other than the baseball bat scene, De Niro didn’t have much to work with. It’s such a static role.
David Lean:
Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Ryan’s Daughter (1970)
A Passage to India (1984)
Also Andrei Tarkovsky:
Andrei Rublev (1966)
Solaris (1972)
Mirror (1975)
Stalker (1979)
Nostalghia (1983)
Francois Truffaut:
The 400 Blows (1959)
Shoot the Piano Player (1960)
Jules and Jim (1962)
The Soft Skin (1964)
Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
Planes Trains and Automobiles is a masterpiece.
Smoke
What does winning the Iraq war have to do with Guantanamo bay?
It was an unofficial remake
This is just fucking terrible. Why deviate from the source material unless it’s absolutely necessary.
My big fear is that they’re going to make the “weirding way” look like some regular old Kung fu, instead of the body teleporting like in the book.
They actually did meet, and Turturro said he’d understand if Stempel punched him in the face.
It is kind of a lame line, was changed from Mae West to Mickey Mouse, but it only lasts for half a second. The monkeys on a vine goes on for an agonizing 3 minutes.
Worse than Shia Laboof swinging from vines like Tarzan with CGI monkeys?
<blockquote> Any means to transfer the minds from human to Na'vi bodies is not going to be explainable in terms of current science.</blockquote>
Actually, science has shown the ability for computers to control the nervous systems of animals through surgical implantation. And then using an electronic device like a tablet to control their movements.
<blockquote> Any means to transfer the minds from human to Na'vi bodies is not going to be explainable in terms of current science</blockquote>
But it was explainable in terms of the fantasy setting, when their consciousness is permanently transferred to the Navi bodies. Tbh, they should have just done away with the whole “Avatar program” nonsense and just had Jake’s consciousness transported through the Navi’s own neural network into another body at the start or midway through the film. Would have added to the drama.
Another problem I had was that the Navi were too.... human. At one point Cameron wanted them to have four arms and four legs, but decided against it because (ironically) he thought the technology wouldn’t allow it.
<b>Learn how to read, dipshit. That "10 comment long chain" wasn't with me.
Look at the username at the top of each post, airhead, and have someone help you with the reading.</b>
That's obviously your sock puppet account. You're not fooling anyone.
<b>Yet another laughter-provoking assertion from you.</b>
You're right, you never had an argument to begin with. Glad you caught that.
<b>Dumbass (see above).</b>
Yes, I can look above and see you are indeed a dumbass. Glad you can admit that.
<b>Also, since you still have no arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter remains noted.</b>
You literally have no points here. Everything you could argue I've already defeated. Get a grip.
<b>So you think that out of the entire bill of rights, the second amendment is the only one that enumerates rights for a government organization? And you say I'm the moron?</b>
Considering the fact that the amendments were ratified by ardent Federalists who sought to transfer power to a stronger central authority in the national government, yes, I would say you're a clueless moron. Good job.
<b>
It doesn't say the right of the *militia* to keep and bear arms. It says the militia is required for a free state. It is the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms.</b>
The "people" as in "the militia."
<i>A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people</i>
It's obvious to anyone that the "people" in this scenario are the militia. Not Joe Blow on his farm. There is nothing in the second amendment that prohibits keeping guns out of the hands of individuals.
<b>Any reading from the time from anyone at any level will show how misguided you are.</b>
And how about the fact that no wherein Madison's notes from the Consitutional Convention, nor anywhere when the House of Representatives ratified the Bill of Rights, is there ANY mention of an individual's right to own a gun. It's pure conjecture on your part. Based on a misreading of the second amendment. You appear to be suffering from severe mental conflict. Listen to the tiny voice in your head that knows deep down I'm right.
<b>He never suggested we regress back to animal like, hedonistic pleasure seeking; just because he observed things about human behavior doesn't mean he recommended them</b>
You have no f-cking clue what you're talking about. That's ANOTHER strawman on your part. Jung never implied any of that, nor did I. I suggest you try actually picking up a book and reading for a change. Jesus christ, lmao
<b>You try blaming the age of a thing on why it is failing; that is a fallacy. I was only pointing out that the age of an institution is not an attribute of why it fails. "It is old so it must be bad and needs to be updated" is a fallacy in of itself.</b>
What fallacy is that called? Something being outdated and inefficient is not a fallacy you twat. It's called reality. If anything, you're the one being fallacious by appealing to the argument of age. Hilarious.
<b>One being information on how often spouses are caught in affairs and people generally being selfish. That is a reflection of how 'not ready' humans are for multiple sexual partners.</b>
If anything that's a reflection on how people would be <i>better off</i> learning to be happy in CNM relationships (as evidenced by your articles, thanks) and not worry about cheating all the time. For most people it's not natural to be stuck with one person their entire lives. This is clear evidence that human beings want to be polygamous.
<b>Monogamous Marriage is an institution of 2 people being bound together. There is no "updating" that because then it is no longer monogamous. You are making an argument in support of polygamy which is antithetical to monogamy.</b>
Maybe try grasping the simple concept that marriage doesn't have to be religiously monogamous. Did that thought ever skitter across your brain?
<b>That is not Carl Jung; that peer-review publication is from 2012 Jung was dead for a long time.</b>
Yeah.... I never said it was by Jung. *slow clap*
<b>Here is a article that calls that study into question</b>
If anything, that article supports the thesis of the study. You're not very good at this.
<b>Marriage acts as a safety and assurance net for the women. Otherwise what is to stop the men from leaving them pregnant and vulnerable. Men are the ones that prefer variety; women prefer stability. Who are you trying to convince here?</b>
Wow, what a ridiculously misogynist take. Assuming that all women want is "security" and to make babies. Hilarious. And again, without a shred of evidence.
<b>It sounds like you are just trying to find justification to engage in morally depraved actives and you want to prove to yourself it is okay so you don't have to face real consequences for the one's you have hurt or will hurt.</b>
Lmfao what a dumb ad hominem. You know nothing about my personal life. I don't even practice that. You sound like a crazed bible thumper.
<b>Was that not doable without the drugs, questionable hygiene, disease and other morally reprehensible things they did.</b>
What exactly is so morally reprehensible about drugs? Are you some kind of puritan abolitionist? If you don't believe in personal liberty, then move to North Korea.
<b>If the hippie movement was so grand why did Woodstock look like this</b>
You realize that article is talking about Woodstock '99 right?
<b>Monogamy is safer, healthier and by most available data more satisfying;</b>
Again, there is zero evidence of this. Did you even read those articles you posted? If anything it proves my point. That people in CNM relationships actually have more satisfaction in their sex lives. *facepalm*
<b>protect against STD and unwanted pregnancies 100% that is a fact.</b>
Nothing protects against those "100%". Sex is ALWAYS risky no matter what. But you can still diminish it to such an extent that it's almost negligible. Saying you can't have safe sex in a CNM relationship is idiocy. That's like saying someone who's had more than five partners in their lives is at equal risk. I mean, they are, but it's not substantial. What you're advocating is backwards, 19th century era thinking that would leave people cowering in fear.
<b>That is that the Confederate flag stood for breaking up the union and for slavery. The Union continued on, yes, with many of the same problems, but also a few generations later gave the vote to women. </b>
A fair re imagining of history, but not altogether convincing. The Confederacy stood for autonomous taxation as primary reasons for leaving. The Union did not care about abolishing slavery until it was politically expedient for it to do so as a means of subjugating the south. Assuming that the North cared at all about the welfare of blacks is hilariously myopic.
<b>Then a few generations later saved the world from the same kind of evil you are claiming the Nazis got from American - implying America was as bad as the Nazis - which makes your whole house of cards argument blow away</b>
Useless hyperbole, I've found better on youtube. I never even made a mention of "America being as bad as the Nazis," but now that you've mentioned it, you're right. After all, the Nazi party <i>was</i> funded by wealthy American capitalists, and it was after Nazi officials traveled to New York to observe the extensive and complex legal documentation of racial supremacy that they began to draft their own version. If anything, the USA sided with evil to defeat "evil." And were then happy to perpetuate their own unique brand of evil across the world. Arguably, the USA is worse than Nazi Germany in many aspects.
Ah it seems I've touched a nerve. Clearly you've been a victim of too much star spangled koolaid to think rationally. I can at least recognize the attempt to be objective, but your own bias has betrayed you. It's obvious you're willing to twist and contort history to justify your racist apartheid state no matter what. Most disingenuous to say the least.
<b>There are so many other factors here that calling both sides equally racists is just an attempt to provoke - it has no real meaning nor does it make any argument, nor do explain the context in which or why you are even saying that. The obvious answer would be trolling.</b>
The argument is that both sides are equally racist. Do not try to overcomplicate it. You're living in a country founded and based upon normalized white supremacy. Not a difficult concept to grasp, but I know it's hard to acknowledge when you suffer from serious cognitive dissonance as so many Americans do. Also "trolling" isn't a real word, or at least an academic one. Please refrain from using internet lingo in a serious discussion. It just makes your position look weak and defeatist.
<b>The Native Americans marched out to the West mostly came from the South by the way.</b>
Wow, you passed grade school geography. Nice job. But it doesn't change the fact that the Federal government was mostly responsible for wiping out hundreds of thousands of American Indians and imprisoning them in ghettos. But somehow doing that to one ethnicity is more 'acceptable' historically in America's grand narrative of manifest destiny. That's not even mentioning the vast swathe of codified racism that no other country had to such an extent.
Yeah, the North only instituted a policy of ethnic cleansing against the indigenous population of hundreds of thousands, and enacted white supremacist rules against minorities that the Nazis basically modeled the Nuremberg laws after.
But yeah, you did a nice job convincing me otherwise. It’s sad how deluded Americans are about their racist country. Even after they put five racist asshats and an Uncle Tom in the White House over the last 3 decades they still think they’re so enlightened. “Everything’s been fine since 1865, get over it n-ggers.” Arguably the only thing worse than the men holding the whip are those bystanders that either ignore it or try to rationalize it. You could present overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and they’d still stick their head in the sand, shrug, and say “Nah, not really.” Absolutely astounding.