MovieChat Forums > degree7 > Replies
degree7's Replies
Dazed and confused is overrated, and saying “10 things” is better is Lol-worthy
I thought the creepiest scene was seeing Jason Robards dying of radiation poisoning and muttering “I’d like to see my home one last time before I die.” Except home was nothing but a flattened vista of rubble and sand baking in the sun. The New Stone Age.
It’s a metaphor for his career.
The 1989 version is “the original film version,” not “an original.” Learn the difference you mong.
We kill off all our main characters from the last movie in the opening credits, and the rest of it is so dang depressing that we just have our heroine kill herself at the end.
That was hardly a fatal injury. He wasn’t even bleeding that profusely.
You can be quite boring.
The for-profit prison industrial complex benefits from having more inmates. Almost half of them for non violent, drug related crimes. Which just breeds more crime and higher recidivism rates.
Out of the entire list I gotta say that only Bullitt, The Matrix, and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon are great choices.
You seem to have left out a ton of martial arts films, as well as adventure movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars.
Ron Kovik - Born on the Fourth of July
Charlie Babbitt - Rain Man
Joel - Risky Business
Lestat - Interview with the Vampire
Are you seriously this stupid? Brain damaged in some way? You even explained it in your post. "Bear arms" refers to military activities. That is the right of the people. Nowhere in James Madison's notes during the 1789 constitutional convention did he mention <i>anywhere</i> that individuals had the unfettered right to own a firearm. That is ridiculous. If you can show me some evidence pertaining otherwise, I will admit defeat and hand this argument over to you. Go ahead. (p.s. you can't).
<blockquote>I answered the question because you continued to ignore it does not make it rhetorical.</blockquote>
Lmfao, that's only one definition lunkhead. The reason I refused to answer your question was because you already knew the answer. You posited a question that you already had your own narrative for and were going to ignore my response either way. That's why I didn't waste time with it. That's what made it "rhetorical."
Next time, just be more direct instead of dilly dallying around the subject like a little girl.
I've seen a few clips of Homicide: Life on the Street. I always thought Yaphet Kotto brought a real intensity to every role he played, especially when his character is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even his turn as the villain in that Roger Moore Bond-flick was memorable, not withstanding his magnificent death scene.
I think I'm going to binge watch Homicide now that you mention it, thanks!
<blockquote> it is one of the reasons that the hippy movement was such a disaster zone </blockquote>
I wouldn't qualify the counterculture as a "disaster zone." That sounds highly subjective. If anything, it was instrumental in pushing towards civil rights for a lot of minority groups, and more personal freedom.
<blockquote>Marriage is the ONLY healthy norm that we currently know of;</blockquote>
Assuming you're talking about monogamy: This is pure speculation and not supported by any real objective evidence or research. There is nothing to suggest that monogamous relationships result in longer lasting happiness or intimacy than other kinds, such as polyamory. It is purely down to your own personal choice as consenting adults. Not the say of any higher power or authority.
Most of those issues you mentioned can be easily handled with sex education and health resrouces - in the case of STDs- or counseling, if jealousy is an issue between partners.
<blockquote>School is dogmatic, should we get rid of schools?</blockquote>
That's a stawman argument, and to be honest I'm a little disappointed but not altogether suprised that you would bring about such an obvious fallacy. But while we're on the subject, yes, the modern school system is just a holdover from pre-industrial times that sorely needs revamping to be more in tune with 21st century needs. It doesn't need to be "gotten rid of" but updated. Just like marriage.
<blockquote>You have a Source for this polygamy study?</blockquote>
Personality and Social Psychology Review (Nov 2012)
<blockquote>All current and reliable data shows sex is healthier when limited to 2 people.</blockquote>
Healthier in the male mind, perhaps. But it's largely an institution that has been imposed upon women for centuries, if not millennia. Time for a change.
And yes, Carl Jung was a little unorthodox in his approach, but also highly innovative and forward-thinking. He understood a lot about man's natural state of affairs.
<blockquote>Do you even know what "rhetorical" means?</blockquote>
Yes, and evidently you don't. Which is even more hilarious because then you went right ahead and <b>answered your own question.</b> Irony must be lost on you.
<blockquote>Do I need to explain this one to you or are you good with it?</blockquote>
Give yourself a good pat on the back explaining the obvious from your casual gleaning from wikipedia. Now I need to point out the delicious mockery you've made of yourself: by that same token, you'd have to be "incredibly dense" not to realize that no where in the second amendment does it mention protecting any individual's right to own a gun. In fact, it has <b>nothing to do with</b> individual gun ownership. There is <i>nothing</i> in the second amendment that prohibits government regulation. Private gun ownership was a holdover from English common law, and something that was controlled by a central authority for 200 years before the NRA came into being. The same NRA that somehow blindfolded everyone and convinced them that the second amendment specifically upholds the individual's right (when it is in fact the opposite). Do I need to explain this to you more, or are we good to go?
<blockquote>It would seem you're the troll.</blockquote>
Actually I'm just trolling your troll post.
Ah yes, only the democrats and labour party are the problem and not the Republicans or Tories. When will you wake up and realize a two party system is the problem.
Your second paragraph is a joke.
Spoken like someone who’s never experienced true hardship in life. Many people are forced to work 50-60 hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck JUST to afford a bare living. Most of those amenities you’re referring to are not luxuries but lifelines. Get a clue.
And ah yes, what a solution. Don’t work for corporations that control a monopoly over entire industries, but start your own business and hope you don’t get squashed by said monopoly. The only people who are able to do that are either white or very very lucky. Stop acting like the USA is equal opportunity. It isn’t. The American Dream is dead or dying.
Also nice cherry picking two countries that don’t fit into your skewed agenda (who, btw, suffered from decades of economic sanctions from your darling USA) while ignoring the myriad of socialist governments that work just fine. Heh.
In the book, the fairies are a group made up of multiple sub-species such as Elves, Dwarves, Pixies, Gnomes, Gremlins, Goblins, and Sprites.
I think you’re a troll, but I will indulge you all the same.
<blockquote> Go on smart guy.</blockquote>
I’m not going to answer your rhetorical question. We both know the answer. If you want it so bad, just come out and say it. Or better yet, do a google search. I’m not going to do your research for you.
<blockquote> No, they don't and no I'm not.</blockquote>
Yes they do and yes you are. I can go back and forth all day like this. I’m shutting your butt down, lmao.
The first book was more humourous and didn’t take itself very seriously. It was more like a hilarious, high octane action thriller in the vein of Die Hard crossed with James Bond, but with fairies.
Stop jerking me off. Or at least have the courtesy to kiss me while you do it. Lol, TRY READING YOUR ORIGINAL POST YOU FUCKWIT.
<blockquote> How, exactly, does the second amendment mandate gun control?</blockquote>
I’ve already explained why. Most legal scholars agree with me. You’re in the minority here. Get over it.
Problem is no filmmakers today are interested in the actual theatre or human drama inherent in film. Modern dramas always have to have “quirky” or offbeat characters that aren’t at all relatable, but are instead cartoonish. Almost like Hollywood writers live in some bubble fantasy land.
For example, no filmmaker today would be able to do the “hot water burn baby” scene as subtly and stoic as how Taylor Hackford films it. It’s practically all one take, but feels more powerful because its a bare, stripped down scene of nothing but two people talking in a cheap motel bathroom and looking at a photograph. In the same way Charlie is stripped of all his pretensions and defense mechanisms and realize the truth about the “Rain Man.” Scene makes me cry each time.