MovieChat Forums > Seperatrix > Replies
Seperatrix's Replies
You yourself present a good definition of stupidity.
Engaging in a conversation, telling someone they are wrong about something when they refuse (or can't) explain why. This would entail correcting me on what a cult is and explaining why I am misapplying the term. Then explaining your reasoning as to why I am wrong from that point moving forward.
The only thing you've offered is "by that definition every new religion would be a cult according to your definition." Ok, so what? That's not an argument against my understanding of what a cult is, you are just stating the obvious.
But then, you are clearly too stupid to have this kind of conversation. Excessively stupid. And I suspect too stupid to have any normal conversation.
Off to the troll bin with you.
Still no definition as to what a cult is eh?
You amuse me.
Which makes it extra sad knowing how much he wanted to make this . . .
Even if it's picked up and made it will still be sad knowing he isn't around to see it happen.
Oddly enough, I just happened to begin a re-watch of Twin Peaks last night.
Once the 3 seasons and prequel are finished I'll continue with the rest of his work.
A 10/10 in my book.
I've been bracing myself for news like this since his fragile state and battle with emphysema was made known.
Was hoping he'd carry on against all odds.
So sad, so very sad.
My all time favorite film was his creation. Mulholland Drive. Then so many other films of his I'd give a 10/10 also.
It's fair to say he was and always will be my favorite filmmaker.
RIP
You know, for all your bleating and blubbering over this nonsense you’ve yet to offer your definition of a cult and exactly why you think early Christianity wouldn’t be considered as such.
I punch in “cult” and get these online definitions:
“a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” And “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister” and “a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.”
All of those definitions would have meant that Christianity would have been considered a cult by some in the early stages of development.
Not to mention, there was no one single group of potential Christianity’s that would obviously be the “winner” in the first 300 or so years. You had at least this many groups that we know of (there were undoubtedly more):
Ebionites: Jewish Christians who venerated Jesus as the Messiah who would restore an earthly kingdom for Israel – who believed in keeping all of the OT laws.
Marcionites: who believed, among other things, that there were two Gods – one evil and one good – and all one needed for salvation was belief – no Jewish laws required.
Gnostics – there may have been many variations on this group, but in general, believed each person would only achieve salvation by receiving personal divine revelation.
There was also the Qumran community occupied by the Essenes, another group called the Nazarenes, etc. All of the sects mentioned had splinter groups so the total number we’ll never know.
Then of course you had the proto orthodox group that finally won out and squeezed the competition nearly out of existence in the 4th century.
This is painting broad strokes and off the top of my head, but the point is that ALL of these groups would have been viewed as a cult by the Jewish mainstream of the day.
"but the commonly-accepted usage today simply doesn't fit the claim"
Oh I don't know about that.
Christians today (generally speaking) consider any religion a cult that deviates from the seven or so fundamental tenets held by the faith.
But if you consider a cult that of a small group who followed a central and charismatic leader, with specific beliefs, practises, and other things out of the norm. Then Christianity was a cult.
Initially.
And btw, since you're a Christian, why would you care what "outsiders" called you had you been alive back in the day?
They were getting fed to the lions and not complaining. You throw a fit over a word used on a message board aswim in a meaningless subculture.
Grow a pair.
I had a friend in the service who signed me up for a visit from the Mormons as a joke once. When they came knocking I informed them that I didn't request the visit, that the request was a joke on the part of my friend. Their heads dropped in disappointment, but I quickly added that since they went to the trouble to come over they were welcome in to give their presentation.
They visited once a week for four weeks and then concluded by asking if I wanted to join their church. They knew where I stood by then and that the answer was no. But the discussions we had were enjoyable. I quizzed them here and there and it was obvious they didn't know anything off script. But they were pleasant and I more or less enjoyed the experience.
Oh I was paying attention.
I am also paying attention at your dishonesty. I questioned the idea that he lied about everything. You could have just offered that you were engaging in hyperbole to make a point, Instead you double down on it with "iterations were in SOME cases misleading." Which means in other parts they weren't. Which means he wasn't lying about everything. Which was what I was questioning.
The rant about Maher isn't interesting since that isn't being discussed. Perhaps that's a good topic to bring up on the Religulous board.
Agreed.
It's not only contrived, but even the little things are laughable.
I loved how when Lucius is focused on the monkey that all the other monkeys were kind enough to let him square off for his individual fight (to be fair, there are a zillion films like this -- in battle scenes when a main character is focused on something -- usually a dying comrade -- no one disturbs them as the batter ranges all around). Then . . once he finishes strangling the monkey, the battle is over! What -- everyone else simultaneously just killed their own monkey? What timing!
When Lucius is visited by him mother in his cell. He yells "get out!" and immediately someone on the other side of the prison door shouts to his mother "we need to go!"
And on and on.
The film felt way too rushed. I know running times are an issue. But there was a better version of this film waiting to be made that's an hour longer.
Or Denzel from 2001's Training Day.
Look, he's an excellent actor and so of course was good in this. It's just that I couldn't get past "yep . .that's Denzel doing his Denzel thing."
Lying to them about everything?
Everything?!?!??
That religions morph as cultures collide and absorb one another (to varying extents) is hardly a lie.
Mixing lies with truths is always more effective generally speaking. But I don't know that much of his opening salvo on "iterations" when it came to religion was an example of that.
The found footage within the film was certainly creepy and disturbing. Glancing at its tally at the box office it certainly performed well for a horror film.
And to each his/her own but I thought this film was creepier by far than Longlegs which was a huge hit recently.
One last note: They should burn every copy of the sequel to this film.
Selfishness and narcissism?
It's the story about a man who forgot what life was all about and rediscovered it: his youthful love for wife and daughter.
Ultimately.
As the film more than adequately showed, it wasn't about attacking conservatism, it was about how FOX blurred the lines (deliberately) between opinion and reported news. Most importantly, how journalism was replaced with entertainment.
The news outlets are worse now than they were back when this film was made. Corporate takeover is pretty much complete.
The corporate uniparty rules the land now.
Mission accomplished.
As I mentioned on a different thread I don't think it really matters if they were dead the entire time or not. Reason? In season 6 it is revealed that they are definitely dead in the "sideways" reality, so what went on before should be enjoyed as the journey -- right before they hit the end stage -- whether they were already in the afterlife the entire time or not.
The writers introduced ideas about dreams here and there throughout the series. Also that the Losties were dead and on an island of death. So one could chalk either of those ideas up as red herrings to throw people off, or take those ideas and grab one and run with it. Even if you don't like either of those ideas it has to be acknowledged that the writers put them there for a reason. Because they are definitely there.
It's all fun in the end.
I just poked around for a couple of minutes and came upon this. Now, he is clearly only referencing the sideways world, but at least it confirms bardo, in part:
Lindelof: From a writerly standpoint, it’s impossible for me to convey to you in words what the rules of the sideways were, other than to say we called it a bardo in the writers’ room, which was largely based on a construct in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is this idea that when you die, you experience an afterlife where you do not know that you are dead, and the entire purpose of that afterlife is for you to come to the awareness that you have died.
Which I don't think you'd have a problem with, since what Lindelof is clearly specifying only pertains to a part of the final season.
A couple of more interesting quotes/comments:
Cuse: I think we could have done some things to make it clear that that wasn’t what you were supposed to take away. But one of the big intentions of the show was intentional ambiguity and giving people the opportunity to digest and interpret Lost as they want to if they wanted to. And at some level, you know, you can’t have it both ways.
Holloway: I’m still confused. I’ll be honest with you. I think that’s one theory. We could have all been dead. Or we could have been in like this purgatory thing. I always thought that, and still do kind of really think it was more that. To me, that’s what makes more sense. Then they kind of sidestepped it with the parallel life at the end. But I don’t know, because they always said, “No, it’s not purgatory.”
Again, cheers!
"I just want folks reading this thread in interest and possibly deciding to give it a go to have an accurate synopsis."
No problem with that. Although if I were a potential first time viewer I'd probably skip these message boards for fear of spoilers. Usually one can get a good synopsis by visiting IMDb.
"I'm here to tell readers that while you're free to some interpretation, you will not or should not feel compelled to the "bardo" or OP's "dead since first episode" viewpoint unless you activity chose so and ignore contrary facts."
To be clear, I'm not telling you that my bardo interpretation is accurate or that it is defensible versus your interpretation (which to your point is what the writers also insist upon as well).
Had I more interest in the show I'd go back and collect certain references and have some fun with the discussion. But I just finished re-watching the show (last night actually!) as I was showing it to a first timer so I have no inclination to go back and take notes for discussion at this time. But in the unlikely event that I do another re-watch I'll take notes and revisit this thread and we can have some fun.
If you're interested.
Cheers!