MovieChat Forums > acidraindrop > Replies
acidraindrop's Replies
That was the plan but she got too old, supposedly.
But then Luc Besson went and made Columbiana so I don't fucking know. Maybe Portman just didn't actually wanna do it anymore.
This is what happens when ppl only read headlines and don't think for themselves before making conclusions lol.
It is sexist.
But you're acting like he's pretending that he has morals. He's not pretending. He does have a moral code. It's just a sexist one that doesn't happen to match yours. Nothing incoherent about that.
Yeah. It's quite obvious, but he also genuinely cares about Leon so if you're not reading between the lines of his reactions (and the ultimate betrayal), you'll miss that side bit. Well written and well acted side character for sure. Greedy, selfish character who also genuinely cared about the hitman he carried under his wing.
Without providing a comment on this matter one way or another, but regarding this line:
"Instead he just reacted with a goofy dumbfounded look."
I think this movie heavily implies that Leon is slow and oafish. He's just a genius hitman. He's not at all mature.
It's usually more of a left wing thing to censor.
You're doing it now in this post, even. You begin with a whole thing about censorship, and then suddenly, you talk about ppl being hateful. The KKK hood joke is not a hateful inclusion at all, and yet it was removed. So was that removed because of conservative censorship according to you? or was it removed because of "being pleasant"? Cause if it's the latter, than the other poster's comment still stands.
lol that article title is such clickbait.
You should tell the teacher to kick that boy out of school. Don't want the presence of that family to be socially engineering your daughter. XD
Jesus christ. Next thing you know, OP will be saying they shouldn't show recycling bins in films because it's left wing propaganda.
It isn't lazy to hire twins. That's like saying it's lazy to use a fake mirror to do a reflection. It's a trick, just like anything else. Was it lazy to have a real juggler stick his arms out in front of David Bowie in the labyrinth to pretend like the goblin king could juggle?
Again, I'm not sure exactly why you would even think this is lazy.
I absolutely think that Roman Polanski should be held accountable for his crimes. But to be clear, entering a plea of guilty isn't necessarily an admittance of anything. It is legally, but I'm pretty sure that guilty plea was part of a plea bargain. It's just a way of navigating the system.
Because everyone protects their own.
The gym I used to go to always had cnn on. I'd work out there and go back to my dad's and he's watching fox news. It was sobering to see how much hypocrisy each side had in terms of what they were willing to cover, and what they would be willing to forgive, depending on the affiliation of who was being scrutinized.
It's why it annoys me when ppl bring up generic storytelling rules when critiquing a book or a movie. There are never hard and fast rules when it comes to a good story. It's always gonna be a case by case basis.
Definitely read this in his voice lol
Well, they're far from perfect men, and that's intentional. I don't think it's "overly flawed" or "forced". In fact, infidelity isn't exactly rare, and many of the detectives on a simple show like Law and Order cheat on their wives. Arrogance and cynicism aren't uncommon either, especially for someone who's as well-read as Cohle. I'd say the only matter that's too "forced" is Cohle's over stylized dialogue, and his heavy-handed philosophy. But he's an eccentric character. Not uncommon to have either.
But if you're not digging this now, you're gonna have issues with Season 2. The four protagonists of S2 are all selfish, broken people. Personally, the person I find most sympathizable is probably the most fucked up of the four too.
And Season 3, the characters are not as flawed, but based on your being caught up over infidelity and empty arrogance, you may not enjoy that either, because the characters there are far stronger than the story. It's far more character-driven than story-driven in my opinion.
I haven't read any of the comics at all, but that's obviously just one version of the canon. Arguably, every single terminator movie (plus the television show) has its own self-contained mythology, with its own rules.
If we're just judging from T1 and T2 though, it's clear that Skynet is an AI. It's self-aware. It most certainly knows how to communicate beyond mindless, programmed directives. It can certainly learn how to speak. Even if this isn't explicitly stated, there's no reason to think that it can't, and the movie itself helps to establish that it can. If a T800 can learn language, learn the value of a human life, and learn to make very human wisecracks, then it follows that Skynet itself, "a new order of intelligence" can develop thoughts, thoughts which can include the meaning of life.
You're treating it as just a mindless program whenever T1 and T2 both suggest that it's not.
Well, it's not exactly a unique concept that an AI can develop a human-recognizable personality. I think other sci-fi entries definitely go further than this than the terminator franchise did. Even with the humanoid representations in later films, I don't feel like skynet was given that much of a personality to be honest.
I think speech is one of the first things skynet would have the ability to do so. I'm thinking that you're interpreting Skynet as some program gone rogue. It's an AI, or at least, it so happened that an AI instantiated itself into existence as a result of those defense network computers. It's self-aware; it has thoughts, and it most certainly has the ability to incorporate human languages.
a little bit too much hollywood (e.g. "I need a vacation" is not an appropriate line for Uncle Bob), difficulty in suspending belief with the terminator combat abilities (e.g. T1000 should not be having a fist/bludgeoning fight with a T800, I don't care that it's a prototype), retcon of prequel without justification (i.e. T1 has a timeloop; T2 doesn't, and it should have tried, somehow to explain this, or at least, show Sarah's confusion on this)
There is nothing wrong with hiring twins to do an effect like that. I'm not even sure why you'd think that.
lol yeah, but I think it's still fair to humor OP and the topic. With every book or movie or art or whatever, the viewer's free to interpret, reasonably, however they wish. I think it's fair to try and discuss these things, pulling whatever justification you can find.
It's just THIS particular question, I don't think it makes sense to discuss too deeply (your phrasing of "bolted" is perfect lol). But like, I'd totally be open to discussing other absurd time-travel conundrums that the sequels created.
Well as I stated earlier, I think it makes the most sense that the t1000 was sent later, through a different portal. I gave one reason. You just gave one. There's a few others. (I misread your original post. I thought you were a proponent of the same-time theory.)
But again, I'm only doing this to humor your question. T1 is very much designed as a time loop. According to T1, you cannot change the past; this was the whole point of the movie. That was the twist. Cameron didn't get away with anything. It's just a retcon.
With everything after T1, you need to just work within each continuity's own specific logic in how they've chosen to redefine how time travel works. And with T2, they didn't really bother explaining anything at all lol But even though we agree that the t1000 was sent later, even your own reason doesn't hold water. Because even if the t1000 is sent later, why can't they send that back to 84? That's why it ultimately is a disservice to the terminator films/show if you try and apply too much logic to it, because it really doesn't make sense at the end of the day.