MovieChat Forums > LanceDance > Replies
LanceDance's Replies
Like I said, they said they were on Tatooine. Anyone who was paying attention would’ve realized that.
Can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not.
They literally said they were on Tatooine in Return of the Jedi.
You <i>can</i> form a partnership with them. From what I recall, they still weren’t as benevolent as the ones in this show, it was more ambiguous.
He's definitely not gay since we've seen him have sex with women and enjoying it, before killing them that is.
As for his male victims, one of them was gay and thought Bateman was flirting with him or something when trying to kill him in the bathroom, and Bateman got disgusted and left, couldn't even bother to kill him.
I'd have to disagree. Embracing the campiness actually elevated the movies. I was really hoping to like the 2014 film, I wanted to see a modern horror Godzilla movie where he was this eldritch-like unstoppable force. Instead we got a boring remake where Godzilla was barely in it (which would've been fine if he was the only monster) and instead focused on the forgettable Muto monters. None of the characters aside from Byran Cranston were likable. Thankfully, Shin Godzilla came out a 2 years later, and it satisfied me where Godzilla 2014 failed.
I think Godzilla: King of the Monsters is the best of the Legendary movies, followed by Godzilla vs Kong, then Kong: Skull Island, and finally, Godzilla 2014 at the bottom.
Lol, bad take is bad.
He kinda looks like Bane from The Dark Knight Rises. I don’t know why DC movies post-Nolan are still afraid of using comic book designs for their villains, Marvel has shown that it works. They can tweek the design if they need to, but this? What even is this?
The Batman Arkham games have shown that having a classic-inspired Riddler works in a gritty setting. He has a distinctive design, use it.
https://wallpapertops.com/walldb/original/2/b/a/786950.jpg
https://wallpapercave.com/wp/oQRpeMn.jpg
Tom Bombadil doesn’t really do anything to advance the plot though, so I understand why they left him in out. The movies showed that the plot didn’t suffer at all without him.
I also kinda would’ve liked to see the scouring is the shire, but again, the main plot was the fight with Sauron, and that fight ended with the ring’s destruction. Let Frodo and Sam enjoy the rest of their lives in peace.
No, it's not applicable. Transgender doesn't mean changing genders at will, it means you <b>think</b> you're the opposite of your biological gender.
Gozer can shape-shift, but that doesn't make it transgender, as it doesn't actually identify as the forms it takes. Its different forms are just avatars, nothing more.
As Cap said, it was made by people with agendas, and agendas change. It’s not too different to why people don’t want to give up their guns, or give in to vaccine mandates. Both give governments too much power.
Damn, Oscar Isaac as Miguel O’Hara is actually a good idea.
I believe the term is “androgynous”, since Gozer has no gender. “Trans” people suffer from a mental illness where they believe they’re something they’re not, which doesn’t apply to Gozer.
Pretty sure this movie’s success, as well as other profitable movies like James Bond and Fast & Furious, prove that COVID is no longer scaring people away, or an excuse to hide a bad movies’ failures.
Things are back to normal, and have been for a while. Good/popular movies make profits, where as bad/unpopular movies don’t.
If you have no actual argument, stop wasting our time.
I’m not claiming anything, I’m stating historical fact, and therefore I’m under no obligation to show you anything.
If you’re just curious about it, then you can do your own research. If you’re not actually disagreeing with me, then there’s no need to discuss further. If you are disagreeing with me, then you need to state why, with evidence.
No, <b>you</b> need to show me proof that they <i>did</i> advance before Columbus arrived, since that's what <b>you're</b> implying. If you want to go against established history, then you're the one that needs to bring evidence.
I repeat, the burden of proof is on <b>you</b>
Seriously? It's public knowledge. Textbooks, journals, articles, and museums displaying their overall history, it's all available. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, by all means, show it. If you’re implying something that goes against historical record, then the burden of proof falls on you.
As it stands, there's no reason to have a holiday based on them. Simply existing is no cause for celebration. Others may have stumbled onto the western continents before Columbus, but it was his voyages to the continents that actually impacted the world, and that's worth celebrating.
They hadn’t advanced at all in thousands of years, and hadn’t accomplished anything since they first arrived in the north-western continent. What exactly should we be celebrating?
We can recognize that they exist, and learn about their culture for history’s sake, but that’s it. If there must be holiday, especially a national federal holiday, then there needs to be a good reason for it, and have it at a different time of the year, far off and separate from Columbus Day.
No, they were superior because they knew how to make better use of the land, they knew advanced scientific and agricultural techniques, they knew better methods of recording information, they knew how to domestic animals, they had superior methods of transportation, they invented and innovated tools and ideas, and a bunch of other stuff.
They actually accomplished things, and therefore deserve recognition and celebration.