MovieChat Forums > h-oates > Replies
h-oates's Replies
Haven't seen Dark Fate yet but here's my list.
1. The Terminator
2. T2.
3. Genisys
4. T3
5. Salvation
Check out Jeremy Jahns spoiler review of the movie. He's FURIOUS about it.
Word.
Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters, for sure. Never seen anything like it before.
Two guys and their girlfriends deliberately sat next to me and my two friends even though loads of other seats were empty (it was a Tuesday night showing). They started talking to us as though they knew us. It was just rather odd. It was as though they were all trying to extend the group or something. I was polite to all of them but they just kept talking all the damn time and making introductions, babbling about the cast in the film (I remember one of them kept denying that Famke Janssen was the same one from X-Men and GoldenEye, swearing that it was Natalie Imbruglia for some insane reason).
Finally, they were ejected from the cinema after one of them got into a fight with this man when he was going to the bathroom. Myself and my friends were also on the verge of being ejected. Eventually, we managed to convince them that they weren't with us. One of my friends did walk off in a huff though, because they were annoyed at the man's attitude.
Without a doubt my worst experience in a cinema. To this day I'm still not sure what exactly happens in the movie because I missed so much of it.
"We" is humanity. To have compassion is to have empathy. To feel the pain of others even if we are not experiencing pain ourselves. The whole way you speak is though you are lacking of all feeling completely. Allow me to explain what I mean in regards to compassion and morality.
If you, a complete stranger, told me that something tragic had happened to you and your loved ones (friend killed themselves, husband/wife had cancer, parent had just died, etc), I would feel upset for you. I would feel bad for you and extend my sympathises. Not just because I think it's the right thing to do, I would genuine feel upset because of it. Most people would, as most people feel empathy. That's why I was so deeply upset when the Manchester terrorist attack happened a few years back, as I was staying in Manchester at the time and witnessed the devastation firsthand.
You, however, seem as though you are so lacking in feeling that you simply wouldn't care about such things. You even suggest that you would think it was a good thing that people were dying in their droves.
This, is a clear sign of an ill/unbalanced mind (not dissimilar to Joker's line of thinking). Perhaps you suffer from NPD (narcissistic personality disorder), maybe you're a full blown sociopath or maybe, just maybe you're putting on an image. I don't know. All I'm saying is that there's clearly something wrong with your thinking.
Clearly, your problem lies much deeper than misunderstanding my point. I'm not attacking your intelligence, but there's clearly something that's making your thinking unbalanced. Without morality, without compassion, we have nothing.
And for the last time, there are no incels (not permanent ones, anyway).
*for*
Ironic. And besides, it's a terrible theory. Incelhood is a myth. No one can truly be an incel. Here's the truth. Here's how the myth of inceldom has come about.
1. The modern world.
It's tougher for men these days to find a wife/girlfriend. Women years ago were outright pressured to get married. It was frowned upon for a woman to still be unmarried in her 30's. Also, women were expected to sit back and let men do the work while they kept house. There was a clear difference in power. Men held it all and women had to live off scraps in terms of having power of their own. Now that the balance of power is slowly but surely evening up, women are feeling more independent. They no longer need to settle for any man who will have them. Instead of being looked upon as an old maid once they hit late 30's, they are instead being looked upon as unmarried men are viewed. Eligible bachelors. So there's reason number one. The modern world in which women no longer need and rely upon men.
2. The internet.
This could have been lumped in with point number one, as the internet is very much a part of the modern world. But I think it's worthy of it's own point. You see, years ago, dark, destructive thoughts were usually kept to oneself. The idea of any frustrated man ever coming out in public and saying to his friends that he felt inferior and was an incel is just laughable. No man would ever state something like that. However, the internet provides anonymity. This is crucial in the development of any self described incel. Childishly resenting women for reaching independence away from men, they find solace with other like minded, ill individuals. Communication between them reinforces their negative thinking. Before you know it, it spreads like wildfire. What would have once been an ordinary, shy, 20 something year old man who has bad luck in finding a girlfriend suddenly believes himself to be doomed to inceldom for all eternity. Because just like fire spreads and destroys, destructive, negative thoughts will spread and infect otherwise healthy individuals, if given the chance... I have stared at the pit of despair. I very nearly became a victim to my own mind. I very nearly committed suicide. You have to be aware of the fact that your mind will work against you if it gets a sniff of a chance. It was only this knowledge and all around enlightenment that allowed me to overcome my darker, inner self. If I had failed, I very much doubt that I would still be here today... Finally, to point number three.
3. It suits the narrative for potential incel terrorists to exist.
We do no truly live in a free society. The powers that be like to influence our thoughts. In fact, they have to do in order to remain in power. This is a highly controversial matter that I am not willing to talk of here. But trust me when I say that none of us are free. If we are not slaves to them, we are still always slaves to ourselves. For their is no greater warden than ourselves. The powers that be learnt that a long time ago.
Confession time. This whole thread is not about me seeking answers. I already have the answers to the questions I asked. This is merely an exercise to see just how many other people are enlightened on this matter. This may be an appeal to authority, but I am on the road to becoming a psychotherapist, and consider myself to be an expert on the workings of the human mind. So please, in future, before rashly referring to someone as 'small brained', just remember to save such accusations until you have 100% proof that the individual you're communicating with truly is small brained.
Thank you for your time.
Take care.
Haha. I am a tad confused by your response (and my 140 IQ objects to me being referred to as 'small brained'). Overpopulation is a problem, I think many people would admit that. But what does this have to do with the rise of incels? More people just means more couples. Or are you suggesting that there's too many men and not enough women? That's statistically untrue.
No, you're right about chav being a British term, but it doesn't mean the same thing as chad (which I meant to say). A chav is a lower class, loud, brash person who typically dresses in hoodies and tracksuit bottoms. I made the error, not you.
Cheers. I'll look into that. As for the Killing Joke, I read it online years back. I haven't actually seen the movie yet. I probably will someday because I do love Mark Hamill's Joker.
In terms of what I would recommend, The Twilight Zone is the only other one in regards to interesting, thought provoking shows that comes to mind and you've already listed it.
It really is a thought provoking show. It's a crime that more people haven't heard of it. I suppose the fact that it's a hidden show is what makes it a cult classic, though. Be warned, though, if you're not used to 60's TV shows some aspects are a little dated. But it has been beautifully restored and it looks great to say that it's over 50 years old.
Haha. I get that when reading what I typed back it almost sounds insulting to describe myself as being well versed when I haven't read the comics. What I meant is, I haven't just seen the films and played the games, I've also done research on the characters. I know their backstories and motivation (or lack thereof when it comes to Joker at times). And I have actually read The Killing Joke online, which I think was a perfect origin story for the Joker.
Of course it's all subjective, but I think Joker has to be Batman's main nemesis because I believe he's appeared more times as a villain than anyone else. He also appeared in the very first Batman comic, I believe. But yes, Ra's al Ghul is a good shout. Don't know as much about him, but I find the character more compelling than Penguin/Riddler/Catwoman, etc.
I must confess, I am not a reader of the comics, but do still consider myself to be well versed within the histories of each character. And yes, it may be a recent idea that has gained traction, and I know that Batman has many other villains to square off against. Even so, I think it's fair to say that the Joker has always been Batman's main nemesis. And to be fair, making Bruce feel connected to Joker on some level does make him more interesting as a character, IMO. I don't know if you've played the Arkham video games, but Arkham Knight delves into this throughout the whole game. The ending is just wonderful. I won't go into detail and spoil it, but essentially Batman has to overcome his connection to Joker. He has to let him go, as it were, and finally succeeds in doing so. That game captures the Batman/Joker dynamic really well, as do all the Arkham games, for that matter.
I think it's nailed on myself that in this universe Bruce still becomes Batman. I think this for two reasons.
1. It's who Bruce is.
There's just no other way the tale can go. Bruce has always been Batman and Batman has always been Bruce. Which leads me to point number two.
2. Batman and the Joker are two sides of the same coin.
In almost every incarnation of these two characters, the link between them has been displayed. It's true that the Joker needs Batman...but Batman also needs the Joker. Batman is the Joker's only true source of comfort, while the same can't be said for Bruce. But Bruce still feels a connection with Joker. He knows that in the eyes of so many they're both just freaks. One cannot really exist without the other.
I appreciate that this movie is trying to be different. But if it really wanted to transcend the genre and characters within...it should never have been a Joker movie in the first place. In many ways, I think making it about the Joker has taken some of the impact away slightly. Having a random man snapping would be a far more poignant tale. Instead, we know that this was always Arthur's destiny and that he's actually going on to greater things (in terms of notoriety, anyway). By making this movie about the Joker it limited itself. To be completely honest, Bruce didn't need to be in this movie at all. Including him was just a way of bringing fans of the Batman on board.
So to sum up. However much people try and say this movie isn't actually about the Batman/Joker conflict as we know it, I have to disagree. The very idea of making this movie about the Joker and including Batman (and showing his parents die) is practically beating us over the head with the fact that somethings never change.
Really? I didn't know that. I do know of Secret Agent/Danger Man but I've never seen it. Number 6 actually being John Drake is a long running theory, but I'm not sure if it really matters. Ultimately, I think Number 6 represents us all.
The whole movie is ambiguous. Everything on screen can be disputed because Arthur is an extremely unreliable narrator. But one thing we do know for sure. This movie is still primarily an origin story. No matter what, Arthur becoming the Joker is certain, so things like Bruce's parents dying definitely did happen. I know that the director has said there won't be any more movies regarding this version of the Joker, but even so, certain things we can be sure of. The rest is left entirely up to interpretation.
For the sake of clarification, it was a typo yes. Haha.
A short response, but one that really hits home for me. The theme of individuality in the modern world (and chiefly, the individual against society itself) is expressed so beautifully in my favourite TV show of all time. The Prisoner. It's an old show from 1967, but it really is a gem. Basically, the main plot revolves around a British secret agent who resigns from his job and is swiftly gassed unconscious in his own home and taken to a mysterious village where people are only known as numbers. It was made during the height of the cold war, so those themes are also touched upon along with various spy show cliches. But once you delve deeper you realise that the show is really just one big allegory. We are all prisoners. We are all in the Village.
Trust me, if you ever find yourself bored and needing something to watch, seek this one out. The whole show is on Youtube. It's only 17 episodes long so it's not too daunting a task.
Missed the hype train myself, because I didn't get into POTC until around 2012, believe it or not. I really adore all the movies and this one (COTBP) is probably my favourite movie of all time. Quite sad reading this old thread, really, especially considering Brookworm was unable to find his friends from the parley message boards (I'm presuming that was some Pirates dedicated forum). These days Pirates feels like a dying franchise. I'm baffled as to why Disney would even consider going ahead with a 6th one without Depp. Personally, I just think they should call it a day. They'll never recapture what the series once had, and I'm saying that as a big fan of all the movies (yes, even the fourth one). I just wish I'd been more into Pirates around 06 and 07 when they were really dominating the Box Office. I guess I was just a little too young at the time.