MovieChat Forums > Sandman27 > Replies
Sandman27's Replies
<i>1st you're not discussing the series, the show, the performances, the narrative, the storytelling nor the creativity.</i>
Neither were you when I replied to your post. My reply was directly at what you posted.
<i>Those were just the few I decided to include not that I was doing a definitive survey of all posts from all sources from all commenters from everywhere. Stay tuned with my use of the word ALL.</i>
And even the ones you cherry picked seemed to contradicted your argument. The fact that you read other post and determined that people are "willfully ignorant" only points the fact that your argument is ignorant and your continued defense of it only proves you are Ignorant to your Ignorance. Do you understand how ironic that is?
<i>I wasn't trying to overwhelm you just whelm you.</i>
Cherry picking post that contradict your own argument will always be an epic fail. Just FYI.
<i>And I'm not sure you know what "irony" means or how to use the word to make a point properly in a sentence. Might be that "Uninformed Opinions" are an entitlement for you and probably to you? ....</i>
You calling people "willfully ignorant" when you yourself are the willfully ignorant one is ironic. Understand? And again, you argument of "Uninformed Opinions" carries ZERO proof. Just because you say so, it is. Ignorance is Strength!
<i>As I stated I wasn't trying to "change your mind"....</i>
How can you engage in conversation when you make an obvious Ignorant blanket statement with zero proof to back you up and you don't even correct yourself? And I'm the defensive one? What a joke!
I'm glad to see you walking back your initial post and now putting qualifiers in them. Yet, if I didn't question it, you would've just left it, thus your argument was ALL people that don't agree with you are "willfully ignorant". It's not binary like you said, yet you worded it as such and demeaned the side that disagreed with you. Really, how credible should people take you?
First of all, that's an extremely small sample size and that sample size does nothing to back up your own ignorance. Just FYI. And even if that was all you got, for you to jump to the conclusion that you did, only proves your Ignorance that much more. The irony is extremely blatant.
The whole reason why people have such a dislike for it is because they READ the source material and found the show to not resemble it. I mean one of the post you listed pretty much proves that. How can you be so Ignorant to your own Ignorance???
You can't change my mind with ignorant claims and arguments backed up with zero proof or proof that you present on your own that contradicts your own argument.
What did I say that was confrontational? Because I questioned your weak argument? To label everyone is "willfully ignorant" because they didn't share your point of view is easily and obviously fallacious.
I didn't, in a nutshell. It's Watchmen by name only. The theme is not Watchmen. The use of the color yellow, is pretentious and pointless all because the smiley was yellow. Pretentious fan service wins and deserves no points.
How do you know how " not too well read" they are? Where's the proof that backs you up? Seems like pure conjecture on your part and your conjecture is proof of your own willful ignorance. Oh the irony is blatant.
I wouldn't consider Interstellar an action movie, but I digress. I would agree with most of the movies you listed, but I wouldn't consider Trek 09 to be a good action movie let alone decent. To sum it up in a single word, Implausible. If you want to read the details, go to the Trek 09 page and read my 7 posts. The story is poor, the character actions make no sense and the over frenetic cinematography and constant dutch angles are used to overemphasize action sequences.
Just for comparison sake, what are action movies that are good?
Pray tell how Trek 09 was such a good movie?
So Jar Jar doesn't care about the quality of a product, but how much he could make surrounded by cronies. That fits him. A true Company Man.
Invested: to use, give, or devote (time, talent, etc.), as for a purpose or to achieve something
You've heard that term before, correct?
In money terms, when one invests in a company, the better it does, the better return it gets on one's investment. Not only is this true, but investing in a company i.e. buy stock, gives the investor a vote, thus a voice in the direction the company makes.
Although there is no money to be made if one makes an investment of time for a franchise, it doesn't mean they want a negative return on their investment, correct? And if they've made such an investment, is it so wrong for them to vent their dissatisfaction to the shoddy products that are put out?
Going back to money investments, if you are losing 20% year after year on a company, what do you do? You sell and you're done. What about if the company is one that makes products you like and buy regularly? Do you want to see the company go under, or would you like to see the company right the ship and get its finances in order and continue to produce quality products?
Nothing has changed over 40 years. The only that has changed is the platform was created that allowed people to voice their displeasure. Are you happy with Rotten Tomatoes new "guidelines" since Capt Marvel? Did you buy their reasons for the change?
<i>-She screws up with the Rathars, almost killing Finn and Han and nearly getting the Falcon destroyed.</i>
Who cares? This is a completely throw away sequence that does nothing to advance the story.
<i>-She childishly wanders away from the group and gets herself captured by Kylo, which serves as an unnecessary distraction while trying to blow up Starkiller.</i>
You're missing the bigger picture of how stupid this is. As you label it a "mistake", it's more along the lines of poor writing to make the character stupid in order for her to get captured to further the idiotic narrative of the story.
<i>-She spends most of her saber fight against Kylo looking foolish, literally trying the same forward thrust over and over and over.</i>
And then all of a sudden she closes her eyes as the music swells and she parries every strike and her strikes are so forceful they push Ben Ren back and she slashes him across the face. From what you stated to what I stated fit together as much as oil and water.
<i>They also completely warp her fight against Kylo, leaving out:
1. That even Finn held his ground against Kylo;</i>
Which makes no sense.
<i>2. That Kylo was horribly wounded by the same weapon that tossed a group of troopers;</i>
And yet he can still punch his wound constantly and apparently RUN from where he was to cut off Rey and Finn to the Falcon. Thus, running FASTER than them. Makes perfect sense!
<i>3. That Kylo wanted to train her, not hurt her;</i>
How does this explain how Ben Ren got bested in the duel being that he received YEARS of formal training in saber fencing?
<i>4. That only the Force allowed her to get the upper hand;</i>
Why would the Force give her the upper hand when she had ZERO training in using it?
<i>5. That she did not defeat Kylo;</i>
We are watching the same movie, correct?
<i>6. That she fended for herself using a staff for years on Jakku, unlike farm boy Luke.</i>
Wielding a staff does not equate to wielding a light saber. Duh.
<i>Luke would have been an excellent Imperial Mole. He's immediately trusted by the Rebellion and given an X-Wing for no reason mere hours after Leia meets him.
If he had been a spy, he could have waited until they were near the Death Star, and then shot down the other X-Wings.</i>
Putting the rescue of Leia aside, let's also ignore the fact that Biggs, Porkins and Wedge knew him and vouched for him.
What did Biggs say to Red Leader about Luke? Hmm... Tunnel vision much?
"In Star Trek The Undiscovered Country Spock says that under impulse power, they burn fuel (plasma)."
The point being made is that the a starship needs to be completely enclosed in space. How can it have open vents?
"- Scotty saying that the Enterprise might be affected by salt water or may not be able to stand the heat of a volcano
And?"
Wow! In my best Darth Vader voice, "The Ignorance is strong with this one."
"And?
- Sulu saying that the transporter might work better with a line of sight"
If in Trek II, they beamed directly inside a planet, why would line of sight improve the outcome?
"No, that was Kirk violating the Prime Directive, as he often did in the TV show. Had they not had to rescue Spock, he could have saved the people without them knowing it was done by "aliens." Even then, had Spock not actually reported what had happened, no one besides the crew of the Enterprise would have known either."
So basically, don't report any wrongdoings to Starfleet, so Federation captains can do whatever they see fit to skirt the rules and laws. Corrupt much?
What's so stupid is that doing what they were doing was a violation of the prime directive regardless of how noble the reason was. Because of this, Spock undertaking the mission was violating the prime directive. How he didn't know that only shows either that he's an idiot, or the "writers" were idiots it not know that. This is just the tip of the iceberg in the stupidity of this movie.
Yes. Pressing on your scab of idiocy. 😂
BTW, learn proper Old English.
When you think about it, they can’t have this movie without this ridiculous opening sequence. Because it’s so stupid, it permeates the entire movie.
Yes, it’s not the worst offending issue of the movie, but being it’s the first one that sets up the rest of the movie, it is arguably the most egregious.
Where is it stated that the Kelvin is a warship? Even if it was, it’s still a moot point since the Narada had Borg tech and 24th century weaponry. Again, one tomahawk missile would destroy a WWII battleship. That tech is only a half a century’s worth of advancement.
Did I? How disappointing that is and now the idiot no talent Alex Kurtzman is the showrunner for STD. It's only clear that it doesn't take talent to be and stay in Hollywood.
[quote]Bashing Sulu as a character seems to be one of the writers favourite past times.
I don't think it was right to change Sulu's sexual orientation making him gay in ST. Beyond.
If they wanted a gay character the writers should have made the effort to created a fresh , new original character.
Furthermore, the scene where Sulu puts his arm around his husband was a very low key way to present the gay theme .
I say : If you are going to do it ...at least do it right ..have them kiss like two people in love would after being separate for a certain time.[/quote]
As The Last Jedi showed no respect or consideration for Episode VII, albeit that was a poor and stupid movie as well, the "writers" showed no respect to the history, the canon, or the actor himself who denounced this himself. Once again, fan service does nothing to story, nor did it give a nod or compliment the original cast or show. But then again as Scotty would say, what else is new?
This movie was co-conceived and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. A movie was done and a book was done by each of their craft. Because of the co-creation, it is my opinion that both mediums were to be consumed together. The movie requires no exposition because the book provides the exposition. The movie is simply the visual story version of the book with the intention that the audience has already read it.
For example, the monolith on the moon emits a high pitch frequency and the scene shows the monolith in foreground and the sun in the back. The next scene they are heading to Jupiter without any exposition. In the book, all of this is exposed stating the high pitch sound is due to the fact the monolith was dug up and hit by sunlight. The direction of the frequency was Jupiter.
So think about it now from this perspective. Does Kubrick need to expose all of this in the film, if you already read the book? Also, does a drawn out scene of Dr. Floyd traveling from Earth to a space station advance the story that much?
And to answer your question above, no they would not have evolved. As the ape discovers he could use a bone as a weapon after encountering the monolith. The ape kills the jaguar and they conquer the other ape tribe because of this. Thus, the new founded intelligence grants them the ability to evolve further from their primal instincts. Did the jaguar evolve? No. It was just the apes.
Evolve...
"The point is that as time passes, technological advances become less impactful, and the more advanced we become, the less they matter. It's not hard to imagine that by the time we can travel at light speed and develop shields to minimize the damage from "photon blasts," 100 years of advancement will be unnoticeable."
You state an analogy that is completely contradictory to this and yet you still don't understand. Are you that Ignorant to your own conclusion???
"And, again, it's science fiction. We don't know the answers, so we accept and enjoy plausible ones given to us in stories."
Do you see what you just did? Even if you were right, which you are not by your own words, you just gave a dismissive statement saying nothing matters it's just a movie. I don't care if you liked it nor am I trying to change your mind in that instance. What you replied and how you contradicted yourself within the same post doesn't say too much about your intelligence level. That conclusion is consistent with you liking this movie. Apparently, not much has changed after these years have passed. What else is new?
"Go ahead and post 10 more parts to the post. Maybe someone else cares what a lowbrow rube like you has to say about things beyond your emotional and intellectual depth, but after reading your rude and confused response to what was a friendly post on my part, I'm no longer interested in this discussion."
Oh how I've missed the insults when one cannot form a coherent argument or rebuttal. Apparently asking for an elaboration of an unfounded conclusion is an attack on ones character. What a joke!
Nice knowing you. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVrEwCa8nSA[/url]