MovieChat Forums > TheCatman > Replies
TheCatman's Replies
That was also a bizarrely cast film.
I don't know if that was Disney though and it seemed like an action movie take on Snow White. However, Stewart is a miserable looking gay woman who can't act and so they failed there. However, Hemsworth was good in it, and had they a fitting actress for Snow it could have been really good.
You probably don't know what you're talking about.
I look at Reddit Politics once in awhile and probably most posters on there could be sued for libel. All they post are lies about politics like it's some kind of sport.
Free speech is great but you can't publish things to destroy the character of others without proof.
You are committing a crime with your post by the way. You can say "I THINK Musk is doing ABC" but you can't legally say he "IS" doing those things.
It's noteworthy, that I never liked Musk.
You need to learn about the world around you before talking about it.
Little people are regular humans with a genetic condition, they aren't Dwarves.
Dwarves are a mythical race with certain characteristics.
I'm not being PC here.
I think Asians look like Elves, for instance. I mean that in a good way. But, it would be weird to put white wings and pointed ears on a bunch of Asians and say they are Elves. So, casting people with a growth disorder is also strange, in my opinion.
Peter Dinklage looks "Sleepy" so imagine him as the "Dwarf" Sleepy...I would feel sorry for him.
It's bizarre because Snow is NOT better looking than the queen.
I've seen wildly good looking Hispanic girls in my gym and they have very white skin.
So, if has nothing to do with the actress being Hispanic, just being not very good looking, lol.
That's not true.
Schindler had many troubles in life after the war and a wide variety of jews got together and helped him out with money, business, etc.
The best cover in Nazi Germany would have been to say you were a Nazi.
You would be killed if not and wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.
I watched it opening weekend and I found myself accidentally wanting to throw punches during a couple of fight scenes.
In the one Mission Impossible movie, he had a glove that could stick to surfaces and he was climbing the side of a building and the glove failed and he started falling. Suddenly, it worked and he stuck his hand to the glass.
I got a pain in my hand from that scene.
If I'm watching movies and I'm that into them, they are memorable and awesome.
That's racist Tokenism.
It's where the writers of a story use a minority, typically a black person/character, to make themselves look good.
If you were behind the scenes someone said we need a "black" and an "Asian" for these scenes. Then, the casting director went out and found a "Black" and an "Asian" to stand there.
Generally speaking, casting is difficult. You need real actors for the movie and a lot of money is going into making the production so the actors have to give good performances.
So, if you get the idea that you MUST have an Asian kid in your movie you had better be sure the kid can act. Meanwhile, where will you find a really good Asian kid actor? If you can't find one there's probably a lot of white kids to choose from.
You better choose well because millions of dollars are on the line, so it's smarter to go with white actors.
The recent Star Wars movies had Finn played by a not very good looking black actor who had a stiff and confused quality. Marvel Comics also has a variety of shows with minorities and women that people hated because they didn't have good actors playing the characters.
When you cast based on race/sex and not talent, you get crap.
On an amusing note, the 1970s had many all black action movies. Sounds good, but the actors weren't very good and so the films are more comical that adventurous.
It's part of a type of communist theory.
I can't recall the writer but he said that communists have to destroy "Cultural Hegemony" in order to turn people toward communism.
I am older, and when I was a kid Christmas was a big deal. Cities would put up lights, there would be all kinds of Christmas specials on TV, etc. I wasn't raised religious, but it was fun.
As time when on, jews started attacking the public display of Christmas. TV shows and media made Jesus look silly, stupid, etc. I have seen countless articles like---"Was Jesus Gay!" and so on. All of that is the communist thing I talked about.
I don't even believe Jesus was real, but I don't like people degrading something positive people believe in.
Anyway, in order to destroy Western society you have to attack white people. You have to make the leaders, white males, look stupid, evil, etc. You have to undermine the belief in family so that couples break up and become individuals, kids have no parents, etc.
One view of communism is that there are no couples, there are no parents, and everyone is just a cooperative group. So, the media seems to be drive by that idea as they have been trying to destroy romantic bonds, destroy Christianity, push bizarre self-centered sexual behavior, and attack the creators of the West, white people.
None of this will work.
There's always a backlash and my guess is we are fixin' for another Holocaust type event to reset society. I like Marxist type ideas about communism. He said it would evolve through education. You can't force people to "be good" because that's what the Nazis wanted to do and it will blow up in the faces of the people controlling the media.
The book is about the author's experience with fame in Hollywood.
He admitted he was homosexual eventually....so your conclusion is probably correct.
That's Hollywood for you.
Have any of these guys been to THE island?
The Enlightenment was a liberal movement.
In Political Science, the American Revolution is considered a "Proto-Communist" revolution. That's because it's sort of what Marx talked about much later.
If you read Thomas Jefferson's letters to associates such as, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, they believed that individuals could be great no matter where to whom they were born. Franklin called it the "Natural Born Genius" and so the plan was to have national healthcare, national healthcare, and things like that to have level playing field for poor and rich people.
They also got the idea of Freedom of Religion from the French philosopher Voltaire. He developed that idea for Prussia to destroy religion. That's because groups like Catholics and jews will create their own governments within a country. So, Ben Franklin when to France to talk to Voltaire to defeat religious group.
Voltaire's idea was that if all religions are equal they have no self-created struggle to build followers and power against the government. Also, no official religion means that none have say over life.
Also, there's something called a Death Tax which takes funds from rich families upon the death of the head of the family. Jefferson wanted this to be a total removal of wealth from the family. He didn't want "royal families" to crop up again in the US.
In addition, Jefferson wanted all be to be GIVEN land in the US. The Marxist idea here is that people should have control of the "Means of Production" and in the 1700s that meant farming, while in Marx time it meant factories, etc.
Jefferson wrote that even if land had to be removed from rich landowners this should be done.
You can look up Jefferson's letters online and read all of this stuff. If you like the subject, it's a great read. Ben Franklin wrote some really good stuff as well. Paine was also good but Jefferson and Franklin were awesome.
Voltaire is one of my favorites. I have read everything by him.
You are making up your own definitions which is useless.
The definition of conservatives is exactly what I said.
Look it up.
Lots of nefarious people use the opposite title of what they are.
Guys will say they are priests and they are predators.
North Korea says it's communists but it's really a kingdom run by a royal family.
Liberals who are not open to new ideas, honest discussion, push censorship, etc are conservatives.
Just because someone says they are something, it doesn't mean they are.
Actions are what tells you everything.
As I recall, Marion was angry at Indy because she was in love with him.
I'm reminded of The Professional which was about a hitman and a little girl he saved.
It was clear that the little girl loved and admired the hitman. However, the hitman didn't act like he had romantic feelings for the girl.
It's not weird for a kid to have a crush on an adult and the adult to be clueless about it. It is weird for an adult to have a crush on a child. Meanwhile, there's been years of reactions about The Professional that it's "pedo" and so on. But, that's not the case if you watch the film or ever had a crush on an adult, adult celeb, etc as a child.
So, it was my interpretation that Marion loved Indy and he left her behind and didn't take her seriously.
In real life, there's only ten years difference between Ford and Karen Allen.
It takes a lot of college to get your doctorate, about 12 years, so Indy would be at least 30 or older when on his various adventures. So, Marion would have been in her late teens or early 20s when Indy was Dr. Jones.
I work in psychology and used to do sex offender therapy in the prison system.
I disliked it to the extreme but got taught a lesson.
There was an old broken down looking guy who was in on a pedo charge and he always wanted to talk to me. He kinda made my skin crawl.
One day he brings me a letter and said he wanted to know what it meant. It was from his now 18 year old victim.
She apologized for getting him convicted. She said her mother made her lie in court because she was crazy and hated the guy. So, she was going to do what she could to overturn the case.
I was mind blown and felt ashamed of myself. So, I did what I could to get this info to the judge and the guy very quickly got out of prison after 15 years!!
That taught me to never believe a case unless there was 100% rock solid evidence.
Back in the beginning of the 20th Century he might have gotten the death penalty.
I'm what's called an "Old School Leftist" and that's about helping poor people, economic equality, etc.
The people you are talking about aren't Leftists, they are a type of conservative.
The definition of "conservative" is a person who believes in traditional ideas as being solutions for all issues. Censorship has always been a traditional solution for problems via ruling and comfortable classes.
Marx talked about the "Bourgeois" which is a middle to upper middle class group. They are marked by living in a bubble where they ignore realities of life. That serves a main function of soothing them into doing nothing about life's problems. Also, the Bourgeois lives on the edge of potential poverty, so they must ignore the existence of related troubles. In addition, they believe that one day they could be rich so they ignore the reality Epstein types who would never want anything to do with them.
So, Bourgeois don't see obese people are being crazy beings with self-destructive eating disorders, but rather big and beautiful or they pretend they don't even see a fat person. The same thing goes for black crime, the Bourgeois pretend that's not real....what black crime....or justify it as okay because of history, etc.
All of the PC and woke stuff is all conservative Bourgeois behavior going back hundreds of years.
Irrational environmentalism, pretending there's no racial issues, and so on is what English royalty used to do. They would remain rich and comfortable while advocating for issues and people they knew nothing about.
It's like modern celebs talking about pollution after getting off their private jet.
Meanwhile, real Leftists are for truth, free speech, truthful solutions, uncomfortable truths, and so on.
All of these terms are so screwed up that they are massively confusing for most people.
Yes, what are they?
I can imagine that totally illegal subjects are out and maybe personal attacks on him?
There are crazy people I've seen on forum who spam the same content over and over for years. That's not free speech but rather a kind of vandalism.
I'm not sure what you are talking about though.
That's why I said I'll bet the guy got raped as a kid.
Pedos groom kids to do things like that. Then, the kid gets to be an adult, or just realize what happened, and then the mental illness and PTSD sets in.
I work in social services and have seen a lot of cases like that.
That may be partly correct, but it's not completely.
I thought he was a shock huckster before he bought Twitter.
I say that because electric cars cannot work. They take too long to charge, so people in cities cannot use them. probably a hundred million people who park on streets, in apartment lots, etc that have nowhere to plug a car into.
Meanwhile, gas stations can fill a tank in minutes. So, mass numbers of people can fill a tank and leave. So, city stations work efficiently and so so in a small space. Electric cars take too long to charge and so the more people who own them the less they will be able to charge them.
That, and his plans to dig underground tunnels, go to Mars, have mass brain implants, just cannot work. So, I thought he was promoting these ideas to sell stock, or whatever.
Many medical companies do that. We have cured some cancer...then people buy stock, and that story dies.
Anyway, he bought Twitter because he said he is for free speech. He followed through on that and people say whatever they want on X. That is good for society.
Yuppies and bourgeois (comfortable middle class liars) hate free speech because it disturbs the bubble of propriety they live in. So, once Musk started allowing free speech, suddenly he's no long "Tony Stark" but a bad guy.
Don't fall for it.
He's positive on this point.
Good theory, but that's not solid according to the author.
The author wrote the story about himself.
He was a writer and then Hollywood got very interested in his books. That caused him to get rich and be involved in the Hollywood crowd of rich people who could do anything they wanted to.
He said he got obsessed with competition, fashion, and so on. So, Bateman is the author and the author experienced nearly psychotic fantasies of power. His mind was occupied with success, more success, sex, and having the finest of everything.
Meanwhile, when people looked at him they saw a composed guy, wearing great clothes, and saying PC talking points to virtue signal.
Once he snapped out of it, he wrote the book.
The book is worth a read.
It's disjointed scenes of Bateman obsessing about clothes, sex, music, etc. The movie is more of a story with parts of the book included. So, the books is like reading the mind of an obsessed person while the movie is like a mystery, so that confuses what the story is about a bit.
I found articles from the author online years ago and found out what I reported here.
Back when DVDs were a thing, they had all kinds of extras on them.
There was an interview with one of the writers. He was a VERY shaky looking bald skinny guy.
He said that the creatures represented "Every man's fear of oral rape" and I thought he was talking about himself, like he had been raped as a kid, etc. I have no fear of oral rape and so the comment stunned me.
I haven't watched but one trailer for this as I think it looks like crap. However, what you are seeing is probably what the filmmakers are trying to communicate.
The whole series, I enjoyed many of the films, have a huge element of things taking over and using your body. So, there's a rape theme throughout.