Youtube comments of T Rex (@trex2957).
-
122
-
93
-
88
-
85
-
79
-
77
-
35
-
35
-
28
-
21
-
17
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SimonO1919 Remakes and 'reboots' have been part of Hollywood since the beginning. When 'Hollywood' and, lets just be accurate here, filmmakers recycle they very often make better films than those that predated it.
I'd rather sit through Payback than Point Blank, Ben Hur with Charlton Heston, the 80s Little Shop of Horrors, John Carpenters the Thing... Of course there are rotten and unnecessary remakes, just as there are rotten and unnecessary films that aren't remakes.
None of these remakes are perfect - I just think they are superior in watch-ability and relevance.
Just because you are now old enough to count films that YOU grew up with and experienced as 'new' that are now being rehashed doesn't make this some new problem. And The Matrix wasn't perfect, I literally cringe at their 90's BDSM suits and the ridiculous ass shots on Carrie Anne Moss. The first was great, but the Washowskis ran out of steam, and they have NEVER recovered it after that first great film.
It's like they are the really cool kids at the party, the ones that think they are really edgy, but if you start listening to their edgy speak as they mingle they're like hairdressers - they just keep saying the same crap in every conversation (/film).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jetcox6760 'Getting rid...', 'stop...'. No one is arguing that, least of all me, it's a stupid argument, and an equally stupid counter-argument. There are countries that don't have Americas historical and ongoing racism, social injustice, poverty gap, denuded community values and social cohesion and have the same number of guns and aren't killing themselves anywhere near as much. You will never have the social cohesion, and sense of community found in places like (for example) Switzerland, which has a higher per capital gun ownership, but a fraction of the gun fatality rate.
Yes, people will kill each other (and themselves) without guns and have done for thousands of years, but far less successfully and less often. LESS guns, and guns being harder to get for those people likely to kill themselves and others DOES have a provable impact on gun and murder rates.
Of course the NRA and pro-gun ideologues can't admit that the MORE guns that get produced and sold contributes to gun violence, and even if sold legally, to greater numbers of black market firearms that will be used in crimes. This is because the NRA is morally bankrupt, and largely speaks to idiots.
Opting to selectively bann KNOWN criminals or people with KNOWN mental health issues and ignore the VOLUME of weapons being forced upon the general populace is just a means to avoid truth of gun ownership promoting violence.
To argue differently is either to argue out of ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty... Which is it..?
In a bar where everyone is angry and a fight is going to start, yes, someone might get killed, they are much more likely to have non-fatal wounds and far less likely to initiate lethal force against another. That's just some basic sense. Guns represent power. To say that if there were no guns people would think the same way about a knife, or a sword, or any other weapon is plainly stupid. Guns have currency. They are MARKETED at people. Movies tell us they solve societies problems. They tame the west, and the savage man... People do not just go get a knife when their isn't a gun around. That bullshit is not supported by crime statistics ANYWHERE. Yes, people do get killed in countries with low gun ownership, but a whole lot less successfully, a lot lot less often,.
I mean just look at the murder rate in the US and compare how many use a gun, with how many use say a knife, their fist, or their car. The reason they use guns is it is easier, when it is EASIER, it happens MORE OFTEN. I mean are crayons required here?
The gun makes it EASY to escalate and complete murder, or suicide. Which is why it is SO good for killing yourself, and why Americans (especially American males) are so 'good' at killing themselves. America is pissed off and paranoid, and when you compare places with 1/10th the murder/gun ownership rate the dissemination of firearms to such a populace can only be argued to be healthy and wise by the morbidly stupid.
Start reducing the production and sale of firearms, particularly non-sporting and military type weapons, and the number available to commit crimes with, and the crime rate, will go down. Recognise that firearms are not tools for a better society - they never have been.
Personally, I find the argument that more guns means more democracy or a resistance to tyranny the harshest indictment of the intelligence of the American people. How many tyrants have cropped up in countries with high levels of private gun ownership? Most of them... But the gun nuts harp back to Nazi Germany... well, Nazi Germany was 99% Christian. Should we ban Christianity too? Selective facts there..
.
How effective would the idiots that subscribe to gun=democracy be in resisting their own military with a budget of 550 million? Or any other major power?
Are AR-15s going to prevent you getting killed by a drone. Killed by tank? A nuke?
Is owning more than one going to make your democracy safer? Or does it just make you feel slightly less insecure, or more tough...
It's idiot stuff.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nolans films are bloated messes that speak to average viewers in a language they understand, but in a way that makes them think they are 'clever' for getting it.
Sure, the music is good, and there's plenty of craft, but break it down he gets a message from the future... he goes to where it tells him to go... and long story short he winds up being the guy that sent himself the message, but inexplicably acts like he doesn't recognise his BEING the guy that sent the message to go where he said... while sending the message... "I know I'll send him this..."
And you know not one of Nolan's bictehs realised how retarded that was when he was doing it... Why didn't he immediately go "Holy #$#@ I am the one that sent that message!" Anyway, broke my immersion in what had been a fairly pedestrian snoozefest to that point.
That was just retarded. If you are going to be making a 'smart' film, don't be dumb. I did like the decaying civilization with drones still flying about though. That was a nice touch.
And yes, Ledger's Joker was awesome, but the Batman films are bloated overlong films, and Dark Knight was a messy mash of two films, and Maggie Gylenhaal is just NOT HOT ENOUGH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackofmanytrades4396 This is a load of shit, sorry. 2/3 are suicides. Guns are much more likely than most other methods of attempt to result in death. So as I say bullshit. The other third is (excepting some 500-700 killed by police or legit civilian) murder. So again, bull shit. You are arguing that the under 1000 killed legitimately in self defence justify the 30,000 that suicide more efficiently and successfully and are more likely to commit suicide in the first place, murder, or accidentally kill themselves or someone else. Again, imo bullshit. You can defend your home quite effectively with a shotgun. The only reason you need something capable of killing an Indian warparty is ideological bullshit, general social paranoia/psychosis, and at best is a result of the lax gun control that put guns in the hands of criminals. Americas gun obsession is unique, and unique in the level of social harm guns cause. Excluding third world shit holes. Why US murder rates, and gun murder rates specifically, are 'magnitudes' higher then other nations of similar economic standing should be concerning. If your argument is more guns makes society safer - bullshit. Its not one that has an ounce of credibility. I understand the ideological rationale of the 33,000 dead being an exchange for your right to have firearms. I just do not subscribe to it. There would be very few mass shootings if the only guns people had were muskets AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED. :)
1
-
1
-
Gun nuts ignore the fact that 'legitimate' homicides (those of police or citizens shooting a criminal, or in self-defence) are some single percentiles of gun deaths in the US.
This is the inexcusable, inescapable fact and flaw in any argument they throw up, literally. Nearly all killings with hand guns are suicide, accident, and murder in that order. And while someone might choose to kill themselves another way, no method of killing ones self has proven as effective, as attractive, effortless and inescapable once committed to as the firearm.
Similarly, someone might use another method to kill someone and themselves, but the firearm is the easiest and most reliable method, and given America's history and cultural values the most obvious and 'rewarding'. Guns are what 'fix' society for these people... irrespective of the obvious and observable experience of gunownership int he US. They are fanatics.
But gun nuts aren't into understanding or questioning the flaws in their logic or society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SimonO1919 It's interesting that you identify a threat to the Matrix franchise from contemporary gender politics - given the only reason we were given a hero like neo / trinity in the original matrix was the door opening to them as filmgoers turned off to uber-masculine testosterone-loaded heroes like we were given in the 80's. So The Matrix, and a someone like Keannu Reeves moving from comedy into action movies as the hero illustrates the direct effect of contemporary ideas of gender affecting film broadly.
Why not have a transexual hispanic-korean lead..? What's the threat? That they are unbelievable because they are a minority? So why have ANY minorities?? It's a far cry from the engineered bullshit they pulled with Ghostbusters!
Of course The Matrix was intended to be a trilogy, but Alien wasn't. It was standalone film. It only became a franchise much later, and then people started generating 'rules' for the franchise. Personally I can't stand franchises and what it forces films to become/live up to/exceed. Alien was a great film in it's own right, and so was Aliens, the rest... personally I think they are at best average, and at worst overblown rubbish (Prometheus and Covenant).
Most franchises have good films and much worse films. I love the original Superman film, and it slides downhill with each sequel, increasingly rapidly. Sometimes a film in the middle (for whatever reason(s)) appeals more than the original. I would just suggest to try and judge each film on its merits.
The Godfather is a great example of a trilogy that never should have been, and should ONLY be watched as a duology. The third didn't have Robert Evans producing ( if we give Evans any credit is pretty much WHY the first two were great) and Ford Coppola couldn't secure Winona Ryder for a lead role (GAG) case his own daughter (producing a film-destroyingly terrible performance). What's left is some crap about Andy Garcia, gang violence, and a whole HEAP of nostalgia... Terrible.
Do I lament them 'ruining' the franchise just because Ford Copolla can't direct with without a producer telling him what to do, and cast his own untalented and just-not-attractive-enough daughter in the lead? No. I simply pretend it doesn't exist. Much as I will nearly all of the Marvel films, except Ironman and Guardians, and maybe the first and third Thor movies, and the first Spiderman and a few others...
Like you I can't not watch the Matrix sequels once I start... No matter how silly and self-absorbed they (and their creators) are.
1
-
Oh, and the big thing about Star Wars was the technology. It was a break through, and while it added a lot it was at it's heart a very basic, simple, and cliched story. So it did two things really well, it surprised us, and it spoke to us in a language we already understood. It was exciting and accessible.
The writing wasn't amazing, the characters were two dimensional, the acting wooden beyond belief and hammy as all hell. But man, check out those giant walking things, and those space ships, and man! You can buy the toys!
Star wars is famous for its franchising, as much as anything else. And being franchised from its conception.
Frankly, imo the first two are great (Empire is better) and the third is pretty terrible. Ewoks?? Just about unwatchable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, the majority of filmmakers are educated liberals. That isn't a conspiracy it's just the arts aren't as attractive to political conservatives I'd wager. Think back to high school - who was in the drama club, who was acting from an early age. There have been many very successful right wing movie makers and actors - thinking John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, but a more complete list is here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Hollywood_conservatives
Remember the monologue at the end of Rambo... No liberal produced that.
I'd question whether a film made by a liberal filmmaker 'pushes' a liberal agenda as much as it simply is the product of a liberal filmmaker the vision of that filmmaker. And I enjoy seeing a film BY someone, by an auteur, not some faceless unrecognisable "entertainment product"...
I find Disney very interesting for a reading of such things, most Disney films traditionally aligned very tidily with the views of the Nazi party... Until around the 90's at least. So yes, even Disney got corrupted by the liberal influence - but don't worry hetero-sexual couple bonding, and homosexual villains still abound.
Even documentaries are slanted by the process of producing them. I don't like preachy films, and in most films subtext is awful.
At the very least if you are reasonable, if your finding offense is reasonable, then that just means the pendulum has swung too far in the left and will correct in time. This is why you have situations like O.J. Simpson being acquitted (only the ignorant maintain his innocence), and Donald Trump being elected and people do this day thinking he is a great man worthy of his position. Simply, the pendulum swung too far and people rejected the LA Police by rioting and acquitting a patently obvious spousal abuser/murderer, and electing a buffoon to "MAGA"... and once the pendulum has swung back from that it'll be even worse liberal horseshit the likes of which you cannot conceive.
1
-
@SimonO1919 Actually Stallone and Dolph and Schwarzenegger etc can very reasonably be interpreted as America's path to psychic recovery after Vietnam. Again, just listen to the monologue of Rambo First Blood... That was under Reagan... you remember - when AIDS was "sent by god" to wipe out homosexuals..., but it was subsequently revealed that it was inconveniently NOT sent by God at all and infected half of Africa and tens of thousands of American heterosexuals... Helped in no small way by the direct actions (or inactions..) of those two gigantic dildos, The Pope, and Ronald Reagan.
Then the pendulum swung to the democrats... and liberal values and a rejection of the uber-male was the flavor of the day, and we had Neo... I think it naive to look at a mass produced, mass marketed product like the action movie and think it not a politically influenced product, and that influence being in flux BETWEEN the conservative AND liberal, not just one political persuasion... Film doesn't suddenly GET political when you notice liberal messaging. Watch some lesser John Wayne or Steven Segal films. They are basically an excuse to watch the white hero murder or torture Mexicans/Indians/Japanese/Cajuns/whoever. Hell, how many minorities does Arnold kill in Commando.? He goes to an island and basically murders EVERYONE...
Again, I LOVE commando. In fact I love nearly all of Arnold's films. But I don't kid myself about the latent politics of those movies - nor Steven Segal rolling about the Bronx break the legs of stereotyped hispanic gangbangers... It's all right wing fascistic horseshit that tells us societies woes can be fixed with the gun... Which is the political message of the NRA, which conservatives STILL believe despite America leading the Western world in murder rates and gun fatalities. '
So yeah, I very much dispute an argument that cinema is ostensible a liberal left wing product, what has happened is the bastion of right wing values The Action movie, has finally been brought to task and dragged into the 21st century.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, 2 points 1) self-entitled doesn't make sense, just say 'entitled', you can't be 'entitled' for someone else, otherwise they would be entitled - not you, please never ever say "self-entitled". It's like instead of saying you're selfish, saying instead you're self-selfish. Ok? 2) There is something called social disparity. It's a real thing, and it results from all manner of causes. Like for instance kidnapping people of a particular colour from one continent, enslaving them for generations and brutalising them for generations, and then over about 150 years slowly drip feeding them civil liberties and rights OTHER people take for granted. That sort of thing results in SOCIAL DISPARITY. It doesn't get fixed easily or quickly. So yes, individuals need to be accountable for their individual actions, but what ACTUALLY happens when there is significant social disparity is that systems come into effect to reinforce that disparity. For instance there are plenty of studies that show that people from a particular ethnicity, more inclined to poverty/crime, will also be the worst served by the justice system and more likely to be arrested in the first place for the SAME crime. Profiling works for cops because it gets results, the effect of profiling is that if you are one of the people being racially profiled if you commit the same crime you are more likely to go to jail for it. In that fact is the injustice.
If you are a rich friend of Arnold Schwarzenegger and your son is convicted as an accomplice to homicide, you might just get him pardoned because you have access to resources the average person doesn't. Similarly if you are a white guy dressed smart with a good lawyer you might escape justice by not being stopped in the first place. It's going to be much harder if you are a poor black person with an ignorance of your rights and no access to a decent legal attorney...
So yeah, I don't look at an individual that murders someone and say "not his fault because he is a minority or his actions are the direct result of historic racism. However, when the incarcerations rates, and offending rates are much higher I do understand that if he was NOT born into THAT society, and with THAT ethnicity, then there's probably a 30-50% chance that he would either never have done it, or if he had got away with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1