MovieChat Forums > Captain Marvel (2019) Discussion > Not seeing Captain Marvel, what's your a...

Not seeing Captain Marvel, what's your alternative?


It's the only wide opening this weekend, so you've got these to choose from:
Dragon Train; Madea Family Funeral; Alita: Battle Angel; LEGO Movie 2; other shit

Alita is the other CBM, promoted by many anti-Brie activists:
https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1102641283317678081
https://cosmicbook.news/captain-marvel-boycott-alita-brie-larson-man-hater

So instead of Alita grossing $400m and CM $1000m, they are reversed, right? That's what boycotts do!

reply

Triple Frontier on Netflix

reply

"Fighting With My Family" with Dwayne the Rock.

reply

Why would you be an anti Brie activist?

I mean, her virtue advertising preachy interviews can be cringey I guess, but she's probably not a terrible person. Hell, I still watch Roman Polanski's movies and he raped a thirteen year old.

reply

it was a statutory rape

reply

She was drugged. And thirteen.

reply

ahhh he pulled the old bill cosby. yeah i didnt kno bout that part

reply

They were recreational drugs but yeah, he gave her drugs until she was half out of it and then had sex with her.

reply

yeah that behavior is pretty frowned upon

reply

She was drugged. And thirteen.

There's doubts about the age since there were some problems regarding birth documents. She was possibly older, and she definitely looked like 16-17 years old at that time.

https://i.f1g.fr/media/madame/1900x1900_crop/sites/default/files/img/2017/06/samantha-geimer-une-vie-dans-lombre-de-roman-polanski.jpg

She was not drugged. She used to work as some kind of soft-erotic model and already had sexual partners. We're talking about the 70s.

Of course, it was statury rape. But there's no need to decorate the truth.

reply

No, Polanski admitted giving her drugs.

I'm not "decorating" the truth.

reply

No, Polanski didn't admit having given her drugs.

Not even she stated such a thing. She stated to have taken part of a pill voluntarily after Polanski took another part.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090817112158/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia18.html

reply

Oh, he didn't give her drugs. He gave her part of a pill.

OK... I guess it could have been vitamins he gave her. I can't find anything saying Polanski admitted that part of the story, but Polanski did admit having sex with her.

reply

Oh, he didn't give her drugs. He gave her part of a pill.

You said before 'She was drugged', which is the same that saying that he drugged her. You lied there. Not even her testimony says such a thing.

Then you reasserted your position but changing 'drugging' for 'giving drugs'. And I understand that since you didn't change your position, by 'giving drugs' you meant 'drugging', but now it happens that you mean 'offering a drug that you can voluntarily either pick or dismiss' (which is her testimony). You're jumping between the different meanings of the expression, using one meaning to accuse but a different one to prove.

That's a rhetoric cheap trick.

As I said before: if you think that the truth is enough, why do you decorate it? why do you resort to some rhetoric trick?

reply

She was on drugs that Polanski gave her. She was drugged out, via a narcotic Polanski handed her. Is that clear enough for you?

I think giving drugs to thirteen year olds is illegal, however you choose to word it? Not just illegal but highly immoral. And then there was the sex, which he admitted to. Yeah, partying and sex with thirteen year olds is just not right.

reply

She was on drugs that Polanski gave her. She was drugged out, via a narcotic Polanski handed her

The problem is that this is NOT what you said before. You said 'she was drugged'. And not 'drugged out', but 'drugged by'.

It's not the same saying that you are drunk with the beers the waiter gave to you, or saying that you're drunk out via the beers the waiter gave to you, that saying that the waiter drugged you.

You can't just play with the terms, you can't jump between them and rotate them to your convenience. That's a cheap rhetoric trick.

As I said, if the truth is enough, why do you decorate it?

reply

Well, I’ve inadvertently locked myself in the crapper and won’t be able to get out of here until the cleaning lady swings by next week. So no Captain Marvel for me this weekend.
Luckily, I have this tablet and charger to help maintain my sanity and hold on reality.
Beyond that, I plan on subsisting on tap water and wall-tile mold.
I believe I can survive until freedom presents itself; and then go out for a Chipotle binge.
This will serve to both sate my appetite, as well resetting and perpetuating the crapper cycle ad infinitum.

[none]

reply

But it's a certified fresh movie on RT, why wouldn't you watch it?

reply

I am going to see it, but not because of the RT reviews which I don’t trust good or bad anyway.

reply

I'm taking my little son to see "How to Train Your Dragon III"

reply