MovieChat Forums > Costumer

Costumer (871)



I just saw this message. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think rotten tomatoes is the be all and end all. You referenced rotten tomatoes and said it was rated at 90%. I just went to look and saw different numbers. And just to be clear, in the past ten years of so I think I've gone to rotten tomatoes perhaps three times. I pay little attention to critics of any kind when deciding to see a film unless I know the critic's tastes well; which means no professional critics or people who post online. I will consider friends and relatives opinions since I know their tastes. You're not wrong. As an SF fan since the 60's I am very aware of the originals and the stories involved; so the Dick title resonates more with me. But for the general public that familiarity isn't going to exist. (and that's not a criticism of the general public. I couldn't tell you popular titles and story-lines in the romance, historical or general fiction genres.) As far as I recall from the movie, the sign says "Bates Motel" so that is your answer. If there weren't motels in 1960 the sign wouldn't say "Bates Motel." Both motels and motor lodges still exist, though there is no functional difference. Based solely on observation I believe there are more motels at the moment than motor lodges; but that is purely anecdotal and should not be taken with any seriousness. No, season 3 is still on the schedule. Within the universe you have to realize that "sub-commander" is an English translation of her Vulcan rank. It doesn't have any connection to the naval style ranks that Earth (and eventually the Federation) are using. While never explicitly done on screen, if you map Vulcan ranks against Earth ranks the Vulcan rank of Sub-Commander is higher than the Earth rank of Commander. It is confusing. If I had been writing it (and I am not a professional writer by any means, though I dabble) I would have either used a Vulcan rank directly, or mapped the Vulcan ranks to a different standard; Earth Army, Roman, Greek, or something else to make avoid the Commander/Sub-Commander issue. Not in the slightest. You are applying human logic to God. He's not going to come down and inscribe the Gospels onto stone tablets or the wall of the Temple or the Imperial Senate. He reveals Himself and allows people to write and record as they will. This is all part of Free Will. You can believer or not. He wants that to be our choice. I'm sure that won't satisfy you. It hasn't satisfied many. But these are all old objections. I have never seen a new or original argument against God. You asked "who were the "more than five hundred" brothers and sisters ? When and where did the resurrected Jesus appear to them, at a market ? Or were they advised to gather together for the occasion ? And most importantly where are the eyewitness accounts ?" So yes, you were asking for their names and, metaphorically, their addresses. You wanted to know when and where. You wanted to know where the accounts were. Most of those people were likely illiterate. There are eye witness accounts; the gospel authors. (Yes, I'm quite well aware of the belief they were written much later. I think its highly likely they were passed down to what historians believe are the "authors." No, I don't intend to debate it with you.) Paul was of that generation and he believed; and he didn't come to that belief easily. The facts are that we have very little documented, written evidence from anywhere that old. We know there was a lot written from what we do have. But papyrus and other mediums written upon do not hold up well over that expanse of time. What we do have are fragments, which relates back to the OP's original statement. Never been accused of that. I'm just perplexed that you apparently want details from 2000 odd years agao that couldn't be produced for any recent political rally with all our modern equipment and ubiquitous cameras. Ah, so you wanted Paul to leave a detailed list of names, date and addresses. Why do you need to know who the specific people were? I doubt it was common anytime to list the members of a crowd in any detail for any event, political, religious or otherwise. No problem. I hadn't been back for awhile either. View all replies >