MovieChat Forums > The_Rev > Replies
The_Rev's Replies
Ah... Thanks!
I mean... At least it was better than their Bankok adventures... That movie suuuucked. :-P
With regards to "Roofalin" (made up term for roofies-like drugs), given that it's made up, it's impossible to tell whether or not it acts slowly or quickly, but a quick google says Rohypnol, one of the most well-known date-rape drugs, takes 15-20 minutes to kick in... GHB takes 15-20 minutes... Zolpidem (Ambien) takes 30-60 minutes... Xanax takes 15mins-1 hr...
However, when it starts to kick in isn't generally considered it's "peak effect"... That usually takes longer... BUT... More than likely, unless you're taking uppers like coke, speed, etc. at the same time as the "Roofalin," it's highly doubtful that any of the guys would last anywhere NEAR a whole night of partying before they passed out and forgot everything that happened. So yeah, the movie takes some liberty with the idea of anyone being able to last more than an hour or so before passing out from the effects of roofies.
And as for the doc saying put the money in my pocket so I don't have to resterilize... That was clearly not meant to be super accurate. Healthcare workers foam in and out when taking care of patients, so in all honesty, the dude was just being overdramatic. :-P Plus it's not like he's a surgeon, so... "Sterilizing" isn't really what ordinary docs/HCWs do unless they're doing advanced bedside procedures or surgeries. The whole thing was just meant to play up the idea of docs being super germ-conscious, but in reality, if dude just foamed his hands as he left the room, he'd STILL have to foam before his next patient, so... Just unrealistic.
I didn't get the sense that The Father was a pedophile, and I'll tell you why. While they were once in love, I believe the act of caring for her turned him from a boy who was once IN LOVE with her, to a man who felt emotionally obligated to love and help her, despite his moral objections. I mean, did the dude look HAPPY at all during the movie? No. He was miserable. He went from boyfriend to slave, and had been a slave for decades at that point. I'm sure at one point he loved her, but it was pretty obvious, save for one scene where he showed her some positive emotion, that he generally was weighed down by the responsibility of being her caretaker, knowing someone else would have to die in order for her to live. Since she wasn't going out to feed herself, HE was the one putting his neck on the line for her, even though she was immortal. She was just reaping the benefits. Plus, he risked being killed by Abby should he refuse and she gets angry for revenge (or desperate for blood :-P )... I feel like that's really the only reason she showed any feelings for him at this point in the film; she just needed him to kill for her, and using their past closeness was her best weapon against his moral objections.
No. He was merely trying to give something to Philip (a photo maybe? I forget), and likely didn't realize there was a sniper far away with his finger on the trigger. At that point of the movie, Butch had lost a LOT of blood, and was actively dying. There's no way he was able to comprehend that his sudden movement would cause the sniper to fire at him. He was only able to process what was directly in front of him. Plus, Red was out there talking to him. The sniper didn't know the context of what was going on, saw Butch reaching for something that could have been a gun, and killed Butch.
Glad I could help. :-)
The point of the movie, as I mentioned in another thread, was that people need to think for themselves. The ONLY people in this movie who survived did so by not "drinking the Kool-Aid," ie not just blindly doing with authority tells them to do. The movie is attempting to empower people to not be sheep, not just surrender all of their will to someone else, particularly those in power. The whole movie shows what happens when people become "sheeple" and how damaging it can be to society. "Following orders" ended the vast majority of people's lives because they just accepted what their government told them and willingly killed themselves, in the hope of avoiding the "horrors" of a gruesome death. If more people thought for themselves, they wouldn't have believed what their government told them without any attempt at challenging the "truth" presented to them...
The whole movie could be seen as a modern retelling of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. All the people in the world are metaphorically chained to a wall, accepting the "shadows" their captors showed them on the wall as their entire reality, without looking for the truth beyond the surface.
And from a psychological perspective, it's an example of toxic "Groupthink." When people in large groups are conned by the powers that be into doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do, had they not been socially pressured to do so, they doom their society.
THAT is the point of the movie.
If that's what you thought, you missed the point of the movie...
This movie wasn't about COVID... It was in development long before COVID even emerged; it's just a coincidence that COVID emerged around the same time.. This movie has nothing to do with being anti-vax...
It's REALLY about being anti-Kool-Aid. You know, Jim Jones cult, drink the Kool-Aid kinda shit... They're all blindly following those in power, to the point of ACTUALLY killing themselves, instead of kids like Art, who questioned authority, questioned the behavior of the majority, and decided to think for himself. The movie is anti-sheeple, through and through.
*drops mic*
I saw... :'(
So sad. RIP Bull Shannon.
Funny you don't like to remind yourself of the "anniversary" of 9/11, which, in case you weren't alive back then, happened during a Republican presidency (George "Duh"bya Bush), and killed a hell of a lot more than 13 service members (2996 to be precise)... I bet you think he was a good president cuz he said quirky **** on tv... :-P
That's because they use Raymond Lee's face to illustrate who "Ben" is leapt into. We only get a glimpse of what he really looks like when he looks in a mirror. My point is, the fact that we saw Sam during the vast majority of the series (except for certain situations which aren't relevant to this convo) was done so both for the benefit of the viewer, so we ALWAYS know which character on screen is our leaper (Sam in the OG series' case), and keep casting costs down. It would get REALLY confusing if we all saw a new character portraying the leapee every week. And it would cost a fortune, and wouldn't be beneficial to the story. Us (and possibly QL staff) seeing Ben as Ben is either a deliberate change in QL canon, or the QL 2.0 writers misread their notes on the "rules" of the QL universe established in the OG series when they wrote the reboot.
It's also worth pointing out that, while the show was diverse in culture, the production company didn't have a blank check with which to produce the episodes, so I imagine that's why we didn't see too many episodes taking place abroad. It was a very popular show back in the day, but they were by no means #1 (for long if at all, iirc)... So cost was likely the biggest factor in keeping the show US-oriented.
Actually you're wrong (respectfully)... I remember quite distinctly from the original show, Al and anyone else sees the person he leaps into during a leap (with exception for the mentally ill and small children, who see Sam as he is, not as who he's leapt into). And the person in the waiting room appears as Sam to everyone who interacts with them in the "Waiting Room" in "present day" AKA the time Sam came from. Googled for confirmation.
Edit: Oh... Other leapers see him as his "host" too, unless/until they make physical contact with each other, at which point they'll both see the leaper.
Ssshhh no one cares. ;-)
Maybe... Maybe not. ;-)
Oh Look, a Trump supporter... *ignores*
Eh... I liked "parts" of it... Like Sam being able to see himself in the mirror, seeing some of the old characters from previous seasons, and how they're "the same, but different"... And Sam going back at the end to give hope to Al's wife, so that she won't give up and move on from him.
What I DIDN'T appreciate was how NBC axed the show with no warning, stuck a little caption on the S5 finale saying "Sam never leapt home"... The whole show was based on the idea that someday, they'd either find a way to bring Sam home, or maybe even Sam himself would leap home at his own will... And then the network goes and spits in beloved fans' faces and tacks on the little bit of text, saying effectively, "this is the end of the story" with no resolution on the entire journey of the main character. It's like, millions of fans invested in that show for 5 years, and while we enjoyed the journey, the final destination is what the die hard fans that fell in love with Sam, Al, Donna, Gooshie, Verbeena, Tina (even tho she was only in 1 episode) since the beginning NEEDED for the end of the series... And then NBC just pulls the rug out from under them... >:-(
It's something that I will always "miss" from the original series... And something that would be utterly nonsensical for the writers to "pass" on in the reboot.
It's possible, but more likely it was learned behavior. Not to say that he didn't enjoy it, but when someone like "Coach" normalizes that kind of behavior by acting like they're just having fun, an impressionable child can take it to heart and not necessarily think it was wrong. When stuff like that happens to a child, it challenges their beliefs of what constitutes normal behavior. Neil was so profoundly affected by the events of his young life that he didn't see sex as special and intimate... He just saw it as a way to gain the upper hand in people, especially younger ones.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......
*deep breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA....
Wow that was funny... Thank you for that. I needed a good laugh.
I don't think we should consider a demented orange racist "making friends with dictators and terrorists" a good foreign policy.
EDIT: and notice I didn't mention which side of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the terrorist in this situation. I'll give you a hint. It's both of them. ;-)
I think that's kind of a "pot calling the kettle black" situation... Wouldn't you agree? ;-)