MovieChat Forums > Geff > Replies
Geff's Replies
What's a prove? I've never seen such a thing.
Haha, you're gay.
Do you even know what slavery means? I certainly don't know what it means. When I talked about the slave I am simply referring to the myth of slavery.
Let me ask you this. If somebody tells where the gold is and somebody else goes and mines that gold, who is the intelligent one who deserves the gold? Is it the person who moved his body or the person who used his intellect?
Slaves never produced anything in their lives. They are only machines, no different from a lawnmower or rake. It is the master who moves objects and creates values, using his intellect. A Marxist like you will never understand this. That is to say that that the Marxist like you will never understand the truth.
You will forever hold on to the wish that the slave is good and the master is bad. You will hold on to wish that the slave creates and the master exploits. Infact, it is the slave who exploits the master's intellect. The slave eats the masters food and lives in dormitories provided by the master and then the slave wishes that it has done a lot. The slave wishes to be equal to the master. That will never come to pass as long as God exists.
God will preserve the right, God will preserve the truth.
Reality is reality, there is only one reality and that is the reality that is shaped by God. It is the truth of God.
Slavery is an abstraction. It doesn't exist. I cannot be pro-slavery or anti-slavery.
I'm not pro-slavery. I'm pro-truth. The truth is that inequality exists and that is the natural order granted by God.
Rejecting the truth and wishing are the same thing. Wishing is equivalent to fantasizing about some mis-truth such as wishing that the master is "equal" to the slave. It's not true that the master is equal to the slave, that inequality is a feature of reality granted by God. There are God given disparities in IQ.
Renouncing the wish is equivalent to not making the wish in the first place and therefore not rejecting the truth in the first place.
At it's core it's a film about identity and the conflict between radical freedom and other's expectations about how the individual "should" behave. The main character is an actor, while each identity she inhabits is freely chosen by her (although there is some conflict here too because her teacher influences her), each identity also suffers from the expectations of that identity's relationships. The act of killing the relationship is an act of emancipation and gaining radical freedom.
In the part where she visits her boyfriend, notice how she rehearses the lines she will mention, she also uses every line that she has rehearsed previously. This identity which is supposedly a "real" identity, has also become a fake role and the role is given some structure by relationships. It's the relationships that confines the role because the relationships impose expectations.
Baudrillard hated the movie The Matrix in spite of the fact that The Matrix is based on his book Simulation and Simulacra. This is because The Matrix drew too solid a line between the simulation and reality. Infact, Baudrillard is skeptical of the notion of a "reality" outside the simulation. Everything is a simulation, everything is a "role", but the role is bound by expectations of others which interacts with the self's expectations of oneself in complex ways and in the end limits ones capacity for freedom.
Possessor is much closer to hitting the themes of Simulation and Simulacra than The Matrix ever was.
Look up "controlled opposition".
Episode 1 had terrible pacing issues. They crammed in so much in one episode. I suspect they did it because it was a pilot episode and had to use it for showcase. Anyway, they could have made an entire season with the contents of Episode one showing the kids slowly growing up and dying. Making us care for each. Main antagonist of the season being the disease. Season finale could have been mother destroying the Ark.
Otherwise, the rest of the episodes did not suffer from the pacing issues suffered by the first episode.
IMHO it's way better than Westworld Season 2 and Season 3 and on par with Season 1.
What's an example of a movie or show you do like?
I'm making an ad homenim comment because There is not much content in your comment to critique.
I agree that LOST was terrible, even if I only suffered through half of the first episode.
This is definitely not one of those shows you can mentally check out from and still understand it. I actually had to take notes while watching it. There are also some fun missable little hidden easter eggs too.
I really liked this show overall.
I said Nevermind...lol because the source of my confusion was explained in detail at the beginning of the very next episode, Episode 6.
Nevermind... lol!
No, actually YOU are the dumbest thread of all time. It is scientifically proven by the science.
I agree, the series is too intelligent for stupid audiences who watch big bang theory, but at the same time too stupid for intelligent audiences that watch Westworld and Rick and Morty.
Actually, facts don't care about your feelings.
I've noticed this for season 4 in particular. I personally loved season 4. I liked it more than the previous seasons. A large part of it is because of the smaller scope. You get more invested in the characters due to this smaller scope. The story is told more cleanly.
The politics of the new OPA union and the tribes and the friction with the old anarchist tradition of the belters was particularly well done.
What's the eligibility criteria in regards to the matter of theater release? Even Netflix movies can be nominated but not limited release films?
Why would this matter? I thought quality of the film is judged, not how many theaters it's released to.