MovieChat Forums > Starduster
avatar

Starduster (188)


Posts


Landon, Mall Of America Boy victim So Far.............. What are the FACTS? Is YOUNG Fenton a demon? ??Holmes and Watson?? ABSOLUTELY AMAZING......... Is this a "cold opener"? DYNAMIC performance And Yet Again.......... FINALLY it gets a theatrical release date. View all posts >


Replies


With the remake of Childs Play and seeing how technology can be turned against our kids as well as ourselves, I would say this is DEFINITELY open for a new interpretation. There is so much more reason to believe that things like this are possible and could happen. I agree; the slasher movies with characters that cant be killed and dont die, began to wear thin long ago. Just going on killing sprees over and over doesnt make for creative sequels. The problem with Halloween 3 is that people who wanted and expected more of Michael Myers mayhem, didnt get what they wanted. The movie really needed to divorce itself from the Halloween/Myers franchise and let it be know up front that it was something completely different. TO ME, the idea of taking over nad putting the nations kids in peril in such an innocent fashion was a far more brilliant and compelling idea. In todays world of technology this idea would be even MORE scary. Like the new Childs Play, the technology could really take over kids and cause untold problems. GOOD NEWS The movie IS now available on both DVD AND Blu ray. It is region 0 so it will play in any country. It is available under its original title called "Frog Dreaming" (aka The Quest) you can search it either way. You can buy it on ebay and amazon and other online sites. The DVD should run around $10 or maybe less. The Blu Ray is under $20. I agree with the OP. These movie SHOULD be released. We should not have to relay on bootleg copies, but if the powers that be dont want to make money, we should be allowed to copy and distribute to those who truly want and appreciate these movies. I think they got the message that people fondly remember this movie and it stands up to the test of time I'm in agreement also. Right out of the box and this thing was ugly. The clothing was the classic "My Buddy" clothes from the 80's but the look of the doll seemed rather menacing from the beginning. This was a "high tech" Chucky. The technology would obviously appeal to older kids but not that look. I dont think this look would market well in a "real world" situation. I honestly dont remember, did they make ones that looked different? My buddy had African American ones and ones with blond or brown hair. YOU ARE A LIAR! I will have NO further conversations with you "I'm not an attorney and I'm not paid to be on his defense team. I'm not going to engage in verbal badminton of point and counterpoint. There is NO end to it. What I DO know is THIS: you cant justify or make excuses for ADULTS who had every opportunity as ADULTS to bring forth charges against Jackson while he was alive. Robson testified in Jackson's DEFENSE; IN COURT, UNDER OATH as an ADULT! In a real world which we live in, his statements to the contrary are null, void and invalid out of court and against a dead man. He had his chance, he made his choices and ITS OVER. DONE. You cant take your words back. People who want to cater to and entertain this stuff thrive on tabloid journalism and fake news stories. There are plenty of them. the ONLY thing that matters is what can be PROVEN in COURT. Jackson went through 2 court trials. BOTH were extensive and intense. There were MULTIPLE charges against him. Prosecution was unrelenting. The results were NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES! Not even ONE! There was a lack of credibility of the testimonies. Little to NO evidence. In a court, people hear and see ALL of the evidence. WE DON'T! Youtube videos of unknown people baking statements means NOTHING. Not until they are presented in court as testimony under oath and cross examined. I should have known better than to get involved in this crap. Nobody will "win" the debate. Nobody can. I am not a "defender". I defend the rights of a person to have a fair trial. I defend the right of a deceased person to rest in peace. I defend the rights of a family to NOT have their loved ones who are gone; have these loved ones dragged through the mud by tabloid smut. That's what this is! People cant, dont, wont, or dont want to, take the time to seek out opposing information. They simply look at what confirms their own way of thinking. I wonder if some people have insecurities about themselves and their own thoughts. What if, for whatever reason, you were alone with a child and there was little or no chance of anyone interfering. Would you have urges of some sort of abuse or sexual abuse of that child? Would you act on these urges? People say I would NEVER put myself in such a situation. But what if it happened for some unplanned reason? I would hope that the answer is that most of us would NOT do anything inappropriate. Those of us who love kids would find appropriate ways to play and entertain the child or engage his mind in a thoughtful learning process. Some of use would enjoy the time and interaction. We would enjoy the energy, creativity, and innocence of childhood. Its a unique experience. We wouldn't set out to destroy this innocence, I have posed this statement in the past; there are FAR more people who are motivated by lust for money and greed, than there are ones who are motivated by lust for a child. At least I hope that is the case. In THIS case the lust for money is being ignored as a probable cause, in favor of seeing a sinister pedophile who wants to prey on children. They accept accept, without question, statements from a small number of people, now ADULTS, who concoct stories that may seem plausible on the surface but refuse to look at counterpoints and facts. They refuse to see financial motivation factors and what they stand as monetary gains. Worse yet they ignore HUNDREDS of testimonies from people, now adults, who interacted with Jackson and had NO inappropriate contact or activities. These people have been hounded and approached repeatedly to reveal SOMETHING which would support abuse claims but they come up empty handed. So apparently not ALL are motivated by greed. These are facts to consider. In a previous post I have questioned the use of the word *FACT* in asterisks. Its a FACT that accusations were made but not a FACT that they are true. This is the point were critical thinking takes place. People here are not interested in critical thinking unless the thinking is in line with their own train of thought. Presenting opposing evidence or thoughts makes us the "bad guys" who would defend abuse and abusers and perhaps be abusers ourselves. I hate child abuse. I dont defend all of Jacksons actions which do lead us to believe there was plenty of opportunity for abuses to occur but it doesnt mean that they DID occur. There are too many holes in this "story" and these one sided testimonies. They go against testimonies they made AS ADULTS, UNDER OATH as as well as voluntarily that NOTHING inappropriate happened. A glaring example is the abuse that happened in "TRAIN STATION, which happened 3 years BEFORE the train station existed. But these little inconvenient facts get in the way of the supposed "truthfulness" of their stories and are not part of what the story needs to engage critical thinking. The *FACT* is that you have capitalized FACT and put asterisks around it. You give us no indication of what the asterisks mean. You later state that you dont know if these are TRUE but yet they are *FACTS*. So does this mean that if a person makes a statement be it true or false, its a *FACT* that the statement was made but not a *FACT* that its actually TRUE? If they would have created a different movie/different name etc, there would be tons of people here saying it was a ripoff of Child's Play/Chucky. This is just a matter of what people want to complain about. This way they acknowledge people and elements of the first one, but give us fresh and more updated concept of the original idea. I really LIKED the first few movies even though the idea of transferring the soul of a killer into a doll was absurd. The problem was that it became increasingly absurd to come up with ideas of how the soul ended up in other dolls etc. THIS movie comes up with a plausible idea of sabotaged technology to explain the doll and his actions. It doesnt explain where the Chucky name came from but again we give the honor to its roots. The same for the boys name Andy. I happen to like the concept of a more believable idea of why Chucky is the way he is. No voodoo nonsense here. The idea of technology gone wrong is very real and very scary. We have allowed too much control and influence of technology in our lives. View all replies >