MovieChat Forums > Recognizer > Replies
Recognizer's Replies
Yes, and that film was shit
Wtf? I nearly laughed this off as conspiracy theory nonsense, but then I went and checked my local cinema ...
Rows D and H have exactly 8 seats allocated each IN EVERY SINGLE SESSION. In most cases, the same 8 seats or a minor variant thereof, with the split always being 4-2-2.
What is going on here?
Did you mean Bothans?
There might be plenty of bantha fodder in it though ...
The destruction of Luke's character is completely unforgivable in my view
Yes, flinging the lightsaber over the shoulder stunned me, and not in a good way. It's so opposite to who Luke Skywalker is. Completely out of character. It was also deeply insulting, as it was clearly a metaphor for Disney tossing lore and the fanbase over their shoulder like it was nothing.
*groan* "failure" is subjective, and depends on which metrics you are using. Money is one, but it's not the only possible one. If it fails to keep an established fanbase happy, then it can also be considered a failure. Or it could be argued to be a creative and artistic failure.
TL;DR - Making billions doesn't make something good/successful.
Because the ship isn't actually moving at light speed in a Newtonian sense, it's travelling at sublight speed and taking a short-cut through a higher dimension known as hyperspace, where a trip between any two points is much shorter than in normal space. Due to relativity, the ship appears (to an external observer) to accelerate to lightspeed and disappear as it crosses into hyperspace.
Abrams thinks? š Always a first time I guess
Source?
How do you know it's Endor? Yavin IV has oceans, so it could have been the first Death Star.
Well, that's possible. I seem to remember the EU established that a smaller prototype was built as a proof of concept before building the full sized one.
Is it first or second Death Star? Both Yavin IV and Endor have oceans, so could be either.
Not that I care what the Academy thinks, but Phoenix should WIN Best Actor, hands down.
Couldn't agree more
Yes, ideally, but he could easily have argued self defence. Which makes me wonder why he didnāt make such an argument when he was on Murrayās show.
The point of the movie is that society is cold and uncaring towards those who are most vulnerable and, to a large extent, creates its own problems. There was also the subtext that the rich and privileged benefit at the expense of the regular joes like Arthur. Society is corrupt and evil, basically.
Having said that, I didnāt enjoy this scene because I thought I was supposed to, I enjoyed it because it resonated with me.
I think he shot Murray because he shamed Arthur on live TV, and Murray had been an idol of his. You can see how hard it hit him when he was watching Murray making fun of him on the hospital TV.
When he goes on the show, he's no doubt prepared to kill himself, as per his rehearsal in his flat. But when he realises that Murray is as cold and uncaring as the rest of them and only wanted to bring Arthur on for ratings and to make fun of him, he sees red and blows him away.
This was my interpretation also. The meds dumbed him down. When he went off them and their effect slowly wore off, he could think clearly.
I agree itās not for everybody, but some films need the slow build-up to get the satisfying emotional impact of the climax. The payoff has to be earned, otherwise it would be meaningless
Like he said to Murray: āIāve got nothing left to loseā. A man who has literally nothing to lose is capable of absolutely anything, even things that regular crime bosses wouldnāt do. That sets him in a position of power over them.