MovieChat Forums > Starman
avatar

Starman (296)


Posts


Efeminate Modern directors with more static camera? The film traditionally aired during christmas? Example of Hawks' mastery The best years for film stock Deserved to change the genre and form Hong Kong in a rebellion Positive sides of virtual reality Where has the idea of rating come from? View all posts >


Replies


I believe that saying something like "fucking dirty Muslims" would not get you fired in most jobs around the world, as long as it is outside the west, and it's not around customers, but among co-workers in private, you always tend to have freedom of speech, no matter what high places you occupy, I'm sure that is not the case the further west we go. Interesting is that there is nothing racist in that statement in and of itself either, and even if there was in the eyes of insecure men, for me it always demads to be respected no matter what, as everyone deserves to be who they are or choose to be, whether they are pedophiles, racists, murderers, doesn't matter. I would welcome more political incorrectness in Hollywood films though, for more people to face their darkness and true freedom of letting go, emotionally. It is a matter of time before producers realize James Bond as an idea is very 50's/60's, not fully timeless unless it gets constantly updated, even beyond recognition, What makes me wonder why they haven't made James Bond stories set on other planets, other worlds, exploring completely uncharted territories and themes. It may take the next posterity that is the children of these producers perhaps, to realize how stuck in the past their ancestors have been all along. DanielCraid, although never seen any of his Bond films, not planning to, he is certainly a reflection of the time, like the others, the era of everything needing to be serious, dark and realistic + emotionless. A quite cynical era, if I may say so, in my view reaching its gradual end, I think the next Bond is going to be a quite drastic turn to something more emotionally expressive and authentic without wearing a mask of insecure masculinity hiding those emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if his latter Bond films have already went more in that direction anyway. It's just Daniel Craig himself is by nature the way he is, the casting itself is the key to how Bond films turn out to be, the tone and nature of them. Many people have never watched some Bond films only because of the Bond actors themselves. I've never seen any films from the last 3 Bonds myself. I believe this franchise has been far more popular, with the wider demographics, in the 60's and 70's than anytime since then. In my own view and experience, children today are not the same as 40 years ago, such reactions are becoming rarer, at least in more developed countries. I believe most children before reaching age of 5 sense love between people no matter what sexual orientation, understandably we are genetically influenced since birth by carrying lots of ancestral trauma, very often related to sexuality, that doesn't mean that children need to be sheltered. For those kids who don't get it, there are also parents who can have a great opportunity to talk to them about such or other various diversities existing in nature. It would not only be very appropriate for children movies to have characters of different orientations, but also realistic. I'm sure most homosexual children could relate to heterosexual love in children films, theres been a few scenes in some children films where they kissed an animal, I'm sure they could relate or understand too. Agreed, children would greatly benefit psychologically by seeing in these movies a reflection of the reality where all kinds of people exist in. I'm sure lots of filmmakers and studios are aware of that. What is the art if not a mirror of the world we live in at a particular time. Big Sky (1952) Bonnie and Clyde (1967) Big Bad Mama (1974) The Arena (1974) Some of these filmmakers know when the customers, that is especially the fan base (the most inclined towards love/hate attachments), who are not meant to watch it let alone enjoy it turn out to be toxic, by the law of attraction healthy people don't attract experiences they would hate, however it is unwise to say it to them directly unless they're ready to change based on it by seeing that what they hate in those films is the hidden side of them they can't face within themselves, nontheless each film is meant to attract viewers the film is intended for, including sequels. I applaud musicians who dare to alienate old fans in order to create something for new fans, new generations, and I always applaud filmmakers who are re-writing history or destroy what was established, there's no other way how to start anew and educate children of new generations with new principles and conceptions of history, past can be changed only from the present, however as the saying goes the mind of a woke man can seem like madness to those deep in a sleep, it is wise not to preach and just share your worldviews in your art silently. In my view, critisizing to express our complaints instead of intending it to help someone else may not make anyone truly awaken or woke anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbrr61ezP3g The original The Thing From Another World is registered in the film registry of Congress, I feel like it deserves to be there as it was possibly the first 50's sci-fi film ever made that had an impact on culture in the same sense as Jurrasic Park, Easy Rider or Rambo, no one has made a sci-fi like that before, to me it's certainly more intelligent as a film than the remakes, not just a horror, it deserves a respect for its intellectual and emotional value, more than technical, its social commentary nontwithstanding. I think King Kong And Star Wars would be sci-fi for many people, it seems to fit the meaning of the term science fiction well. Very good conversation, these posters are already out, only putting emphasis on these shared viewpoints. Yes although there are two ways to this, humans still need to evolve enough to change the course on their own without the fear, but with natural passion and excitement. What ETs can do to prevent the damage humanity is causing is only to interefere covertly without most of our knowledge (and I know that's how they've actually been doing it in real life for decades), so I believe the change has to come without the outside threat, at least not a direct threat from ETs, but a threat to our lives from natural occurances in cosmos or on Earth, that is a better impulse towards change, humans tend to make an enemy out of other intelligence, not so out of natural disasters, as we believe we can be in control, and prevent that. View all replies >