MovieChat Forums > wearsalan > Replies
wearsalan's Replies
I'm not denying your point. His question is aimed at the writers.
Zemeckis Gale or anyone is not responsible for his changing values.
No they aren't, but his values have changed and he's asking a question. I'm not defending his criticism, I'm defending his right to it.
His question was 'Who thought incest is funny' and was aimed at the makers of the movie. He already concedes that as a kid he thought it was funny but as an adult he now doesn't. Seeing as kids didn't write the script it is a genuine or legitimate question.
You don't agree and that's fair enough. Let's just leave it at that eh?
Are you blind?
No.
He’s claiming that his newfound disapproval of the movie is due to his heightened sense of decency.
He's actually saying he views it differently as an adult than he did as a kid. Tbf, most people do view things differently as adults than they did as kids, no?
I am simply saying that he has every right to ask this question. If people disagree with his opinion then that is fine. Saying he is part of the cancel culture (which some have) when he clearly states that is not what he wants is just ignoring what he is actually saying. He asks a simple question that requires a simple answer and not the lambasting he has received. It (as I previously stated) reminds me of the old IMDb boards where someone posted something and got attacked en masse by posters outraged by a person daring to think differently to them. Yes, you are not the only person who sees it the same way i can see that. Nevertheless, he is still asking a question that he (possibly) wonders if anyone else either felt the same or knew the answer to. The answer would appear to be no in the first instance and yes in the second. Didn't need to turn in to a mudslinging match.
Why are you explaining the movie to me?
I get it and still find the situation funny and have no problem with it.
What do you mean retrospectively?
I mean that I understand that some people can look at this with different (older) eyes and see it differently to how they did as a child. The OP asked a question regarding whose idea it was and stated that he no longer viewed it as funny anymore. So what? He's entitled to his opinion and he's not asking anyone else to change theirs. He's not even arguing that he's right on this matter. Now for me, people can simply answer that question and add that they disagree and they still find it funny, but for people to attack him seems like the old IMDb days.
He never once says he is condemning it. He says as an adult he views it slightly differently so asks the question. As an adult I still find the awkwardness of it all funny and have no thoughts on who came up with the idea but understand how people may look at it retrospectively and wonder.
They don't want to get it. They've made their minds up.
The problem here is you've asked a genuine question that has been misinterpreted and jumped on by mostly morons. You will never get these people to see what you are actually saying because they have already decided in their minds and are outraged based on their understanding of what they think you are saying.
You mean sticking his nose in other peoples affairs? A bit like Terry Silver then?
So for losing he got dumped in a row boat. Lol.
And yet I defeated you at the ESB. Where does that place you in the pecking order?
Except you didn't did you because you didn't even show up. You lying to your friends about it doesn't change the fact that you and I both know you are a braggart.
With all of England’s social and economic problems, it seemed likely you’d become the latest casualty of a crumbling civilization. Honestly speaking, I was 75% certain you’d kicked the bucket.
75% certain? And that's enough for you to continue on and claim I faked my death. That tells me a lot more about you. I'm now 100% certain that you never turned up at Harrods all those years ago. It just doesn't seem logical that a person could tell so many lies yet be telling the truth about that one thing. And here was me giving you the benefit of doubt.
You are not to be trusted to be telling the truth...EVER!
Except you had no evidence to support any thought that I had died. You did what you always do and make up your own facts then present them as real.
You really are an embarrassment to this board and a liability to the Kai.
After Chozen recovered his money (Daniel had no rebuttle when Chozen said, "no, my money!") so we have to assume Chozen is correct,
Why do we have to assume he is correct? What because Daniel had no rebuttal? Daniel didn't need a rebuttal, he won the bet. Did you even watch this movie.
While Chozen is in a cool-off and happy state, completely unprepared, Daniel from a low position gets tremendous leverage by pushing his feet off the ground and gets a direct hit to Chozen's family jewels. When Daniel got low blows (from Barnes), his adrenaline would have negated the pain somewhat, however Chozen was certainly not in a flight or fight situation when Daniel landed that cheap shot. It was unnecessary. Chozen was not attacking him, and would have allowed Daniel to leave once the money was recovered. It truely was Chozen's money in that he did not agree to a $600 bet. His uncle Sato forced his hand and he couldn't afford to lose face in front of his home town. It is partially Sato's fault, but Daniel is mainly to blame for hustling Chozen.
Wasn't in a fight state? Oh what a shame. You stir the hornets nest then better be prepared to get stung.
Sato may well have forced his hand but didn't Chozen force Daniels hand to break the ice (all six). Didn't Silver and Barnes force Daniels hand to enter a competition he wasn't going to enter?
You are just coming across as a hypocrite here.
So are you saying Johnny would beat Kreese and Silver too? Because Daniel did.
Except you haven't shown that he was about to break the law. It's just something you've made up.
He fights Williams at the tournament.
Guess you only read the part of my post you thought proved any point you tried and failed to make.
Here you go, the part you ignored.
Furthermore, the 70's were a different time and the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to minors isn't something the law really pursued, rightly or wrongly.
Now stop being obtuse.
How did he ever get it? It's never explained. But Charlie isn't the only able bodied person in the house. You just automatically went for Charlie. Furthermore, the 70's were a different time and the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to minors isn't something the law really pursued, rightly or wrongly.
Charlie was intending to illegally purchase the tabacco.
Where are you getting this from? Stop with the lying.