MovieChat Forums > Highlander
Highlander (9)
Posts
Replies
I just don't feel Philomac ever showed remorse or indicated he had learned a lesson. It happened suddenly and instead of him throwing it away he simply dropped it after looking at it with what appeared to me to be fascination and satisfaction.
Thanks for the info!
As I said I can't comment on the scene in question. I will probably like that relationship depending on how it's portrayed in the movie based on everything I have heard. Mostly I was pointing out how the "What percentage" question had nothing to do with anything and how both sides are killing cinema because of their agendas, on top of poor plot/storytelling and overbearing FX. For me it's the latter that's the biggest problem. The other just gets irritating, especially when it's done tactlessly and doesn't feel blended but crammed in blatantly to appease and grease the squeaky wheels. When a vision takes the back seat to an agenda, the agenda will be what most people want to talk about and no one will care what the vision was anymore. We are seeing the result of that now with SW.
EDIT*
I forgot to comment on the whole pansexual thing. Pansexuallity has nothing to do with this. That is a term someone mentioned that is being thrown around but doesn't fit the scenario. Robosexual is sex with robots, or you might get away with objectophilia; the attraction to objects. Pansexual means you can be attracted to any other biological sexuallity, for instance; straight, trans male or female, gay, etc. Essentially it is being bisexual to the extreme. Nothing I have heard about the Lando scenes makes him even remotely pansexual.
[quote]She doesn't deserve to be slammed so much for following a script. All slamming and blame should fall squarely on the two responsible: Kathleen Kennedy and Rain Johnson.[/quote]
Exactly. Both sides are full of idiots. And it's sad that those are the only ones people seem to hear.
[quote]If you were the biggest Trek fan, then you'd know that DS9 FAR EXCEEDS anything else that was produced, namely TOS/TNG and VOY/ENT, so why you'd choose to omit THE best Trek show EVER (DS9) is unfathomable.[/quote]
Exactly. If you aren't a DS9 fan you are not that big of a Trek fan. Most people who dislike DS9 haven't watched it beyond the first couple of seasons. The first 2 seasons of TNG were just as bad if not worse than DS9's. After that it just gets better and better and eventually surpasses TNG in almost every aspect by the end of the 5th season.
I'll take the bait. You created this whole "What percentage" scenario yourself. No one was saying those in a minority don't deserve recognition (although why it's necessary in the first place is a better question). The complaint is how that recognition is being forced into a story and onto a pre-existing character that had already shown his sexual interests (Attempting to romance Princess Leia). And why it's necessary to the story.
Bowing to minorities and taking characters that had existing traits and changing them to suit a small minority of people is no different than taking a character who is a minority race and making them white. Why is it not ok one way but fine the other?
I haven't seen the film, I do not know the context of the scene. But it's obvious how this has become prevalent in modern film and TV and I do find it funny how every group, even majorities, now have to be represented in nearly everything released for public consumption. And not only how unrealistic that expectation is but how absurd it is to expect over 50% of our cinema to cater to less than 3% of the population.
Entertainment was much more entertaining when it was tactful and subjects of this nature were left mostly to the viewers interpretation/imagination and the story was the most important part of the film. Now movies get reviewed and panned for not being inclusive enough regardless of how bad or great they are. It's bad enough the majority of movies now suffer from writing with the mentality of 12 year olds and the elegance once shown on screen is now just a brainless expose of "This will be cool, who cares if it makes any sense".
Now add the lack of escapism that was once possible; The desire to immerse yourself into another world to get a break from the real world. Which now is nearly impossible when almost every movie must contain a social and/or political commentary. Otherwise people from all sides complain that you haven't taken a side so deserve to be vilified.
When does the show get good? As soon as you hit the "play" button.
No. Out of the orchestral openings Voyager had the worst hands down. It was a dreary repetitive mess with the worst closing section of any Star Trek score. DS9's could have been better, but it wasn't as inane as Voyager's. It has a great core that could have amounted to an amazing piece of music had it been panned out further. TNG's music was fine, but was just reused from the movies so not original, very mainstream and somewhat cliched.
And Enterprise's was just nasty crap on a stale cracker. Intended to be an emotional ode to space travel, it instead ended up being an irritating death requiem which only helped to kill off the old Trek shows. A large portion of fans chose not to watch simply because of the stupid song. The best part was the production knew this and stubbornly did nothing to remedy it.
View all replies >