MovieChat Forums > EvilPinata > Replies
EvilPinata's Replies
Would you also consider it indoctrination if they were a straight couple? Because if not you're just a bigot.
Appreciate it!
Even if that was the actual definition, it still doesn't fit within the context that most conservatives use it in.
Go "alert to injustice in society" go broke? I don't think woke means what you think it means
If it was a heterosexual kiss, would it still be part of some "agenda"? Unless you are homophobic, you shouldn't have a problem with a homosexual kiss unless you'd have the same problem with a heterosexual kiss
How exactly is it grooming?
More "alert to injustice in society" trash? How? I don't thin woke means what you seem to think it means
Because this movie didn't need big names to get people to watch it. Being a continuation of an already established franchise was enough. Not only that, but the trailers showed the surviving members of the original Scream trilogy returning which was enough for most people.
Did the show not demonstrate to us how that backfired though? Plus in the end he revealed he didn't even do it for his family, but because he liked it. You act like he had no other options, but he could've taken his friend up on his offer of joining the company they started together. He chose a life of crime despite having other options.
My family would rather be left with nothing when I die than have ill gotten gains and blood money. While medical treatment is never cheap, you can always apply for financial assistance to get it taken care of and if you don't make enough money, the debt collectors can't even garnish your wages anyway . On top of that, life insurance is relatively cheap. He could've got a policy that would've supported his family after his passing for at least a little while. Walt had all the support he needed, but he had too much pride which isn't a good trait.
I think this would actually classify as a reboot though since it's not telling the exact same story as something that came before.
Appreciate it!
You said they died TRYING to kill people though. In neither of those instances were they actually trying to kill anyone.
No I haven't, because supervillains aren't real. On top of that, they're not nearly as dangerous without their powers. They should still be punished, but I don't think they deserve to die. Plus, not all of them died trying to kill people. What Doc Ock was doing would've killed people, but he wasn't trying to kill anyone. Lizard never died, but he wasn't trying to kill anyone either. Nor was Sandman. Only two out of the five villains were trying to kill anyone.
It was more like "lets cure them so they don't all die".
The first five seasons of it are on Netflix if you've got it and wanted to give it another go.
No. Nor did I say anything similar about Electro.
I seem to remember Woody inviting all of them. I feel like based on Stinky Pete's past he was already set in his ways and no amount of Woody explaining how good it would be for him would change his mind.
If there's places that don't allow pets, it would make sense that some wouldn't allow kids. It's not very commonplace where I live, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were a thing somewhere else. A lot of young kids are way more destructive than cats or dogs. Not sure why places require pet deposits and not child deposits.
Francis mentions making them into "super slaves". Under the guise of curing Wade's cancer he was trying to give him powers so he could see him to someone that would use him as a weapon or for whatever other needs they have. I haven't seen it in a couple years, but I remember Francis outlining it pretty clearly.
I don't think it'll have "home" in the title at all since it's going to be the start of a new trilogy.