MovieChat Forums > SolemnMime > Replies
SolemnMime's Replies
Hmmm. I guess that makes some sense.
I didn't consider the debt factor in. Didn't Sheldon get through as gifted though? Did he have to pay everything through?
I had thought since he's so much of a supposed "genius" he'd have grants and lots of financial cutbacks due to this.
But also it isn't like they're supposed to be new scientists.
By the final seasons it is implied they've been working 10+ years and should have paid plenty of their debt off anyways. Hate to think of someone as a specialist/professional within advanced science fields and many years in your career and still not financially successful at all.
I'd think naturally that they should be pretty well off, debt or not.
Am I understanding that this has to do with The Lion King movie specifically? Or do you mean just in general?
The free money part is the selling point, but it becomes bigger than just the money -- everyone gets some financial independence guarantee which can make big differences in society/quality of life/well-being/etc. I think of it as a "base" in which people can work off of to further increase their financial position in a more independent fashion, but that's my view.
Also, speaking of money, thought I'd also add this here: Andrew Yang now is about to hit his $5 million goal a month earlier than the end of Q3. Just wanted to add that clearly many people back him and are supporting him as a candidate, despite the media not always covering him as well as the other democrats in the race (like Kamala, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, etc.).
https://www.yang2020.com/
Guess I'm not that weird.
Most of what I like/do some others will too, even if in smaller numbers.
There is Neil Breen in his Breen Screen/Neiloverse of a cult following (which I'm sort of a part of technically I guess).
I don't know if he technically counts as famous, but is definitely on par with Tommy Wiseau pretty much.
Thinking of maybe renting that Skyscraper movie or something else fairly recent on Redbox that'd interest me.
But some of those you mention could be enjoyable to me too.
Most likely targeted at teens and adults and not the actual ages of the kids in the movie itself.
Doesn't mean kids that age won't be watching it, but I'm sure it's intended more for teen-adult than pre-teens/kids.
I mean this is what I imagine the writers had more of in mind when concocting the script and such.
Well, first thing is that every movie doesn't require 20 million to make. You're thinking of big ticket, mega productions at that point and up.
I mentioned that there can be effects on acting based on relations/etc., but more so that there is no evil blackballing effect that is wiping out actors or banishing them from the industry in one fell swoop.
It could be true that there isn't much better being offered. There are several known big actors that are just in the remains of shadows now and never were blackballed. I don't think not appearing in big productions necessarily means you're barred -- more so you're just not getting them.
Every movie doesn't have every A list actor in every cast somehow -- that would be impossible. Sometimes big actors do smaller roles because they can't get bigger ones anymore -- and sometimes they may not mind either.
My real point was just to show that the idea of blacklisting is mostly exaggeration and limitations/constraints/time/circumstances can affect whether current mega celebrities and such remain appearing in massive productions and such.
It isn't usually some big web of conspiracies surrounding why some former big names don't appear in much anymore -- often they just don't fit many roles anymore or don't want to be in as much stuff as often/more selective/etc.
In my view the whole Hollywood "blacklisted" or "blackballing" is just a fear tactic/partial myth to make any elitist interpretations of producers/the rich and "powerful" seem scarier or such.
Not saying one can't do wrong and have it affect their careers, but most "blackballed actors" are just actors who don't want to do much/any more work -- or struggle (which many do anyways).
This especially makes no sense with mega celebrities. Do you think blackballing or blacklisting would affect people of those ranks? Some giant actors are richer and more resourceful than many producers even and can produce their own work with themselves on the big screen if they wish. Even small, more ordinary salaried people can produce some of their own work (low budget). It would be unlikely that -- especially big celebrities -- would be "banned" from acting or such. It might only have more weight on non-celebrities and even then it is exaggerated usually.
This is just a way to probably paint the "big dogs" in Hollywood as more fierce and dominant/evil than what people would seem and make them look "scarier."
Also the whole "blackball" aspect makes it more likened to a "secret handshake" club/illuminati kind of stuff, which is also seemingly just conspiracies and such from what I know.
Seems to be a trend. New York has a cultural aspect to it that might be symbolized as American city life of industrialism/arts/history/culture or some other aspect/tone of that nature.
"The city that never sleeps."
Many media and people have likened New York as one of the "the" cities that has a major element or aspect of U.S. culture or life. Also, it being a state with a massive population squeezed in to one small region makes it have a bigger sway in ways when it comes to culture too.
The whole New York symbolism is a lot like Toronto in Canada where it is also a culturally tied place of Ontario known as "the six."
Of course these result in stereotypes which then enables people to assume all Americans or such are just like those they encountered at 'X' place and 'Y' time or such.
Basically New York has the record of being a "hot spot" in the U.S. along with L.A., Houston, Miami, etc. Since it has this major cultural and social identity to it, it oftentimes is probably used as a "stock locale" for works/fiction/etc. due to its pull/name popularity as well.
She seems above average in acting all things considered, but I wouldn't call her fantastic or anything.
Also, to add, people live paycheck-to-paycheck -- the majority. If you gave everyone $1,000 a month, that would likely not be as big of an issue. There's talk of the "trickle down" but what really might have real chances of working would be "trickle up" since you're giving virtually everyone conditions of buying power/capital -- and yes, even lazy.
It isn't to replace the need to work/make your own income, but to supplement people to get ahead + have some fallback/safety net.
Currently now, your boss fires you and then what? You're possibly homeless; going in debt; stressed like crazy. With UBI your boss fires you: still have some emergency money that won't go away; less stressed; can at least keep a roof over your head in some form.
We depend so much on this inflexible idea of a job in ideal form and praise it like working is some duty/great thing for everyone -- even for those working hard and struggling just as hard. Many people work to death and are stressed/unhappy/low income/check to check. Does this sound like a place people should be? The idea of this mighty "job" or work ethic seems to just be enduring misery to barely survive for lots of people. Why be proud of work vaguely in this sense if for many people it comes down to these terms?
I also find that people shame/look down on those trying to work for themselves or call them "lazy" because they won't work a full-time job for low wages and barely get by. I mean if some people are going to be poor anyways, you can't always blame them when they choose more comfort and poverty vs. much less comfort and still mostly the same thing -- poverty. Or in this case try and get out by working for themselves than being tied to the 9-5, around the clock, hourly setup which not everyone even would be best suited for.
Full-time, minimum wage in the U.S. still falls around the poverty line. Who actually wants to work hard to be poor? I can actually bear with some people who do absolutely no work at all. They may be lazy in a sense sometimes, but at least they realize their options wouldn't do much better for them with a tradeoff of tons of stress anyways.
At least with UBI you'll have some independence away from a job. You could invest; start a business; at least contribute something since everyone would have something, even the truly lazy. I can't agree with the whole "work or you're lazy" bit. If being lazy is just not working but working must include being in poverty/highly stressed/struggling vs. just being in poverty without a steady job, I guess you can say plenty of people might wisely choose the latter then.
I also agree with something Pink said (paraphrased): "Educating children can be a waste because they don't know what they like/want yet." This same logic might apply to working: expect people to throw themselves out there for any kind of job just "to have a job" and that's it -- even if the conditions are all poor for the individual (hates it; can't live independently off of it; other reasons). We shouldn't force kids to learn everything just for the sake of anything -- the same sense applies to jobs. Some people are better off not doing certain things anyways. It's a toxic mentality to shame people for not doing something just because you do and find others who don't do exactly that "lazy."
I've never worked a steady, full-time job but I still do work. No need to attribute the whole UBI/Yang disagreement to laziness/no work ethic/etc. -- it's more complicated than that. Even several wealthy/rich/celebrities have supported the idea of UBI and Yang so it's not like only people who are poor would want such a system implemented/think it's for lazy people/would affect work ethic/etc.
And for those who think not being full-time employed means lazy, I've seen many people who do work full-time and are lazy anyways! Working in a certain predicament/condition doesn't mean not lazy -- and choosing to not work in said conditions doesn't necessarily mean lazy either. If you can't even make a living wage by working a specific job in a full-time position under an employer/etc. (many first-time, entry level jobs don't pay enough for that), it's not like you have good chances of getting out of poverty anyways. And if working your ass off to remain in the same place you started/barely move ahead is considered "good and not lazy because at least you have a full-time job" then maybe some people need to reassess the bigger picture here.
He is the first and only candidate that's actually reached out to me, even if mildly. I used to hate politics and think it was all crap/pointless, but upon observing and learning of candidates proposals/ideologies and other issues that affect people, I grew to realize it wasn't pointless.
One of the things that makes me like Yang is that he has a down to Earth character in a specific way. I get the impression that some of the other candidates try and portray themselves as such, but it doesn't carry out the same way. Not saying Andrew Yang is perfect or anything -- and he doesn't need to be either. For a good president you don't need "perfection" but something different -- something that will make a bigger difference that's good for ALL of the country for the most part.
Plenty of other politicians speak out for the, "Betterment for everyone," but have more vague ideas/promises/etc. Yang is very clear and cut on what he proposes and how it helps people -- and the UBI itself couldn't be any clearer on how it'd help people when it comes to finances, which is a massive deal for many.
At the end of the day, the bottom line seems to be -- when it comes to living and having a basic living at that -- money is needed. What more direct way could help poor/low income/struggling between jobs? Money. Simple.
He is actually speaking out to people personally on the level of financial terms. No other candidate gets this close and personal -- at best I've seen some like Bernie or etc. suggesting free education/higher minimum wage/etc. and ignoring various other factors/conditions.
If you need money, what would be more important? Money or free education (will you educate yourself under a bridge)? Higher minimum wage for jobs you may not be able to get/might not exist? Nothing's more direct and immediate in helping impoverished conditions than some capital, which can help grant the opportunity to climb up the ladders with better chances. A basic income, for example, is nothing new anyways.
I get the double standard.
Plenty of things depict females more forcefully seducing males and people attribute it to humor/comedy. I think there's a scene in the movie Wedding Crashers that illustrates some form of rape/abuse toward Vince Vaughn by a woman (maybe I have the movie wrong?).
Basically it is styled as "humorish" and acceptable when a guy is in a sexually vulnerable/compromising position from either men or women or such -- but the other way around a lot of people want to say it's bad, even if the woman/girl is perfectly fine with it (like in the cases of female teachers getting lighter punishments for sleeping with male students vs. male teachers sleeping with their female students as an example). There's no good reason to give someone a much lighter sentence than another when they both did the same thing/same outcome. There are plenty of double standards out there that go both ways of course, but this is just one.
When it's one guy just trying to tempt a female in to sexual activity (not being forceful even) people are quick to liken it to some kind of rape or such or a "grey area." If trying to tempt someone to do something was bad, practically everyone would be bad then.
People seem to greatly associate men as these forcing, violent animals, whereas seeing women as gentler and less "evil" in certain regards, like when it comes to sex. It's "innocent" to some people when a 19 year old girl sleeps with a 14 year old boy when both are okay with it -- but when you turn the tables many people change their minds pretty quickly when the end conditions are pretty much identical in both hypothetical scenarios. In the end, culture and such definitely plays a role in how people liken men as rough/bad and women as soft/good in some ways. When all the details are the same, championing a double-standard is pretty pathetic/needless.
I get this mentality because nearly everyone has at least once been frustrated/angry/etc. with another person.
People are probably the biggest sources of stress in life. The key is avoiding the toxic and welcoming the solace/peace/positivity more. The bad thing is that some of us are surrounded by toxic/stress/negativity/issues more so than others, which probably explains pretty well as to why some people end up with many problems/pain and others much less. I believe that the people we're around tend to rub off on us too much (i.e., you're around lots of negativity/toxic/dysfunction/fighting/family issues growing up and you'll have a much higher chance of having anxiety, depression, and other mental problems -- or just adopting the same mentality of your parents/family, which can be a really bad thing). I noticed myself that being around certain people influenced my mentality a bit and such, shaping my character/beliefs more like certain people. Now I realize I can't let myself be what I grew up around/the things other people thought/did.
It is just too easy to bask yourself in the worldview/mentality/etc. of those you grew up around, ultimately shaping you and limiting you to what you experienced in a sense. This is why I believe sometimes being more the opposite of your parents can be really good. Too many people just adopt everything/too many things they experienced when growing up & don't think independently much.
Just for example are the people that say stuff like, "My mom would've so I...." and etc. I get it, but it seems too many people want to base choices on what their parents would have done or something like that instead of what they actually think without any heavy influence/brainwashing. I get that parents can instill certain values, morals and etc. -- but you should still have power in your choice more than any past influences and the like.
In a sense you sometimes just get people who are very much like their parents/guardians/etc. in a new form, carrying on (possibly) horrible traits like abuse and certain horrid mentalities. Some people I know disregard bad things & don't just do/think like others around them did entirely, but it still seems to be a big issue in that so many don't really form their ideologies as much as others instill their ideologies/morals/etc. in to them, especially when we're small kids.
An example is parents "teaching" their kids how to act, think, behave, etc. Some is necessary to an extent (you don't want more feral-esque kids) -- other times it's more of them passing on what they were told as kids themselves and not considering anything different, which again goes back to my points addressed. [b]To simplify, the problem is likely that too many just do/behave certain ways (instilled or not) & do not question themselves enough, which explains why so many in the present can be a toxic mess of past problems being carried on to new generations in ways.[/b] I don't hate/dislike people in general, but there are people I could dislike for various reasons, such as the ones I've mentioned here. It's complicated, but sometimes just parting your own way mentally is the best temporary escape at the least. By not letting yourself become sucked in to things around you, at least you have room to do otherwise.
Ideally this is what needs to be done, but in actuality it probably will remain problematic for a long time.
Not just like a "one world" amalgamation of countries/nations and such, but us all being on the same page as a species for moving forward/development/etc. This is much easier to picture in theory, but extremely difficult in practice it would seem. There always seems to be some people who more strongly lean/have an affinity for their "group" or you know what I mean....
This is the issue with being "your own person" vs. being "someone of a certain background/culture/identity." Not saying acknowledging and being comfortable with one's heritage or such is bad, but in doing so you immediately create a separation or difference with you and others not of the same background. While people can do this and identify strongly with each of their own backgrounds/cultures/etc. while still getting along with others (who presumably might be doing the same themselves), what happens is this always seems to become some sort of identity crisis for some people. Some people want to be ignorant, but then also want to approach things like they aren't.
People want to say, "We're all the same," while contradicting this a bit by having a powerful affinity to their heritage/cultures/etc. and thus possibly pushing away others due to this. There are also far too many people who define themselves too strongly with non-pliable associations like religion, politic leaning, family cultures/beliefs/actions and so on. I don't have a problem when people are different, but overall this seems to always create issues one way or another when you look at the current social mishaps/issues seen today.
Unsure. I think it was American Pie: Band Camp when I was like 15 or something, but this could be wrong likely....
I'd never heard of her until just now.
She does look pretty thin/low bodyfat, but nothing shocking (at least from what I've seen with her arms/neck/face).
Being thin/very lean doesn't necessarily mean you're suffering from anorexia/BDD/etc. For example, most elite female athletes/runners/etc. tend to have very low bodyfat and rarely any eating disorders or such (i.e., one doesn't have to include the other).
I try not to/usually don't. Since there are always so many things I could do, getting truly bored is something more rare for me -- especially nowadays with internet 24/7 or phone or streaming or YouTube or etc.
Before reaching that ultimate point of boredom I would have probably found something to do/occupied myself somehow.
I think not being able to keep oneself busy could boil down to not pursuing things more (i.e., hobbies or just thinking more or etc.) -- or maybe not "living in the moment/stopping to smell the roses" enough. Clichéd sayings, but under the surface it is something to ponder. Sometimes little things to focus on can make a big difference.
Probably. If no one pointed it out I'd never know otherwise (in this scenario where I wouldn't know at least).
Of course there are nice and meaner ways of putting it, but I'd at least appreciate someone pointing out something offensive about me so I could re-evaluate/consider it/realize it (or in this case maybe use mouthwash or something).