MovieChat Forums > LockardTheGOAT > Replies
LockardTheGOAT's Replies
Kubrick asked the actors how to finish his own movie? He seemed too much of a control freak to do such a thing
How many women in Hollywood ARE legitimate draws? Like, someone that can sell a movie on her own even without a strong supporting cast of other stars, regardless of the material? Men are almost always the stars, not the women
I find the alternate history stuff interesting and different. It's laughable to think he does it simply because he's "too lazy to do the research." No, he does it because movies are fictional and its intriguing to him to surprise audiences with his own alternate take of historical events.
Pretty much... Also laughable that he was even nominated for Best Supporting Actor when he was as much of a Lead Character as Leo was in OUATIA
4. I have what backwards? I ssid the work that the lower classes do is what keeps society functioning, nothing you've said to the contrary refutes that. Yapping on about there being a market for things and how the rich create these opportunities for the rest of us in the first place doesn't change the FACTS. And the FACTS are that A. the lower classes are what keep society from collasping, regardless of who create the jobs, B. There would be incentive to create these jobs even if there wasn't a market for several of them, becaus they are needed for the betterment of society, and C. Even if you harp on the economical value of these jobs, the rich still would make no money off of them without other people's work. So you can't disregard the importance of the lower classes' work in keeping society functioning.
5. And it was clear what I meant was that the jobs the lower classes do is more important than most of the jobs that the higher classes perform. I never said or even implied it was because the rich were somehow bigger deviants than middle/lower class people. You did just the opposite, though
1. It doesn't really matter where the rich started out in life, I said the lower classes were more important because the majority of jobs that exist in order to keep society from collaspsing are done by them. This is the case regardless of where the rich started in life, or why they create these jobs, or whatever other excuse you want to bring up.
2. If there wasn't a market for these jobs, most of them would still need to exist for the betterment of society. Cops, firemen, doctors, teachers, construction workers, architects, people selling automobiles, people working the airports, people working the banks and keeping a hold of all your money, people delivering the mail, people creating and selling lawnmowers, people making food, etc. Tell me how society manages to function as well if you don't have these things.
3. I'm afraid what I wrote about why most (or at least a lot of) wealthy people donate is true. What you call presumptious, I call common sense and me understanding human nature better than you do. Of course most rich people donate anonymously; most rich people are anonymous citizens. Being rich doesn't automatically make you famous. But if you look at the rich folks that exist in the public eye, especially the head of major corporate entites, they sure love to show off how much they're giving to charity. It's obviously PR motivated more than anything.
1. Doesn't change the fact that the lower classes are the ones doing those jobs, and not the rich. And how did those people become rich in the first place? Off the work that lower classer people do for them. And it's not like the rich created these job opprotunities for us out of charity or something, they did it because these tasks are necessary for society and society would collaspse from them not existing.
2. First off, I love how you only quote the first sentence of what I wrote, and ignore the rest even though it would have soundly refuted what you wrote here. Let me repeat it: "Even when the rich drop money into something, they're usually only doing it because they can easily afford to, and it's worth the positive PR that it brings. But normally what they'll do is they'll open up a charity, and then expect everyone else to throw in while they sit back and get rich off it.
Of course the rich are the ones who give more to charity, they've got far more cash to throw around than the average person does.
3. Read what I wrote above. The rich wouldn't be rich without our work, and these jobs exist because they are a must if society is to continue functioning as it does. Everybody contributed in their own way, but the lower classes are certainly more important than the higher ones in many ways.
And I never said things would be less chaotic if everyone had the same money; you sort of implied that yourself, though, when you blamed the poor for the majority of chaos in the world (the implication being that if they weren't poor, maybe they wouldn't be such deviants, I presume.)
She was in the right place, right time when The Hunger Games came along and then Hollywood thought they had the next big star on their hands. Unfortunately for them (and for her), Hollywood and the media care more about her than the public does, because she hasn't really had a *big* success since then. The most successful films she's done since then have all done moderately good box office at best, which isn't what you expect from a leading lady who's paid 25-30 million per film.
What pics?
If there were no policemen, no firemen, no doctors or construction workers, if there was no one working the banks or selling automobiles, flying airplanes, etc. then yes, society would collaspse. You can throw hundreds of other jobs in the mix as well.
lol @ bringing up charity. The (vast?) majority usually comes from the lower classes. Even when the rich drop money into something, they're usually only doing it because they can easily afford to, and it's worth the positive PR that it brings. But normally what they'll do is they'll open up a charity, and then expect everyone else to throw in while they sit back and get rich off it.
As far as the poor and middle-class being more responsible for chaos and disorganization than the rich, you're correct, but that's a numbers game. There's far more of them/us than there are of the wealthy, so of course they'll make up the majority of deviants in the world.
That should have just been the title from the get-go. That, or just Harley Quinn alone.
Its screenplay is the least interesting part of it. It's an incredibly easy story to write. It's in the acting, the direction, and the score that its brilliance shines.
I agree, he was just busting Arthur's balls, which is what comedians do. It was nothing personal. But I guess the point was to show that Arthur had been abused (both verbally and physically) by the world so many times that he was hypersensitive towards any slight made against him, and it was just that much worse when it came from one of his idols.
We,, whether you like it or not, the poor and middle-class are the main ones who keep society from collaspsing, not the rich.
Pretty much this. I guess people thought the movie was too pro-feminist and rooted for it to fail because of it. Others might just be Marvel fanatics who are proud when anything DC-related fails.
She does work better as a sidekick, but she is still worthy enough to have a solo movie of her own imo.
Because Harley Quinn is a popular and interesting enough character on her own to make a movie about.
Nah, it fits Arthur's incompetence better if the only way he could get together with someone and have a stable, happy relationship if he imagined it.
Even if they HAD been a real couple, it would have still ended in tragedy. She would have died in a horrific accident (similar to how The Joker's wife did in the comics), or fallen in love with someone else, and left Arthur feeling completely broken either way.
Isn't that pretty much the simplest interpretation? Other than he and Murray sharing a moment on stage together at the beginning, and his relationship with Sophie, the entire movie likely all happened exactly as we saw it (especially since he's laughing at Bruce standing over his parents' corpses at the end.)
He is right, though...
I mean, she's hot as hell and Hollywood is an image based industry. Of course her looks are the main reason for her success. She has talent too, but if she was average or ugly looking, you think she'd get the same opportunities? Of course not.