MovieChat Forums > avortac4

avortac4 (2490)


Recyclops makes no sense A Wonderful thing about this show Woman does not exist (practical vs. absolute reality) Skynet and BBGU make no sense Trinity's slow walk makes no sense (it's not what you think) The blue pill makes no sense You make your own pie The beginning makes no sense.. among OTHER things Cheap clone of Memento "I used to eat there" makes no sense View all posts >


First of all, where do you get the impression someone is seeing him as 'the bad guy'? Secondly, why do you use passive, as if it's some kind of universal truth? WHO are you talking about, who is seeing him as 'the bad guy'? Please elaborate. Third, he's NOT seen or shown to be as 'the bad guy', but he is a lot like Frank Grimes, or Grimey, as he liked to be called. He exists solely to underline how GOOFY the rest of the characters are, how quirky and weird Michael is, and how enormous a contrast it would create, if the group got a 'realistic manager'. He also gets the 'established values' wrong, doesn't understand the people (i.e. 'characters'), gets Dwight and Jim completely wrong, is way less relaxed about work, dress codes and such than Michael was, and doesn't try to be everyone's friend, the way Michael did. He's like Bizarro-Michael, and as such, doesn't fit the office, that's used to actual Michael. They know how to handle and manipulate Michael, which creates a good work environment, but this manager is realistic, so they lost control and fun, and now it's all serious work and boring stuff. He also made some bad decisions and was insensitive towards Michael with his macho BS and his lack of humor. All in all, no one liked him (attraction is not the same as liking someone as a human or a manager), and he messed up the normal flow of the day. He was not a villain as much as he was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. No, it's because he wasn't a major character. Get it? In any case, kind of ironic that your nick says 'Minority Rules' and yet you miss all the pun opportunities, and spew the kind of SJW nonsense Candace Owens wouldn't even bother to spit on. Try again. I mean, 'likable' and 'unlikable' is final, conclusive, factual. That usually doesn't exist. There are things that are 'not liked' or 'are hated', but things that are 'unlikable' are pretty hard to find or even justify. There's BOUND to be someone that likes something everyone else hates. This means very few things are unlikable - this word means that something CAN NOT BE LIKED by anyone or anything. So even if you could SOMEHOW magically conjure up this mystical element of 'moment', it still couldn't be 'unlikable', it could possibly be 'something most viewers hate', but it can't be 'unlikable' in any case. To clarify, there's a big difference between 'likable' and 'liked'. 'Most liked scene', 'the highest-rated episode', sure. But 'most unlikable moment'? I DON'T THINK SO. A moment can't be 'unlikable'. A moment doesn't really even exist, as time itself is barely an illusion. We always invent words for our convenience, like 'darkness' and 'cold', because they serve a purpose to us, so we also constraint something like 'time' and subjugate it under our convenience by the usage and invention of words and terminology, like 'a moment'. However, it's like a border on a map that has no relevance to the animals walking in the forest. A deer doesn't know it just crossed a border, because that border doesn't REALLY exist in actual reality, certainly not for the deer. The same way we can define and talk about things until the deer come home (why is the plural of deer 'deer', but a plural of cow is 'cows'?), but we won't change what really is and what isn't. Darkness is not real, it's merely 'lack of light' (but can there ever be actual lack of light, when we consider the Creator IS light, and is also Omnipresent? - same goes for 'cold', which doesn't exist, except as a 'lack of warmth' - there can't be absolute zero, either). A 'moment' is merely a word that supposedly describes some undetermined amount of what we call 'time', but does it REALLY exist in actual reality? Would a deer know what you are talking about? Can you point to a moment with your finger? Can you explain exactly how many seconds it means? So you are using a vague term about a thing that barely exists to describe a thing that doesn't exist beyond the world of 'human convenience' and then assign features, attributes and traits to it, like 'unlikable'? How does THAT work? Could you and others please stop making these really ridiculous statements, questions and topics that make no sense. Please. A 'moment' (especially since it doesn't really exist in reality) CAN NOT BE UNLIKABLE! But even if we could say it could, 'unlikABLE' is a very 'factual term' considering how opinion-based 'liking something' is. Before its time? You mean 'ahead of its time'? MANhattan? Don't you mean WOMANhattan? Or maybe WOMANscarftan? Exactly. Coddled children grow up to be weak, confused and scared - probably traumatized and scared for life. Emotionally imbalanced, possibly psychos. Parents know better than the kid, they should NEVER let kid's tears control their behaviour. When parents have decided something, kid's tears, tantrums, etc. should be either irrelevant and thus not change anything, or punished, and then still not change anything. It's not about having paid for the horse (not that animal torture is ever OK, but I'll try to ignore that part for now), it's about having the guts, determination and stability, confidence and calmness to make the daughter CONFRONT her fears, and guide her THROUGH the tears and difficulties. Nothing is hurting her physically, so the tears come from the psychological side. The only way the child learns that hey, nothing bad happened, and she DOES have the power to confront this fear and go through it, is if the parent is a stable guide that pushes her forward until she stops feeling fear and realizes to stop crying. Then she may or may not enjoy it, but she'll be stronger, she will have an experience of succeeding in something, she will grow as human being and feel that the parents are STRONG, so she can trust them to protect them. She can also trust that the parents are WISE, because even though she panicked, the parents stayed there and still pushed her through the experience, all the while convincing her that nothing bad will happen, everything will be all right. It's ok to be scared and cry, but we're going through this together in any case. It's very similar to dog psychology - dogs can throw temper tantrums as well, and be coddled and grow emotionally imbalanced. Dog Whisperer and Cesar 911 are good places to start to learn this kind of basic psychology. You can't avoid everything in life, you have to sometimes walk on the streets and do 'scary things'. The mom's tactic would've made her fear horses for the rest of her life. You are all correct - this movie robs itself of the potential by making it into "of course a psycho nut is going to act like a psycho nut" instead of something poignant, like "this could happen to you, because our world is insane". What a waste of potential.. Koyaanisqatsi was gutsier (no pun intended) than this movie, it actually shows us - without any words - just how INSANE our world is, and how easy that insanity is to see if you look at it from a slightly different perspective than what we are used to. This movie COULD have been similar, it could have moralized about how terrible corporate greed is, and what it DOES to people, how unhealthy the cubicle wage-slavery and the car-centric commuting system (just because the corporations have paid for the offices for years to come, we can't have telecommuting, working from home, et cetera) is. When you watch those 'Urbanist' videos from 'NotJustBikes' and some others, you have to wonder if 'car-centrism' is REALLY what is the best for everyone. Thankfully, in Europe, public transport is downright amazing compared to car-centric, almost third-world sh1tholes that think they're on the top of the world because everyone has a car. In any case, this problem is showed in this movie in a very powerful way, but then the guy ALREADY BEING A PSYCHO dilutes that power until there's nothing left. It destroys this movie's potential and poignancy more aggressively than D-Fence destroys the small Korean store because he would have had to pay 35 cents more for a can of toilet-cleaning liquid than usual. (Yes, I said it - that stuff is better for cleaning toilets than human consumption) What truth? No one ever really dies anyway, only their bodies do. Mary still lives.. SOMEWHERE out there, perhaps reincarnated, perhaps in the astral world. She could be visiting another galaxy right now.. In any case, why didn't you trust him, what about, and WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? It's like that old, funny story about some women loving some useless celebrity so much, she told her boyfriend she would s*ck his c*ck in front of her father, because she loves him so much, and the boyfriend should just shut up and take this kind of insanity. Then the boyfriend simply said some woman on a TV show is 'cute', and she lost her crap and angrily marched away, telling him he can just watch it alone, then. The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but people are still blaming MEN for everything - even a fictional woman's emotional immaturity. How's THAT for inequality.. men have to buy you a drink, stop the ax murderer from coming through the window, watch your female sports for ya and even get the blame if a woman's emotions are immature! View all replies >