moviefreakedmind

Is that actually in the film?

I think it’s at least a fair assumption. Keep in mind that I consider the Lucasfilm suits to just be a subsection of the Disney suits.

Why? What’s ridiculous about thinking that cartoon dead actors and forced Darth Vader scenes and completely barebones, uncreative writing that served only to get from Star Wars action scene to Star Wars action scene is unbecoming of a feature film?

What about blaming the suits for making Rogue One bad? That film is obviously calculated to the T.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The “fire insurance” is the only reason to dedicate your life to Christ. You may say there are little benefits, but if you weren’t going to roast in hell there’d be no reason to suffer through church, evangelizing, praying, and all that. Life’s too short.

I feel like this is kind of a glass half empty or half full thing. Your reasoning isn’t incorrect, but I feel it’s more important to focus on the eternal reward of faithfulness rather than the eternal punishment of unforgiven sin (or whatever Hell may be).

The reward isn’t as desirable as the punishment is horrifying.

Dek Rollins said:
they spend more time wacking off than they do imitating Christ’s love.

The reason they do that is because it’s a natural urge and desire of human beings (which God supposedly created). It’s especially a very natural part of growing up and developing. Encouraging people, and especially youth, to repress themselves and be ashamed of themselves for something that’s biologically ingrained into them is one of Christianity’s biggest faults today.

I mean, that wasn’t my point, but okay. I don’t disagree with you.

Oh, well that’s how I took it.

I was just referring to the fact that they have no desire to express the love of Christ to others. The “wack” was just an example that I chose based on its place in religious society.

They probably have no desire to express it to others because most people don’t want to hear about the love of Christ. I certainly don’t.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The “fire insurance” is the only reason to dedicate your life to Christ. You may say there are little benefits, but if you weren’t going to roast in hell there’d be no reason to suffer through church, evangelizing, praying, and all that. Life’s too short.

I feel like this is kind of a glass half empty or half full thing. Your reasoning isn’t incorrect, but I feel it’s more important to focus on the eternal reward of faithfulness rather than the eternal punishment of unforgiven sin (or whatever Hell may be).

The reward isn’t as desirable as the punishment is horrifying.

Dek Rollins said:
they spend more time wacking off than they do imitating Christ’s love.

The reason they do that is because it’s a natural urge and desire of human beings (which God supposedly created). It’s especially a very natural part of growing up and developing. Encouraging people, and especially youth, to repress themselves and be ashamed of themselves for something that’s biologically ingrained into them is one of Christianity’s biggest faults today.

I mean, that wasn’t my point, but okay. I don’t disagree with you.

Oh, well that’s how I took it.

ZigZig said:

moviefreakedmind said:
the animosity in Northern Ireland definitely stems more from culture and identity than faith.

OK

chyron8472 said:

Protestant divisiveness over there is not actually about faith at all

Not OK

PS: thank you for making the difference between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Okay, I get what you’re saying. For the record, I did find chyron’s assessment simplistic, I was just commenting on the tone of your response.

I don’t even remember which one came first, Reloaded or Revolutions.

I’m talking about the Darth Vader scenes. And the cartoon Peter Cushing and Carrie Fisher.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:
It was very well done, and, as you said, a spectacular performance from Oldman.

He’s not that old, he’s only sixty.

I’m sure he’s wrong on some levels, but the animosity in Northern Ireland definitely stems more from culture and identity than faith. As Sam Harris said, they aren’t fighting over the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

I just downloaded and examined my Facebook archive data and other than some embarrassing old messages I sent to and received from friends through Facebook, they had nothing disturbing about me. This is coming from someone who didn’t take extra special care to protect myself, but also never consciously gave them information either. (They had absolutely no contact or phone info and I have used Facebook on my phone before.) If you use facebook like me you probably shouldn’t worry, but I’d urge you to download your archive.

SilverWook said:

If one never uses facebook on their smartphone could they still mine that data?

Apparently, according to the article, it only mined that data if you gave it permission to access your contacts, which it asks for upon installing the app. If you said no then I’m guess your phone wouldn’t have allowed the app to access it, or maybe the app wouldn’t have tried. It’s still disturbing because “having access to” contacts doesn’t clearly imply that it’s monitoring your calls and texts, so it’s a lack of transparency on Facebook’s part.

Handman said:

moviefreakedmind said:

For all we know, we might know each other in person.

The chance of that is incredibly unlikely.

But it is possible. I find your lack of faith disconcerting. (I sure fucked that Star Wars reference up, didn’t I?)

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

There’s a certain antagonism here toward people that don’t like the Disney movies. It’s similar to the antagonism directed toward people that don’t think the prequels are the worst films ever made.

You can like what you like. I just get annoyed when people make ridiculous claims about made up boogeymen. It encourages a very shallow type of film criticism that is all too common these days. I’d feel the same way even if I disliked the movies.

My criticism of the films stem entirely from me not liking them. I actually stood up against shallow film criticism when Boyhood came up a couple days ago so I’m with you there. As for the antagonism, it’s not this thread that I’m talking about, it’s the General SW section and I was more responding to Warbler’s “I have that right” comment than anything else.

Sounds like he struck a nerve.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

Dek Rollins said:

The Disney films are the director’s vision being made with massive amounts of input from Disney/LFL overlords who don’t care about Star Wars.

Citation needed.

Would you prefer Solo to be directed by people who turn Han into a lovably comical rogue, or to have KK step in and replace them with a director who will do justice to the character?

I would prefer that Disney allows the people who they hired in the first place to make the picture they feel works best. And maybe I’m wrong about the studio execs not caring about Star Wars, and I apologize for making baseless claims, but I’m not getting any glimpses of the contrary from what has been happening with the new films.

Kennedy hired them, not Disney. Kennedy is the producer, she has the creative right to fire them, whether justified or not.

Kennedy is part of the Disney machine now. She runs one of their biggest moneymakers.

And it is in her best interest to make the best possible film (something she isn’t a bad authority on).

Also, just because you don’t like the movies they’ve made doesn’t mean your speculations are right. Baselessly blaming “studio interference” for everything is a completely sophomoric way of looking at things.

I blame studio interference when there is more attention to things (like shoving in recognizable crap from the original films) that are completely devoid of any artistic merit, because it seems like the most obvious reason.

But that’s still baseless. That kind of thing is usually referred to as “fan service.” Well, the filmmakers are fans, so…

Presumably they aren’t fans to the point of wanting to damage their film with distracting nonsense.

There’s a certain antagonism here toward people that don’t like the Disney movies. It’s similar to the antagonism directed toward people that don’t think the prequels are the worst films ever made.

suspiciouscoffee said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Yeah…it’s really not bad, and it’s better than II. But women, amirite?

The funny is that having women play the Ghostbusters is actually the only thing that makes the remake more than just a simple regurgitation of the original. It’s really the only strength that the entire production had. Now they’re remaking Lord of the Flies with girls instead of boys, and some idiots were complaining but ultimately we already have one fantastic adaptation of it from 1963 and a pretty good one from the 90s. If they didn’t make any changes it’d just be another reimagining of Lord of the Flies which was perfectly adapted almost word for word over five decades ago.

Lord of the Flies with girls sounds great if they abandon everything else about the novel and just make it a Wonder Woman prequel where the girls make a cool society of island hunter/warriors and generally get along.

Well, I hate superheroes so I’m opposed to that idea, but realistically I don’t think a Lord of the Flies with girls would be any different from the Lord of the Flies with boys. Kids are obnoxious and evil regardless of the gender.

suspiciouscoffee said:

TV’s Frink said:

Yeah…it’s really not bad, and it’s better than II. But women, amirite?

It’s been so many years since I’ve seen II, I remember next to nothing about it, but I’ll take your word for it.

Hey, Ghostbusters II is my favorite movie.

TV’s Frink said:

Yeah…it’s really not bad, and it’s better than II. But women, amirite?

The funny is that having women play the Ghostbusters is actually the only thing that makes the remake more than just a simple regurgitation of the original. It’s really the only strength that the entire production had. Now they’re remaking Lord of the Flies with girls instead of boys, and some idiots were complaining but ultimately we already have one fantastic adaptation of it from 1963 and a pretty good one from the 90s. If they didn’t make any changes it’d just be another reimagining of Lord of the Flies which was perfectly adapted almost word for word over five decades ago.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I haven’t seen TLJ, but I don’t see how anyone could describe TFA or R1 as films with any kind of creative or artistic vision. I’m not even saying that as an insult to them. There are plenty of Bond movies or other films that I love and find entertaining as hell that have no real creative or artistic vision, but I don’t find the Disney SW films entertaining. And since they don’t entertain me or interest me and they don’t have heart, I can’t appreciate them as films.

I’m not sure you’re the best person to judge if a movie “has a heart.” (joking, I guess I need to clarify)

I am.

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

Dek Rollins said:

The Disney films are the director’s vision being made with massive amounts of input from Disney/LFL overlords who don’t care about Star Wars.

Citation needed.

Would you prefer Solo to be directed by people who turn Han into a lovably comical rogue, or to have KK step in and replace them with a director who will do justice to the character?

I would prefer that Disney allows the people who they hired in the first place to make the picture they feel works best. And maybe I’m wrong about the studio execs not caring about Star Wars, and I apologize for making baseless claims, but I’m not getting any glimpses of the contrary from what has been happening with the new films.

Kennedy hired them, not Disney. Kennedy is the producer, she has the creative right to fire them, whether justified or not.

Kennedy is part of the Disney machine now. She runs one of their biggest moneymakers.

Also, just because you don’t like the movies they’ve made doesn’t mean your speculations are right. Baselessly blaming “studio interference” for everything is a completely sophomoric way of looking at things.

I blame studio interference when there is more attention to things (like shoving in recognizable crap from the original films) that are completely devoid of any artistic merit, because it seems like the most obvious reason.

The “fire insurance” is the only reason to dedicate your life to Christ. You may say there are little benefits, but if you weren’t going to roast in hell there’d be no reason to suffer through church, evangelizing, praying, and all that. Life’s too short.

Dek Rollins said:
they spend more time wacking off than they do imitating Christ’s love.

The reason they do that is because it’s a natural urge and desire of human beings (which God supposedly created). It’s especially a very natural part of growing up and developing. Encouraging people, and especially youth, to repress themselves and be ashamed of themselves for something that’s biologically ingrained into them is one of Christianity’s biggest faults today.

suspiciouscoffee said:

So you want all the murder, but none of the frowns?

Not necessarily. The Dark Knight movies were grim and dark and I loved those. Primarily I just don’t see what’s so bad about killing dangerous people in self-defense or in the defense of others. If Batman had just killed the Joker the first time he had a chance then a lot of lives would’ve been saved.

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I didn’t give the prequels a pass. I just said they are slightly less soulless.

I’m not sure though how working for Disney automatically leads JJ Abrams, Gareth Edwards, Rian Johnson, or Ron Howard (among the many others involved) to create soulless works. People like a movie or they don’t.

It’s not just Disney. I watched the first two movies and found them soulless. There are films made under the Disney banner that have soul, but those are primarily products that aren’t poised to gross 2 billion dollars, so the corporate overlords don’t take as much interest in meddling with them.