Posts by dustyfalcon122

Brian Gray5 said:It seems like hardly anyone actually gets the core of the trolley problem.
Another point for Mother.

I don't see what the Trolley problem has to do with anything here.
It was just a cheap little trick used to show how Mother "learns" ethics.
A cheap trick for the masses, sure, but effective.

Kevin Evans41 said:On the contrary, that "Woman" character—flawed and messy just like any other human being—is absolutely vital to the story, because she gives the Daughter a chance to get a "firsthand" look at what a typical representative of the old human race actually looked like, a species that basically nuked itself out of existence thanks to its own ego, aggression, selfishness, dishonesty, and all those other lovely little traits that used to define us.

For some reason, you’re stuck in this weird middle ground where you take the plot way too literally on one hand (claiming the apocalypse is undefined or unrealistic based on the visuals) while simultaneously pushing this heavy-handed "metaphorical" angle on the other.

Mother isn't cruel; cruelty is a human trait, whereas she’s just incredibly efficient as she chases that ultimate, lofty goal.

And why on earth are you reaching for a forced word like "omnipresent" when there's perfectly good English right there? 😁

First off, Mother wiped out humans; they didn't just do it to themselves. She basically said she was just getting ahead of them before they could finish the job, and Woman actually confirms that point.
Woman is the "wild card." Mother couldn't possibly have known what kind of lesson the Daughter would take away from this, and honestly, the lesson you're talking about could have been delivered much more easily without Woman being there at all.

For some reason, you're taking the plot way too literally on one hand (saying things like "the apocalypse isn't defined and feels unrealistic based on what we saw"), but then on the other hand, you're pushing this heavy "metaphorical" angle.

Well, yeah. Logically? The story doesn't hold up. Metaphorically? It works perfectly.

Mother isn't cruel. Cruelty is a human trait; she's just incredibly efficient in her pursuit of a final, sublime goal.

Since I'm a human being myself, from my perspective, Mother *is* cruel. Just like God in the Great Flood or Sodom.

And why on earth are you using the forced term "omnipresent" when there's a perfectly good American word right there? 😁

I just didn't think of it, 😁

Kevin Evans41 said:You're pushing this whole "metaphorical vision" angle when there's zero need for it, basically just overthinking things and trying to read tea leaves where none exist.

The movie works flawlessly exactly as it is, holding up perfectly fine on its most straightforward, surface-level level.

I just can't agree with that.
The Woman feels totally unnecessary, and the apocalypse they show isn't even defined—it just doesn't feel real based on what we actually saw on screen.
And the whole idea of breeding a new race and colonizing a new planet? It’s way too oversimplified and practically impossible under those conditions.
The film doesn't work at all unless you view it strictly as a metaphor. "Mother" is everywhere, an absolute force of control, whose only motivation is supposedly love for humanity, yet she's simultaneously capable of such massive cruelty toward them.

You guys are overthinking this way too much.
I mean, look, Mother is God, Daughter is Adam / Eve—and the Woman is just the serpent that drives them out of paradise.
The movie's sequence actually makes total sense from start to finish. I’ll admit, I didn't totally vibe with the motivations or the behavior of the "Woman" character, but honestly? It works because it serves the metaphor.

Gary Patel said:Oh, there is an issue. And it's obvious.

The whole storm brewed because Ariel is played by a white actress, even though we see the exact opposite quite often—white actors playing characters from other ethnic groups—and it's not like white people were making a big deal out of fighting against that.

Whitewashing is still very much a thing in Hollywood.

There is a problem here, but people either aren't aware of their own biases and double standards, or they know they exist but don't want to be labeled as racists or conservatives—so they wrap their opinions in fancy packaging to make them look "safe."

The problem arises when a film made as a remake of an animated classic—something intended for an American audience—is produced primarily by people of American descent and presented as a staple of American culture, yet is led by a character who clearly doesn't fit that cultural mold.

The Little Mermaid is an American animated film made by American animators, American screenwriters, producers, and directors, with American actors providing the voices. It's designed to make money on a global scale.

You don't see Japanese films made in Japan telling Japanese stories with white leads. You don't see that in India, or in Africa, either.

But you *do* see it.

In other words, you see white actors making movies based on other cultures where they play characters who aren't white.

And I'm not talking about old-school Hollywood from the first half of the last century, back when people from other ethnic groups weren't included in big-budget films and it was simply considered "normal" for a white actor to play a Black character or someone else.

I am talking about recent films.

Ghost in the Shell (2017): Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi, a character of clearly Asian descent. Almost the entire cast is white. This is based on one of the most famous Japanese manga.
"The Last Airbender [ Avatar ]" (2010) – a film based on an animated film where the characters are of Asian descent or represent Native Americans. Most of the actors are white.
https://thegreyhoundnews.com/wp-cont.../03/avatar.jpg

"A Mighty Heart" (2007) - Angelina Jolie as Mariane Pearl. Jolie is a white woman of American descent, but she played a character (based on a real person) who was of Afro-Cuban descent.
"Argo" (2012) - Ben Affleck as Antonio J. Mendez. Affleck is a white man of American descent, but he played a Mexican. The film Argo won three Oscars: Oscar: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing.
https://thegreyhoundnews.com/wp-cont.../03/avatar.jpg
In "The Lone Ranger" (2013), we have Johnny Depp playing Tonto—a character who is Native American. It’s a bit of a pivot, considering that back in the original 1950s series, the role was played by an actor who was actually Mohawk. Depp, of course, is a white man of European descent.
In the 2014 film *Noah*, we have Russell Crowe playing the title role. The actor himself actually has New Zealander and European roots—not exactly what you'd expect! As for the character, Noah is that biblical figure who definitely hailed from the Middle East.
In "Exodus: Gods and Kings" (2014), we have Christian Bale playing Moses—honestly, it feels like the exact same vibe as Noam. Plus, there’s Joel Edgerton, who is of Australian descent, stepping in to play Ramses, the Egyptian ruler.
Prince of Persia (2010): Jake Gyllenhaal as the Prince of Persia. Jake is of European and Jewish descent—so, he’s playing a character who really should have been Persian (modern-day Iran).
Looking back at *Batman Begins* (2005) and *The Dark Knight Rises* (2012)—Liam Neeson plays Ra's al Ghul, a character who is actually an Arab man.

So, does it really mean that when white actors make movies, it's totally fine to have them play characters of different races—since, hey, it's an American production—but if a Black actor plays a character originally written as white, suddenly it’s "forcing" something or "intruding" on white culture? It feels like a bit of a double standard, doesn't it?

It’s just a matter of perspective—it's all about context. Obviously, America wasn't built solely on European traditions, and honestly, I have zero issues with diverse films coming out of Hollywood—I actually enjoy variety! But forcing Black characters into roles that belong strictly to white culture feels a bit rushed—kind of forced, if you want my two cents.

What exactly is this whole "white culture" thing?

Why can’t Black Americans be fully embraced as an integral part of American and Western culture? It feels like we constantly oversimplify things—we look at someone and immediately label them as "African." In most Western countries, it’s considered blatant racism if you assume someone isn't white is automatically a foreigner—basically pigeonholing them into some non-Western or non-American nation right off the bat.

So, let me get this straight—we're talking about an American man whose ancestors were brought over here during the 18th century? He was born and raised right here in the States—just like countless generations of his family before him (+200 years, to be exact). And yet, he and his family aren't considered part of American culture? Are they really expected to take some ancestry DNA test just to pin down their vague origins so they can claim that as "their" culture? And then—get this—actually make movies based on that? It’s a bit much, isn't it?

Since I was born and raised right here in America, it’s entirely possible that I have roots tracing back to Iran. It's even plausible that my ancestors migrated toward the US centuries ago. Just like an African American has deep ties to Africa, I have those connections to Iran—but does that mean American culture isn't mine? Not at all.
Does this mean that even a thousand years from now in America, Black people—who have been part of the fabric of this continent for much longer than a millennium, or even those in Europe who arrived there long before they arrived here—will never truly be woven into the core of Western culture? Will they always be forced to go looking for "Ethiopian" princesses just to find representation? It’s a strange thought—for instance, if my family had moved to a place like Chicago fifty years ago and I were already a third-generation American, I’d likely feel a stronger claim to the local culture based on my roots—yet, purely because of skin color, I might still be viewed as an outsider compared to someone whose family has been settled there for a century. It's a complicated dynamic, really.

This whole argument about white culture and Ethiopian princesses is flawed on several levels—really. Just because one Black creator on YouTube decided to lean into it doesn't make the logic sound. Now, everyone is jumping on his bandwagon—linking his videos everywhere and saying, "See? Even Black creators are pointing out how nonsensical this is."

Let's be real—it’s clearly a massive uphill battle to produce a film in Hollywood that features an entirely ethnic cast rather than the standard European one. I mean, trying to scout and book over 100 actors who are specifically perfect for one particular race? That’s gotta be incredibly tough to pull off in the studio system—believe me, I know!

Not quite.

It’s funny—does Hollywood actually realize that these kinds of characters don't pull in the same numbers as a full or mostly white cast? I mean, look at *The Princess and the Frog*, *Mulan*, *Pocahontas*, or *Atlantis*—they all underperformed compared to the usual Disney standards for animated films during that era. Just a thought!

Disney tends to use people from other ethnic groups as mere token characters—you know, those types who are just there so nobody can complain about a lack of diversity, even if they don't actually matter much to the plot.
The thing is, Disney isn't avoiding making films with such casts; they could easily do it.

Why on earth would Disney be forced to use an Ethiopian folktale?

Look, I’m a Black man whose family has been in America for centuries. Are you trying to tell me that just because of my skin color, I’ll never truly be considered American? Am I always supposed to go searching for my culture back in Africa?

It’s quite fascinating, really—how we took people as slaves from their homelands, "civilized" them, forcibly made them part of our society, and now that their descendants are causing us headaches, we want to strip away their connection to American culture and essentially say, "Go back to Africa."

A. American and European cultures aren't strictly "white" cultures.
B. Americans and Europeans who aren't white—but whose families have lived on these continents for generations—have just as much right to the culture of these nations as white people do. They are an integral part of that culture; they helped build it (literally and figuratively, since many monuments and buildings, especially here in the US, certainly weren't built by white people alone).
C. I'll say it again: please stop using arguments about Ethiopian princesses or folk tales from Zimbabwe.

Real-life example: Imagine you go to France and meet a guy—he's a French actor and he's Black. His family has been in France for decades, maybe even centuries. Would you look him in the eye and say, "Hey, sorry man, your family has been in France forever, but your culture is actually African. And since I'm a white guy who just arrived in France, my skin color gives me more right to claim French culture as my own than you do. In fact, it’d probably be better to hire me for a movie based on a French fairy tale rather than you."

If non-American cultures want to boycott the movie, let them. I have zero issues with that.
Actually, they do exactly that! If they don't like the film, they boycott it and stay away, and personally, I think that's fine.

There’s an issue there, but people either aren't aware of their own biases and double standards, or they know perfectly well but don't want to be labeled as racists or conservatives, so they wrap their opinions in layers of sugar-coating.

Personally, I am very aware of my own double standards—and I think most people are too. It's just that people aren't willing to get attacked for things that everyone else is doing.

The Little Mermaid is an American animated film made by American animators, American writers, producers, and directors, with an American voice cast. And it's designed to make money on a global scale.

That doesn't change what I said about American culture. In fact, you're actually agreeing with me.

In other words, you see that white people make movies based on other cultures where white actors play characters who weren't originally white.

Exactly, so they're telling a story from one culture through the lens of American culture. Every single culture on this planet does the exact same thing.

Ghost in the Shell (2017): Scarlett Johansson as Motoko Kusanagi, a character clearly of Asian descent. Almost the entire cast is white. This is based on one of the most famous Japanese manga.

Actually, the creator of Ghost in the Shell said the main character is essentially Western—like, an Asian soul placed into a Western body.
But that's secondary, like I said before. If there's a story from a non-American culture that creators want American audiences to watch, they'll pick characters that allow those viewers to relate. That way, we get a non-American story adapted specifically for American culture and viewers.
And again, absolutely every culture does this. The Japanese make stories from European settings with Japanese actors, Indians and Turks make their own versions of Superman, and Africans have their own versions of American action stars. Why is this only considered a problem when it involves Americans?

So, does this mean that when white people make movies where they cast themselves as characters of other races, it’s totally fine and gets the green light? But then, if an African American actor plays a role that was originally written as a white character, suddenly it's seen as "forcing" something or intruding on white culture? It feels like such a weird double standard... you know what I mean? One way is just "art," but the other way is "problematic." It's confusing!

I mean, look, when someone is making a movie specifically about their own culture, they should really have the freedom to do whatever they want with it—as long as they aren't outright lying about historical facts, obviously.

What exactly is this whole "white culture" thing? I mean, I've been sitting here thinking about it, just spiraling down the rabbit hole of how we define everything these days. It's such a heavy topic, right? Like, when people talk about it, what are they actually getting at? Is it about traditions, or is it that whole conversation around movies and how certain roles get cast? You know, like when there's talk about whitewashing in big Hollywood productions... it all feels connected somehow. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the layers of it all. What do you guys think?

European?

Why can't Black people just be seen as a fundamental part of American and European culture? It feels like we constantly oversimplify things—we look at someone and immediately label them as "African." Like, seriously? In most Western countries, it’s considered blatant racism if you assume someone isn't white is automatically a foreigner, or if you instantly pigeonhole them into some non-European or non-American country. It's such a strange, narrow way to view people.

Because they just aren't. I mean, sure, they could totally be part of a modern culture—and honestly, they are when you look at British or French series—but that doesn't work in a European fantasy setting or a historical drama. It just feels off there.

So, get this—we have an American man whose ancestors were brought over here during the 18th century, essentially living through that whole history of slavery. He was born and raised right here in the States, just like countless generations of his family before him for over 200 years. And yet, somehow, he and his entire family aren't considered part of American culture? I mean, what’s the logic there? Are they supposed to go take an ancestry DNA test just to pinpoint some vague origin, find that "culture," and then treat it as their only true identity? Is that the rule now? Like, you can't make movies based on your own life unless you first prove where your roots are through a lab test? It just doesn't add up.

Honestly, I don't think anyone has ever actually criticized the way Black characters are portrayed in slavery-era movies. If anything, people tend to go out of their way to praise them. Like, look at a new movie like Django Unchained—it’s always getting all this massive acclaim.

Look, since I was born and raised right here in America, there’s a chance I could have some Iranian roots tucked away in my family tree. It’s entirely possible that "my" ancestors migrated toward Europe maybe 500 years ago. Honestly, having those links to Iran... it feels similar to how an African American has ties to Africa. But does that actually mean American culture isn't mine? Does it change who I am?
So, does this mean that even a thousand years from now in America, Black people—who have been part of the fabric of the continent for over a millennium, or even those in Europe who arrived way before Black people ever reached America—will never truly be considered an integral part of Western culture? Will they always be stuck searching for some "Ethiopian" princess just to find representation? I mean, think about it... if my family had moved to, say, Chicago fifty years ago, and I was already a third-generation American, wouldn't I likely have a stronger claim to being part of that local culture than someone whose family has been there for a hundred years, simply because of the color of my skin? It’s wild how much identity gets tied up in things that shouldn't matter.

Look, let's be real here—Ariel is part of that classic European fairy tale tradition, just adapted for a younger audience in the States. It doesn't have anything to do with Black or Japanese people. Period.

Look, it's pretty simple: everyone has the right to free speech, and they also have the freedom to just... not watch the movie. If someone isn't feeling a European fantasy starring a Black actress, hey, they don't have to watch it! It's that easy.
That’s just how things work everywhere else in the world, honestly—except for here in the West.
Suddenly, you’re expected to demand that anyone portraying your fantasy vision on screen looks exactly how you imagined them—and if they don't? Well, then people start calling it racism.

Look, I’m not even that obsessed with the casting for this kind of movie—I honestly just clicked on this because I was bored—but the real issue here isn't about "inclusion" (which, let's be honest, nobody actually has a problem with).
The actual problem arises when you take a film that’s a remake of an animated classic, originally intended for a Western audience and made by people rooted in Western culture, and then present it as a staple of that culture while leading with a character who clearly doesn't fit that cultural mold.

You don't see Japanese films produced in Japan telling Japanese stories with white actors in the lead roles. You don't see that happening in India, or in Africa, either.
It’s strictly a Western thing. It’s obvious that America wasn't built solely on European culture, and I have zero issues with Hollywood making diverse films, but forcing a different race into a traditionally white cultural role feels forced and out of place.
Plus, let's be real, it seems pretty tough for Hollywood to pull off a film with an exclusively ethnic, non-Western cast. Trying to scout and hire over 100 actors who are specifically perfect for a very particular race... I imagine that's a massive hurdle in Hollywood.

Such an entertaining movie. Honestly, I’d love some recommendations if anyone knows of other films like this one.
Venom actually ends up being the main source of comic relief in the story, which kind of caught me off guard.

Henry Cavill definitely missed the mark on several things—from making Superman way too moody to giving us a pretty underwhelming Clark Kent—but honestly, he still manages to capture that certain "essence" of Superman.
In SR, that feeling only really hits during the airplane rescue scene.
The core struggle for Superman is this weird paradox where everyone else looks like ants to him, yet he still desperately needs to actually connect with them. I think MOS actually handled that dynamic much better, and the actor himself was just a better fit for the role.
His sense of alienation doesn't stem from being an alien, though; it comes from the fact that he can basically turn a whole city into a pile of dust in five minutes flat just by fighting with his bare hands.

Amanda Garcia57 said:Not really. I just find it so strange how people can be obsessed with things that have zero basis in reality... like, they actually admire it, and sometimes they even put it on a pedestal as some kind of life ideal. It’s weird. Some people's souls just crave raw, harsh reality, while others just want to live in a fantasy. It’s odd. Honestly, I don't get it.

It honestly blows my mind that you’re dropping a post like this when, you know, like 99% of the people on this planet follow some kind of religion.
Escaping into a fantasy is just part of being human—it's universal. Everyone, just like you, is basically looking for a way to feel superior through those fantasies.
Some people do it through forum posts, some through superheroes, and some through Zeus.

The movie was alright, I guess. Nothing to write home about.
Bonus points for the villain, though—honestly, whenever a guy provides the voiceover for a bad guy in an American movie, he ends up sounding like such a hero 🙂
Anyway, it did exactly what the trailer promised.

Anyone who follows the movie industry has probably already seen or heard about that new Disney animated flick that’s absolutely crushing it at the box office right now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2245084/?ref_=hm_otw_t1

So, IMDb says it's hitting theaters on November 6th, but I can't find any actual info anywhere else.
Since I've already "made promises" to my friends that we'd go see this in the theater, does anyone happen to know when it actually lands here in the States?

Judging by the trailers and what people are saying in reviews, the movie looks pretty solid. It’s honestly frustrating that our local distributors and theater chains are being so quiet about it.

Really solid movie, honestly unexpected from Arnold Schwarzenegger. Nobody here is trying to be Rambo, and there aren't those unrealistic expectations like "I'm going to wipe out the entire cartel" on their own.
It actually surprised me, which is why the rating is higher.
The female lead was excellent, but everyone else just didn't get enough screen time.

The movie looks pretty cool, but I don't get it—maybe I’m just getting too old for this—but why does nobody seem to dig the brunette? Did I miss something? To me, she feels like every other character in this genre...

Ethan Hawke, high-speed chases, and nonstop action? That's always a winning combo for me. Definitely adding this to my watchlist 🙂

The trailer looks awesome to me. It's got that high-budget action-trash vibe, which is honestly exactly my kind of thing 😁

It’s not quite on the level of Payback (same kind of vibe, really), but honestly? It's still more than watchable and actually pretty fun. If you're into those old-school 80s and 90s action flicks but want something with a slightly more modern feel, this hits the spot!

So, I took Frank Moore4's advice and actually hit play on this thing. About 7.4 minutes in, I shut it off, nuked it from my hard drive, and then went ahead and emptied the recycle bin just to be safe.
Don't watch this movie even if someone's pointing a loaded gun at your head!

I say Baroness!
But seriously... I’ve got a feeling Bruce is just doing a cameo, though honestly, even that is better than nothing at all 🙂

brightpuma said:honestly, it would have been way better if they just made it a series, but what can you do... 🤷

It's just silly to make a series when you already know the whole plot.
Maybe they could try a series following some other human Spectre, where their investigations occasionally cross paths with bits and pieces from the game.

bluebison8 said:Jesus, what kind of nonsense are you complaining about? It's obvious that aside from that one scene where prisoners escape (where we clearly see them dying), Captain America spends the rest of the film beating the hell out of every Nazi in sight.

Besides, when you have a crowd of enemies all huddling behind cover while a big guy in a bright red, white, and blue suit charges straight at you, who are they going to shoot? It’s basic psychology: everyone aims for our hero because he looks like the biggest and most immediate threat, leaving his friends to pick off the Nazis like they're sitting ducks at a shooting range.

I mean, honestly, the casualty rates for Americans and Germans during their clashes were always going to be somewhat comparable. The Germans were mostly defending their own turf and had gear sitting right there ready to go (whereas the Americans had to ship everything over from England), so the ratio might have leaned slightly more toward them, but it was never anywhere near 30-to-1.
But what we're seeing here is textbook American propaganda. Not surprising for a movie that basically functions as Captain Obvious, but man, it was ridiculous.
You've got four Americans charging at Nazis with an automatic rifle—three of them drop, but the fourth one somehow reaches him and just beats him down...
First off, nobody is running empty-handed at a guy with an automatic weapon (just look at recent massacres in places like Norway)—and second, why does this last starving, exhausted prisoner suddenly become a master of hand-to-hand combat against an elite Nazi?
I was hoping for a bit more World War II realism, but hey, the movie is still plenty watchable.

Plus, when you've got a whole crowd of enemies just standing behind some cover, and this massive guy in a bright red, white, and blue suit comes charging at you, who are you actually going to shoot at? It's pure psychology—everyone aims for our hero because he looks like the biggest, most immediate threat, which leaves his friends facing Nazis that act like clay pigeons at a shooting range.

Not to mention the Nazis are just standing there like idiots in the open, firing one shot at a time.
Standard military doctrine dictates that you'd cover an open field with multiple machine guns and heavy artillery. Instead, these guys are standing around like morons, popping off single shots. They didn't even have bunkers or sandbags (apparently anti-personnel mines were too expensive for this budget...).

And another thing—who on earth uses short-range flamethrowers like that? What is even the point of that weapon?

Does anyone know when the movie is hitting theaters here in the States?