Posts by Dennis Hayes39

Christian Wells3 said:Hey, hope this PDF works okay.

If not, feel free to move it.

My question is: How can I be a good person without getting walked all over? People have taken advantage of my kindness and naivety way too many times.

The last time it happened was just a few months ago.

I was living in a small rental apartment. There was this older janitor in the building (he had some special needs). He was a great guy, seriously, he always helped me out, wasn't making much money, and lived in this run-down little shack. Anyway, I suddenly had a death in the family and ended up moving into a much bigger place. Since the old place was furnished, I told my former landlord he could give my stuff (TV, fridge, bed) to the janitor.

A few days ago, I called my old landlord because a coworker needed a place to crash for a couple of nights. Not only did he charge her an insane amount ( $333 for just 3 days, when I used to pay $200 plus utilities), but he actually sold all my stuff and didn't give a single thing to the janitor...

There have been plenty of other times where I've been used and ripped off.

What I want to know is, how do you carry yourself in life so things like this don't happen? I'm the type of person who would give someone the shirt off my back to help them through a hard time, but I almost always end up getting played.

Sent from my Huawei P30 using Reddit

To say someone is "being good" is the most cliché thing a selfish person can claim when they decide to play the victim. I know this because I’ve played that role myself. Even now, I still find that old habit of "being good" sneaking up on me from behind every once in a while. 😁

All jokes aside, I used to think being "good" was the only way to earn respect and acceptance from others. It turns out that some people just took advantage of that, because let's face it—people can be anything, and that's just how it goes. Instead of realizing I was misreading the people around me, I fell straight into the victim trap. I spent my time complaining about how unfair the world is, how malicious everyone is, and how they’re all just using me while I remain this supposedly "good" person. In reality, you could even call that kind of "goodness" a form of selfishness. I was essentially using it as currency to get something back. I was thinking about myself the entire time rather than actually thinking about anyone else. 🙂

What I’ve learned over the years is that while being kind to others matters, being kind to myself is the real priority. It’s about setting boundaries on that kindness. You have to establish a line where you can still be a helpful person without letting anyone take advantage of your nature. Sometimes that means stepping up to help someone out. Other times, it means simply saying I don't have the time, I can't do it, or I just don't want to. There will even be moments where I cross those lines and go above and beyond, but I do it with a clear intention: I’m not doing it to buy someone's affection. I’m doing it because I genuinely want to. And that is perfectly fine. Sure, it happened that some people took offense. Some people stopped reaching out altogether. But the result? The people who stayed actually started respecting me more.

Take a moment to reflect on why you feel this constant pressure to be "good" to everyone. What exactly are you hoping to get back when you act that way? If you believe that being kind is a way to purchase respect or affection from others, I have to tell you: you've got it all wrong. That isn't how the world works. This mindset usually stems from core beliefs we internalize during childhood through our relationship with our parents—like the idea that if I’m a good kid, Mom or Dad will love me. We then unconsciously carry those patterns into our adult lives and our relationships with everyone else.

They’re just your typical, run-of-the-mill villains. 😬

The Running Man - Arnold Schwarzenegger 😁

It would be just perfect if they included a Maiden soundtrack. 😁

The trailer isn't bad. Honestly, it wouldn't be the first time a teaser actually looks better than the final movie. We shall see.

Jack Bauer.

There’s just no way to pick anyone else after he shoots a guy's kneecap off within the first five seconds of an interrogation and then lets out that iconic, 😬"Who are you working for!?"

John Reese is undoubtedly his successor.

silentcanyon58 said:Look, I’ll be honest—you can take the plot of this movie and toss it out the window, because if we're talking about pure cinematic impact, *Hell in the Pacific* still reigns supreme in my book. But man, what stays with me even after all these years is just how fantastic the sci-fi elements are! It really hits that sweet spot for me. I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about how much our surroundings shape our entire perspective on life, isn't that just fascinating? It’s like when you move from a quiet little suburb out in the Midwest to the bustling, high-energy streets of New York City—everything about how you process information and interact with others shifts instantly! I remember once during a summer road trip through the Rockies, I felt this incredible sense of clarity just by being surrounded by those massive, silent peaks, whereas living in a cramped apartment in Chicago can sometimes make you feel like you're constantly rushing against a clock that doesn't exist. It really makes you wonder how much of our internal "setting" is actually just a reflection of the physical world we inhabit every single day. And honestly, those special effects have such a charming, nostalgic quality to them! Even if they don't quite hold up when you hold them against today's high-tech CGI standards, they still possess this incredible sense of soul and a certain kind of magic that stays with you long after the credits roll. 🙂

The special effects might be dated and modest, but they are absolutely excellent. Just look at that opening scene with the wreckage of the spacecraft. You get this genuine sense that those are actual pieces of twisted, scorched metal floating in space. To me, that shot carries way more weight than any of the seizure-inducing lens flare spectacles found in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. 🤷

Patrick Martin said:I doubt I'll get much more out of Stalker. I just don't see the point or the connection between a feature film and poetry or philosophy, especially within the Sci-Fi genre. It gets old fast for me; when you're heading up there, into space for instance, I want meaningful action.
Based on that quote from Solaris, one could conclude they went into space to find a conclusion about how humans need humans. Humanity. Alienation.
What a load of nonsense.
I don't need that. There are books for that.

I understand that not everyone has the same tastes, and I respect that, but "there are books for that"? 🤦

I followed your comments on that mockery thread about Prometheus, and now it's perfectly clear why you defend that piece of junk so aggressively. If you think Sci-Fi is nothing more than deep space and high-tech shootouts, you are dead wrong.

Since its inception, quality Sci-Fi has always been about more than just technological predictions and imaginative plots; it has consistently offered social commentary and explored humanity's place in the cosmos (for example, the impossibility of truly communicating with something too alien for us, which is a theme Lem frequently tackled in his stories—look at Solaris). And yes, there is actual plot development where the characters aren't just cardboard cutouts at the mercy of a weak script.

OT: Tough call: Kubrick or Cameron.

Kubrick's Odyssey is fantastic, specifically because of its realistic depiction of space exploration, even if some find it slow. Kubrick and Clarke weren't reinventing the wheel. One of my favorite aspects is the decompression situation in space (that scene with Bowman without a helmet) where people don't just explode like fireworks. It honestly irritates me when movies show people without suits suddenly freezing, exploding, bloating up like balloons, or turning into pigeons in space... but hey, I guess that's what the audience wants. 🤷

To be fair, it isn't all just hard facts; one of my favorite scenes in the movie is the space station waltz, serving as a sort of metaphor for the progress of human civilization. It's a shame their vision never actually materialized. 😢

Cameron, as someone already mentioned, should watch out for the mechanical nature of the film's technological backdrop. Just setting the stage for the shoot is an adventure in itself—take The Abyss, for example, which I watched a documentary about during production.

This is an excellent film that offers a refreshing perspective on a familiar theme: systemic corruption. It’s actually a huge plus, because otherwise we would have just ended up with a carbon copy of the first movie. Instead, we get a much more mature take on both the situation and the characters. Captain Nascimento isn't acting quite like he did in the original; his views and methods have to evolve, and that evolution is exactly what makes this sequel a worthy successor.

I haven't quite decided which one I prefer yet. I enjoyed both films. The first was raw and explosive in its storytelling and character beats, whereas this one feels more composed and steady. Still, they share the same driving motivation: exposing a broken system and proving that individuals aren't nearly as helpless as they might seem.

Christian Taylor3 said:Personally, I think it's a much better film than District 9. Across the board.

It’s obvious people were expecting Cameron's Aliens when they left those kinds of comments. Personally, I think the movie works perfectly—both as a love story set in a sci-fi world and as a political statement. I especially loved the Jon Hopkins soundtrack.

I also liked District 9, though I never really thought to compare it to Monsters.

James Hayes9 said:Honestly, if you’re struggling with insomnia, this might be the perfect cure.
I actually drifted off halfway through the movie...😁
It was just incredibly dull.
And please, don't even think about comparing this thing to
District 9.

🤦 Wait, did someone actually claim this was the latest District 9 movie? I mean, was it written on the poster? Was it in the trailer? Did the critics even compare it to that? Honestly, I'm seeing it everywhere.

Violence in media and video games really ought to be regulated or even restricted for kids; there is truly everything to be seen these days. The issue is that those providing this kind of content are incredibly savvy when it comes to navigating the sea of laws and regulations. Then there is the Internet—the Wild West of the digital age—where you can find absolutely anything. It could be better organized and monitored, certainly. But clearly, if it were, some influential people wouldn't be able to make enough money.

Regarding sexuality, we are definitely lacking proper sexual education, starting from parents (who often dodge that "awkward" task or simply lack the time) all the way through schools and the media. Today, marketing exploits sex as something natural and powerful just to sell us whatever they want, which fuels this frantic, uncontrolled consumerism. From a societal perspective—under constant bombardment from media, advertisements, reality shows, and warped beliefs—sex is anything but the foundation of physical intimacy between two people. On the flip side, we have extreme conservatism that stunts sexual development because it views everything as dirty or abnormal.

Using porn as a tool for sexual education? That is almost laughable. The only thing porn can teach is the mechanics of sex. Everything else is missing. This is especially true since porn depicts sexual fantasies where anything goes, where there is no before or after, and where responsibility doesn't exist. The adult industry isn't aiming to educate the masses. Its goal is profit, and they will serve up whatever it takes to get an audience—basically, cash.

People, this is basic psychology. Don't you think there's a chance a child watching porn develops a distorted view of their own sexuality instead of building a healthy sense of themselves as a sexual being? Especially if that is a child's first window into the world of sex.

For instance, these skewed images and depictions of sex can cause real problems for individuals in their romantic relationships and their overall satisfaction. What kind of problems? Just look at the US and search online; you'll definitely stumble upon something.
Just to clear the air, I am not a moralizer. I don't care who anyone sleeps with or what their habits are. For that matter, I myself was exposed to the very content we are discussing.

I believe that rather than fighting "sex vs. violence," it would be better to study the effects of both on people of all ages, stripped of conservative biases and the excessive "liberalism" of the mass media. The fact is, we are bombarded daily with violence and sex. The media sets these unrealistic preconditions and expectations regarding sexuality, while violence is promoted as a form of entertainment. How do we escape this? Reform the education system? Things like that are never going away because they are profitable for someone. So, what then? Perhaps teaching children the truth behind the things they are bombarded with every day, so their development is less conditioned by these messages and they can distinguish media-driven illusions from the actual reality of the world around them. Since children cannot grasp everything at certain ages, censorship is necessary in some places, or perhaps we simply haven't found the right way to solve the problem yet.

And yes, stop blaming America for everything that exists. Maybe some of it originated there, but our local TV networks and media distributors haven't shown the slightest bit of restraint when buying the rights to reality trash, movies, series, and games.