User Profile

Forum Activity by jasper de large

No, don't mute the movie, Johnny. That removes some of the good, which is the music and sound design. That's why I suggest Chinese or some other foreign language dub.

Yes, it's simplistic to say just remove the bad and of course all that's left is the good or neutral/mediocre. But for truly bad movies, when you remove the bad, you have almost nothing left at all, because the movie is mostly or entirely bad and nothing works. That's a bad movie.

Remove the bad parts from Prometheus and you still have over 100 minutes, which is feature length. And honestly, I wouldn't want to remove the "bad" parts of Prometheus anyway, because what's "bad" is some confusing/conflicting plot ideas, but even with those considered, the presentation is fantastic. I can enjoy all 120 minutes of Prometheus on some level. There is always something to admire, even when the plot breaks down, there's still the audio/visual feat.

Remove the bad parts from a truly bad movie and you have practically nothing left. Maybe a few minutes for credits and segues, panorama transitions maybe.

What I'm saying is at its worst moments, Prometheus is just the pretty prom queen you get to have, even though she has nothing much to say or connect to besides the physical/aesthetic. But it's mostly interesting.
May 28, 2017 12:21 AM
This may help some

May 27, 2017 7:42 AM
Yeah, see. This debate between VoR and BL. I don't get it. What is the point of this?

Does one of you stand against trans people or something? If we all agree to at least tolerate if not sympathize with LGBTq etc, what is the importance of disputing technical labels? I see this argument crop up a lot and just waste a lot of time. Even among two folks arguing from either side, and I normally agree with both of them.

It reminds me of Ban Shapiro vs Zoe Turr (sp?). I understood Shapiro's technical argument, but I just didn't see why it was so important for him to insist on calling Zoe by male pronouns. How hard is it to just use the preferred pronoun? You can still be critical of slippery slope of SJW nonsense when it creeps into law, take Dr Jordan Peterson vs Canadian "progressives" for example who seek to criminalize mis-gendering someone, but there's a civil way to do it. For the most part I think Peterson is civil and fair about it. Shapiro was just eye-poking Turr.

And how the fuck did we get on this tangent anyway? Speaking of comics and trans, I know a trans comic artist who has a modestly popular comic series based on The Walking Dead, but it features ducks. It's called the Quacking Dead. The illustrations are great. Who wants to see?
May 27, 2017 7:27 AM
Black PhilipWhat I meant is that is the other poster gonna argue that gays are the way they are psychologically like trans-gender people? I personally think it's something you're born with. I didn't mean they didn't have psychological issues. We all do.

I'm not sure I see much effective difference between gay or those who ID as trans-gender. In either case, they don't really choose that, do they? And if most can see one as being a form of psychological issue (trans identification) why could that not be an issue for gay as well? It's not like one necessarily chose whereas the other did not. I'm sure in the vast, vast majority of cases for either homosexuals or trans folk, they didn't choose it. Bio-Chemistry just chose it for them.

I think we're getting into semantics really and it looks like others above are just talking past each other, when we probably all agree on the fundamentals. I don't care what a manual says. I don't care about the labels.

Is it physical, psychological, or chemical or sociological or... what difference does it make how we designate it? All these things are related somehow. Just be nice to people and focus on the big picture.
May 27, 2017 7:11 AM
Voice OfReasonI am so disturbed by this precedent.? This is literal segregation for no other reason than to treat people differently based on their gender (or purported gender).? If this was a screening with the intent of "celebrating women" that would be fine, and people of "all" genders could participate in that celebration.? But literally segregating a movie based on gender when there is no logical or perceivable justification for it is scary!?

Many people on this board act as if this is some isolated incident, where we will all be equal and respectful after this.? IT WILL NOT.? Have?you all?been blind the past decade?? We have had?innumerable examples of ideological persecution and forced adherence to political leanings, and this is merely a reflection of such times.

What happened to Martin Luther King Jr's famous quote, "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."?? Today we have created more opportunities to do just the opposite of what Mr. King said.? In a time when we could be reducing the separation of groups; races, sexes, religions, we have chosen instead to embrace segregation on the justification of "eye for an eye".

I fear that this FURTHER sets a precedent (one of many throughout the past decade), where "imbalances" such as this women-only screening are justified on the misperception that past "imbalances" would be "balanced" by it.? Instead we should be getting rid of ALL "imbalances", not introducing new ones.

I'm sorry, but I truly fear and am saddened to see so many people lack such basic understanding of right and wrong to the point were we today excuse and tolerate discrimination.

Don't you just feel bad for them? Think how sad this is. It's really fucking sad. I say let them have it. Hell, not just for one theater or one day. Make this movie free for all women at any time who want to see it ever.

They need this. And it must be given, cuz lord knows they'll never take it.

The truth is, for the vast majority of women, this is not that important. If it was, then they'd have gotten it long ago. If women want something, such as a fantasy about a rich handsome guy who binds a woman to a contract so he can own her and dominate her and literally put her in bondage, then they get it. They get what they want.

But in this case, nevermind the vast majority of women who don't really care about this subject matter. There are still some women who don't want Sex and the City, or 50 Shades of Subjugation, or to watch reruns of Oprah. Some genuinely want this limelight for a superheroine.

My only prob is I wish she was thicker, most like that MMA chick. Gina Carrino or something? She was in that Soderbergh movie. I thought she'd have been a good WW. Anyway, Gal Gadot is gorgeous, and I get why they still adhere to the lean and lanky look which seems so popular not just among boys but girls as well. Look at their "superheroines" in media specifically catering to them. All those fashion magazines. Gal Gadot is a cover girl FFS. And female consumers drive that industry. It makes sense.

I just really hope they don't fuck this movie up and let down a lot of girls who deserve better.
May 27, 2017 7:04 AM
jasper de largeSpeaking of women, remember when they used to exist on this forum? 'Member??

Yes, and they were put in their place then also.

Well they evidently preferred it before this place got all PC. lol
May 27, 2017 6:46 AM
Black Philip
Voice OfReason
?Voice OfReasonTransgenderism is literally a psychological disorder...

It is literally no longer treated as such. Literally. Is was reclassified from a disorder under the DSM-IV to a dysphoria under the DSM-V. So...

?Voice OfReasonIf I need to ignore science, logic, and reason, in order to adopt an ideological leaning, I have already lost.

Given the above display of ignorance on the subject, thank you for the quick admission of your loss.

Most psychologists would agree that psychological disorders are defined as an individual under severe personal distress and an inability to function in many aspects of life.? Transgenderism exemplifies that definition, and considering the oft reported suicidal and depressive tendencies associated with gender identity disorder, it is obviously characteristic of a dysfunctional and abnormal cognitive state.?

But again, remember that you will not accept a Trans-Racial individual...until you are told to by those ideologically in charge it is okay to do so.? I, on the other hand, choose to make my decisions based on logic and reason.?

It is a compassionate thing to honestly evaluate the health of an individual, as it is necessary to finding effective treatment.? Do not think that my evaluation of psychological disorders is somehow meant to mistreat those who are Transgender.? Rather, it is meant to honestly address problems in order to find lasting and helpful solutions.? Sometimes we don't like the diagnosis we get, but better to treat what is wrong than ignore it.

Do you also think gay people have psychological issues because they don't fuck the opposite sex? Are you at all living on a planet they call EARTH?

I know you weren't asking me, but I would say yes. I do think that. The two gay dudes I know both suffered psychologically in ways heteros simply never have to. And I think acknowledging that is the least we can do.? They deserve sympathy.

Imagine how hard it would be when by no fault of your own your potential pool of partners is reduced by 95% or more. That has to have some sad consequences. I am a "privileged" hetero and even I would say finding someone special and worth pursuing an intimate relationship is hard enough. And yet I am not precluded by orientation from 95% of adult females as someone who is gay would be. So something that is already difficult for a straight person must be 20 times more difficult given the limited pool of available/potential partners for a gay person.
May 27, 2017 6:38 AM
Black PhilipIf you ask me, women have it better than men. I mean they can make money just by spreading their legs.

In fairness, when comparing real-world work-load pound per pound output, women do make much money than men for literally the same work.

Even when we compare a job that is very demanding and brutal and rigorous and highly competitive requiring thousands of hours of dedication and training, such as the cost to become the greatest professional quarterback of this generation, to a job where you just lay on furniture and strike poses as a woman just born with good looks... guess who makes more money?

See Giselle Bunchen v Tom Brady.

She makes twice as much money as he does. For what? What has she accomplished. Most turns on a catwalk without falling down? Who honestly thinks she has the harder job? Even women don't believe Giselle has a harder job, because most women have real jobs that require actual effort. Yeah those high heels must be tough... but tap dancing christ on a cracker. Pay me just 1% of the money thrown at her and I'll walk in high heels.

The 78% gender paygap is bogus and been roundly debunked. It's a myth. Where there is an actual paygap of same exact work, same level of energy required and same level of input, women make FAR more money. It's ridiculous.

But the reason nobody really cares is because that applies to non-essential jobs which are basically luxury services and don't pertain to 99.5% of our lives which require real jobs, men and women alike. So no one really cares cuz that real paygap only shows up in the highest echelons of specialized niches.
May 27, 2017 6:28 AM
The Guy
DaMUSome numbers, for fun: there have been 122 superhero films released since 1978. Of those films, five (4%) were female-led. Of those films, one (>1%) was directed by a woman.

Those five films were Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, Barb Wire, and Tank Girl.

That one film was Punisher: War Zone, directed by Lexi Alexander.

So Wonder Woman has increased the number of female-led superhero films by 20% and doubled the number of female-directed superhero films.

If I'm not mistaken this is also only one of a handful of times a woman has directed such a high budget feature,including Lana Wachowski.

Yeah but all that does is reinforce the idea that a man is supposed to be better at everything, including being a woman. The villainy of patriarchy knows no bounds. Men have taken over womynkind via physical oppression for thousands of years and now it's psychological takeover. Look at Caitlyn Jenner. We are told by the sexist misogynist privileged male cis-gendered patriarch scum who own all media that Caitlyn Jenner is the greatest woman to ever live. They gave THAT an award for women at ESPN instead of women who had actually been women their whole lives and sacrificed greatly.

But Caitlyn is such a "great" woman, so much better than all other women that she can kill someone while driving, guilty of reckless manslaughter, and still be a hero. Think how miserable we must think women are to lose to such a narcissist.

And just last year they made a male the new spokesperson for CoverGirl! The nerve!
May 27, 2017 6:14 AM
DaMUSome numbers, for fun: there have been 122 superhero films released since 1978. Of those films, five (4%) were female-led. Of those films, one (>1%) was directed by a woman.

Those five films were Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, Barb Wire, and Tank Girl.

That one film was Punisher: War Zone, directed by Lexi Alexander.

So Wonder Woman has increased the number of female-led superhero films by 20% and doubled the number of female-directed superhero films.

And NONE of those movies did well, critically or commercially.
Needs more women! Not enough women working on these.

Wait, Supergirl? When did that come out? I thought that was a TV show. TV movie?

And I think you mean <1%. You put >1% which means more than 1%. Are you a woman, DaMU??
May 27, 2017 6:04 AM
The YARNINGSo long as Alamo Draft House does a "Men's Only" screening of Full Metal Jacket and Predator with the same leeway, I am fine with it.

But what if it was a screening of God's Not Dead III and no homosexuals were allowed?

Wait, shouldn't it be something like "50 Shades of Grey part 3" or "Magic Mike part 3" for men only?

The target audience for WW is still gonna be mostly boys. No doubt it will do better with females than almost every superhero movie before, but the average female movie goer isn't going to be interested in this, and the majority of ticket sales are going to guys.

How about a new Spike Lee joint for whites only lol.

May 27, 2017 6:00 AM
I just checked yesterday and the IMDb rating was around 8.5

That puts it near the top 100 all time. I suspect it will drop by a whole point or more as fanfare dwindles and the casual masses get to see it. I also wonder who has rated it so far? Select audiences, friends and family of crew? It has almost 2,000 ratings, so I'm guessing that could be crew. It only makes sense they would want to rate their work highly. I can't blame anyone for that really.

But even taking cynicism into account for unearned hype, it doesn't look too bad to me. I find it very unlikely it will be received worse than BvS.

So, even though most of the early high ratings on IMDb could be bias on part of interested/invested parties, I will still put more stock into that IMDb rating than one account of what it is "said to be" - no offense to whoever says it.

We here at RT would prefer consensus.
May 27, 2017 5:54 AM
As for all this fake non-troversy about P.C. and a women's day for the movie, who really cares?

It's just hundreds of thousands of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars invested into it mostly by men. If women feel like this is "finally" their movie, let them have it. I just feel bad for them that they have to rely mostly on the work of men to get these opportunities instead of making their own.

"It's directed by a woman though!"

That's a start.

But all four of its writers are men.
The creator is a man.
8 of the 10 producers are men. And of the 2 women producing, 1 got into the business through marriage to Snyder.
The cinematographer is a man.
The composer is a man.
The film editor is a man.

It's not like there aren't women in the industry that have held these credits. This whole movie should be made by women. There are in fact scores of women, if not over 100 who are in the credits, but mostly for stuff like costumes, a "normative" "gender role" to use social "science" language.

And in the end, the vast majority who go see this movie will be boys.

It's still overwhelmingly predominated and made by males for males. Cuz "patriarchy"

blah blah blah

I'm just trying to inoculate you all to the inevitable bitch-fest that accompanies such unappreciated projects, voiced by the spiritually undead hordes infected by social-justice, identitarian mental viruses.

It won't be good enough. Nothing ever is. You cannot satisfy these people whose only satisfaction comes from finding fault.

Movie looks fun to me though, maybe a bit dumb but hey, that didn't stop me from enjoying Batman vs Superman.
May 26, 2017 9:48 AM
Johnny, I agree the script is a mess, and you would seem to concur with me on the cause: too many cooks, or writers as it were. That's why I suggest just watch the movie in Chinese dubs, with no English subtitles.

Honestly, the script being the mess that it is, all you need is some familiarity with the themes. Watch the movie unfold and let the visuals guide you. You can still get the gist of it. Ancient clues guiding people to a new world. Things go bad. Mayhem ensues. Some people still appear to act stupid (snake scene), but the cartographers getting lost for example, without the script,? you wouldn't know they were the cartographers necessarily. Make up your own reasoning.

Of course this requires more imagination on the viewer than we're accustomed to having to provide. Questions may still linger, but what is the overall experience that remains? There's adventure, wonder, and terror. The visuals are a feast, and the music evokes a sense of majesty mixed with intensity.

This is not an attempt to excuse a muddled script which was clearly not nailed down before shooting. It's just, in my personal perspective, an easy way to salvage the good. I would say it has at least 2 good parts to counter any bad part. Definitely flawed, but what a marvelous mess. I would go see another like it without hesitation.

Seriously, when things get dumb for a moment, just let your mind wander. Mentally check out, roll your eyes if it helps mitigate the cringe. Imagine a more compelling predicament or a smarter human behavior that still ends bad for a poor, unfortunate soul. Then just carry on with the show.

I think it is pretty remarkable that despite all the merciless ridiculing the movie got (and most of which it rightfully earned), the movie still has close to a 7.0 on IMDb.? It obviously resonates on some unique level to still impress people despite the blunders we are all well aware of by now. Any other movie that had HALF the faults of this movie would probably rate much much lower, like in the sub 5.0 ratings, which is truly abysmal for IMDb standards.

So how is it that despite all these faults, hundreds of thousands of people still rate it fairly high? I think it's because people want this story to work. The themes Prometheus broaches are universal, and yet hardly any other movies even try to go there. I feel like if Scott didn't push to go in this direction, it would need to be done at some point. It would be inevitable, just like our exploration of space. People want to go on this journey.
May 26, 2017 9:43 AM
The trick with that sword placement is that it would restrict movement, otherwise it would be rocking/grinding between her shoulders if she were to take long strides. But she has super strength and endurance, so we should figure a mildly awkward sword grip doesn't even register to her. Bad guys could probably wail on her with that sword and hardly scratch her.

Don't we remember her taking a ferocious pummeling from that monster in BvS and she still gave it hell. Best part of that movie.

But yeah, restricting her movement would make sense anyway since she's trying to slip into the party anyway. Long strides would cause the sword to rock on her back and smack her butt, but since her butt is so strong I'm sure the sword would bounce off it and just tear her dress. The dress is really the most dubious factor.
May 26, 2017 8:33 AM

The crowd HAD to be "Wondering" about a lot of things guys overlook. :P

There's only a problem if you are imagining the sword fused to her spine, which it isn't. It's basically suspended by her dress. It's easier to imagine there is some kind of belt under the draping back than to imagine the sword sticking to her spine. So it doesn't need to cut into her butt. Look:


But what's the point of having the sword on the back anyway, as if she's trying to hide it, and yet half of it is still exposed by the low cut of her dress anyway? It's just a retarded way to "show it off" to the audience, like a "nudge nudge" "wink wink" "isn't this cool? You're in on the super sick strategy here. Pretty cool huh? See what's about to happen??? Excited???"
May 26, 2017 8:16 AM
Matthew Good... BandHey, how do the androids in these movies stay "alive", anyway? Do they recharge, somehow? How can David "live" on a desolate planet for ten years without an energy source or maintenance? Who's lubricating those gears?

I'm just gonna guess that although he may have been stranded, the Engineer (?) ship he and shaw (deceased) arrived in probably had a lot of power, such that could last decades in space, probably even longer on the planet since it didn't need to fuel boosters. It may not have been capable of launching or even travel anymore, but could still have some energy in it somewhere.

The real mystery is what happened after he bombed the city. One analysis (linked above) suggests the even larger "scorpion-like" ship probably struck down the engineer ship David and the deceased Shaw were in.
May 26, 2017 4:28 AM
Speaking of women, remember when they used to exist on this forum? 'Member??
May 26, 2017 4:20 AM
OR put it another way, the people David annihilates (who appear Engineer-like) are to us what Walter is to David. Walter was designed after David, both more advanced (self-healing) but also more limited emotionally, a safeguard to prevent the too-human capacity for "revenge."

That city of supposed Engineers are possibly a race created by the actual Engineers depicted in Prometheus. Basically Engineers created us long ago, and later created this new group that appears more similar to them, but are possibly more handicapped somehow. There's the theory that the Engineers have populated several other planets with various new races, not just humans, but other "versions" like we see the people in the city of Covenant.

That's why I liked how Walter exposed David's fallibility in incorrectly citing the poet. It seems like as David's AI becomes more human or self-aware, he may become more flawed by design. And we see this all the time in humans who frequently experience illogical lapses when they become emotional. It also makes me think of the "reveries" in Westworld which suggest that systems inevitably break down as AI are pushed closer to human complexity.
May 25, 2017 11:58 PM