Messages

[Marshall 1Ewins 4]

Marshall 1
Ewins 4

I think we already have the thread - Separate art from the artist where JKR views had been the starting point for the debate. I kinda feel The Corinthian was right about threads going astray.

Bottom line: you have your own views, you can't please anyone, nor you should. Just be a good person, create some inspiring piece of work and pray people will love it. Your personal crimes are your own personal shame.

Watched Fury the other night. The movie is so - so, average entry in ww2 cinema, but the whole movie I thought I am watching Ryan Phillipe as the new guy. I was around 90 percent sure, but I stuck to ending credits - Brad Pitt, Shia LeBouf, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal, Logan Lerman... Logan who?

I am sure some read this JKR post. Take it as you want.

Edited for rights/forum usability—IP

[Frazer 3, Steve 2 (sorry Steve)]

Uh... this is tough. Too bad the votes cannot be split.

I'd have to go with Frazer 3, Steve 2 (sorry Steve)

[That said, Scandi/Nordic countries often have a quite conservative core, and so vary quite a lot politically.]

Castro? A weekend in Iraq in 2003 courtesy of "the world's largest economies" would put his lifetime total to shame. With none of the benefits.

Well, the effect of this comes pretty close.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article118282148.html

I'm not sure Scandi is particularly Centrist - or at least with regards how UK politics is run, its in line with Corbynism so "extreme left" by that measure!

They're mixed economies. Plenty of capitalism and competition, but also with a stronger social underpinning than the UK has. That said, Scandi/Nordic countries often have a quite conservative core, and so vary quite a lot politically. (Iceland, for example, mostly returns coalitions led by politicians that in the UK would have sat somewhere in the Cameron-era Conservative Party.)

Not sure if you refer to Sweden by this, because Sweden is ultra liberal state. Perhaps the most on the planet.


As for capitalism vs communism, I don't think we should negate the victims of one system (of which there are inexcusably lot) in order to criticize the other. Ofcourse, these commie countries weren't the only one in existence; in fact, some today are still communist with the exception being China, that is very capitalist, yet with communist government (the one that would hang you if you dare to mention Mao, whose revolution almost destroyed the country). Both systems to me, are equally bad, but for different reasons. I can see that majority in UK is capitalist-oriented and despising communism. Same or even more so, can be applied to US. And likely, the rest of (western) world. I don't wanna now excuse capitalism, but the fact is that such system prevailed throughout, where communism ended up miserably. Imperfect capitalism is, both it and democracy need a reform.

I wouldn't call tens of millions of dead under Stalin and Mao as tiny stumbles.

Versus the extinction of most life on this planet, and the destruction of human civilisation that capitalism is delivering?  Yeah, stumbles.

Are we going to count the victims of Stalin + Mao + Castro vs the victims of unnecessary wars in the name of capitalism?  Not discrediting the latter, but the former has a pretty big death toll.

Neither Stalinism nor Maoism in action where truly communist in their disciplines, and the continued suggestion they where is about as grounded in observable history as Hitler being a leftie because hey, it was the National 'Socialist' Party, right?

To me, that's the communism in purest form. Because of trying to reach an ideal no matter the consequences. About Hitler, I can see salient point there, but to me, he was rather a centrist. Which, I should be wary how I put, because I consider myself centrist. And political spectrum does places him there (although political spectrum says that I am a bit on the left and authoritarian lol). Total left - Stalin, Hitler - middle, Thatcher - right. All authoritarian. Ofcourse, Thatcher was the least malevolent of the three. I think we can all agree that both left and the right can be very totalitarian and pro-censorship.

Working in medical insurance we have to ask people about their symptoms, what treatment they're having and with which doctor or hospital. My favourite conversation was:

- My GP's referred me for an ultrasound scan
- That's fine - where will the scan be taking place?
- My Testicles. (long pause) errrm... London Bridge Hospital.

You want to kill me by laughing?

Lmao

Capitalism will never work properly because it is based on an illusion. Corporatism is even worse because it deifies that illusion.

I could say the same for the communism. In fact, I see them both as two opposite sides of the same coin. Which is globalism.

The terrible failures of Communist systems operating under relentless external economic and military assault from the moment of their birth are tiny stumbles compared to the universal global annihilation that unchallenged Socialised Capitalism has brought us to.

I wouldn't call tens of millions of dead under Stalin and Mao as tiny stumbles.

In general, I figured, if there is a left, then there should be right. And vice versa. Two have to serve as counterpoint to each other, where flaws of left are, the right can thrive, and again - vice  versa.

[Runaway]

Runaway

One of the cop movies of the 80s with a robotic twist. Honestly, I find this movie on the edge of self-parodying and not in a good way. I can't even say it's so bad it's good, because it rather treats itself as serious material, even though it's totally bonkers. Michael Crichton did the Westworld decade back, a movie which I enjoyed; Runaway I did not. Tom Selleck plays as he's bored with very limited range of facial expressions; Gene Simmons the same - he just gives a menacing look as if he glances far away and that's it (although, he may be the best part of the film; too bad we the movie doesn't give him much screentime) and Cynthia Rhodes - just meh. In fact, the whole buddy-cop dynamic between Selleck and Rhodes is pretty bland. The plot is silly and filled with numerous plot holes, nor we get the explanation behind the evil guy's scheme - ever and dialogues are even more ludicrous. For the movie where robots practically dictate our lives, its theme was done in a pretty hackneyed manner and subordinated to the typical cops and robbers routine. The music score by Jerry Goldsmith must be one of the poorest in the celebrated composer's filmography. Oh, and staring at the Runaway's poster, Tom Selleck is holding the gun with thermal guidance bullets, but he never uses that weapon in the film (actually Gene Simmons did). All in all, forgettable wreck.

Oh, and for a futuristic movie where the invention of the thermal bullet is considered an unheard achievement, I must say it's already done in a Judge Dredd strip (whose prog name escapes me). So, 2000ad indeed was ahead of its time.

Brendan 3
Massimo 2

Considering i hate Jock's style, PJ takes it all the way.

PJ Holden 5
Jock 0

[Short Circuit]

Short Circuit

Yawn... One of my least favorite John Badham efforts. I still consider Blue Thunder as the top in military sf movies from the 1980s. But, to be fair to Short Circuit, the two movies couldn't be miles apart from each other. After awesome introduction sequence, followed by even more awesome demonstration, the movie quickly falls to bore, to me. Okay, there are some touches of humor that mostly come from Steve Guttenberg and Fisher Steven (the latter playing banter ready Indian) and G. W Bailey, who is essentially doing his Captain Harris schtick from Police Academy. On the other hand, I find Ally Sheedy as source of constant annoyance and unfortunately, the movie seems to favor her scenes over Guttenberg-Stevens. The story couldn't be more simple. A robot goes rogue while being hit by surge of electricity, becoming sentient and aware of himself in the process. Escaping from military facility he's been kept, he goes on the run from the "evil" military guys who want to claim him back. Call me cynical, but I prefer[spoiler] that the movie ended with military getting him back; but I suppose it is naive from me to expect anything else than a happy ending in a typical Hollywood blockbuster.[/spoiler]

I'd stick with this line.

I think the official line is that it was a starting point and inspiration, which they always knew they were going to alter quite radically. To be honest, the first time I ever considered the relationship between Murphy, A and Dredd, J was when John Brosnan brought it up as a possible reason why a Dredd film might not work (at that time) in his flix column. The reasons he gave and the comparisons he made struck me as a little reductive, since I'd never thought of Dredd as emotionless, just a mean cunt, and Weller wears the helmet for less than a third of the film.

Not only that, but Robocop's story of the corporate world's dehumanising commercialisation of every aspect of life and Murphy's quest to (re)discover his humanity didn't strike me as territory which Wagner and Grant had explored at that time. There's really about ten minutes of the film, when Murphy first hits the street, which you could say cop some moves from Dredd, but the rest is its own wonderful thing.