Society is getting dumber and more debased. An immoral person who would have rightfully been seen as a fool, degenerate, or scoundrel 20 years ago is now praised, especially because people today generally are even worse by comparison. Thus, a terrible movie that was rightfully seen as stupid and/or bad 20 years ago is now also praised, especially because movies today generally are even worse by comparison. This, for example, is the case with the three Star War Prequels (1999-2005) which are well-known to be poorly written, poorly executed, childish films, evidenced by any movie reviewer with an IQ above double digits, anyone who can scrutinize the films beyond a superficial level, beyond the thoughtless: “Oh, space battles and lightsaber duels! So pretty and cool!” but these three bad films have since become viewed more favorably due to more recent Star Wars films being even worse.
Insane mobs now declare women can be men and men can be women based on how someone feels what sex they are which makes someone who refutes this insanity seem smart by comparison but, in reality, stating an obvious fact, that a man is a man and a woman is a woman regardless how one feels, does not make this person smart by that statement alone, they only now look smart by comparison because the mobs and loons they contradict are so stupid. Yet, more and more, we are now pressured, due to the further deterioration of society’s intelligence and by relative bias, to accept this honest but otherwise mediocre person, or the obvious facts they state, as smart, when they are not smart.
Movies can suffer from this same effect as what is considered a decent movie today may have been mocked 20 years prior, torn apart by past critics, rightfully being punished with financial failure, as more sensible, virtuous people, which previous generations where in Western society for at least the last century, inherently have higher standards and thus would clearly notice today’s movies and characters lacking said sense and morality, anything of substance. Nonetheless, Truthful Witness is one of the groups that sees Western decline and notices the way it seeps into film, indeed into all forms of entertainment, sometimes even acting as the spearhead.
Movies are becoming increasingly unrealistic with a main character going from defeating several armed men single-handily in combat to now defeating dozens of armed men single-handily in combat and, even when one is willing to stretch the imagination (like with comic book movies), the stories, scenes and character motives make no sense.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) has the main villain (Bane) somehow manipulate the citizens of the fictional Gotham City to join him in a revolt despite the villain simultaneously threatening these very citizens with a nuclear bomb that could be denotated at any moment, which would just turn the citizens against him, as the villain and his henchmen are also threatening their lives, and would render any desire to revolt. revolutionary activity, the human drive for change, pointless, as everyone would know they could be killed instantly from the nuclear explosion making the future way too uncertain to care about some spontaneous revolution.
This contrivance, this magic trick, is also done after the villain:
A) murders the city’s beloved football team, which alone would enough to piss everyone off (imagine trying to win the support of the people of Philadelphia by murdering the Eagles; imagine trying to win the support of the people of Kansas City by murdering the Chiefs; as a sports fan, imagine some random terrorist, one you can barely understand with his muffling voice due to his bizarre face mask, something that looks like it would be worn in an underground, sex-bondage club, ruining your relaxing day of football, probably on a Sunday, not to mention the entire football season since two teams got killed),
B) traps nearly all police underground, which is additionally insulting as the movie tries to make us believe somehow almost every single police officer in the city was impractically sent into the trap simultaneously, where they are then sealed underground in the cave-in caused by the villain’s planted explosives, which also has the effect of making the police commissioner, an important main character, who ordered the assault, look utterly stupid; the movie also attempts to make us implausibly believe that this somehow was Bane’s plan all along, an elaborate scheme to eliminate police presence in the city, when the stupid assault, one in which the police take 90% of their force and just conveniently walk into a trap all at once, would have been impossible to predict,
C) releases dangerous convicts into the city, again, after trapping the police who could stop them, and
D) isolates and traps everyone in said city by blowing up bridges and tunnels and sealing off all entrances-outlets, all acts which would just terrify and antagonize the very citizens he inspired to join him in a revolt.
For all these reasons, this means the subsequent revolt seen on screen makes no sense; it’s totally contrived. Superhero unrealism aside, the movie is not relatable because it ignores basic psychology. Gotham’s citizens are somehow acting like Bane and his henchmen are not the ones directly causing these destructive events, they are acting like the villains are not the ones pointing the nuclear weapon at their heads with a finger on the trigger.
The story becomes dumber as the people of Gotham just naively believe the villain’s every word, as Bane delivers a public speech exonerating the protagonist Batman, and implicating another protagonist-turned-villain in the previous film Harvey Dent (Two-Face); Bane, the present villain, publicly announces the truth that Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes which not only is ridiculous, as, again, no one questions the message, the supposed letter written by the police commissioner (Commissioner Gorden), whether the information is true, whether these were the actual words of the police commissioner and if his words can be verified, but, regardless of realism, even if the message was unanimously believed, it undermines the villain’s own plan, as he restores Batman’s name.
The villains’ plan is also suicidal as they plan to detonate the nuclear bomb anyway (or to just let it explode once the core decays) while they remain in the city. Of course, they do not just detonate the bomb immediately; they have to wait several months to needlessly give the heroes enough time to stop them. Nonetheless, the film creates bad guys, all who conveniently have the fanaticism akin to Jihadi terrorists or a death cult, all who are willing die without question, including letting the main villain execute them at will and order them to their deaths, something the movie shows in such a nonchalant way, as if finding such blindly loyal, blindly fanatical henchmen was so easy, all while the people of Gotham and the military are displayed to be pathetic weaklings who simply give into the terrorist’s demands.
Bruce Wayne also unrealistcally does not care what people think of him, his public image so is not relatable. (believes he burned his house, tried to run light and didnt watch news, and squandered his wealth..cause the people are just peons. No one knows he is Batman despite him being gone for seven years… then Batman shows up weeks or months later…
We could not have something more realistic or villains more relatable, ones able to find clever solutions to credible resistance from citizens and the military. The suicidal plan also wipes out the resurrected League of Shadows itself (the villain’s group), or most of it, when the League was established in the first film as a secret cabal that has existed throughout the centuries, one that has committed numerous atrocities throughout much of human history from the time of the Black Death all the way back to the Fall of Ancient Rome.
Obtaining the nuclear bomb is also stupid as it comes from Wayne Enterprises renewable energy project, when means Wayne Enterprises (Batman’s/Bruce Wayne’s business/corporation) becomes criminally liable for creating a nuclear bomb and then letting terrorists seize control of it in the first place, so now, under these circumstances, Batman, the hero of the story, inadvertently becomes the villain.
We also discover that the Wayne Enterprises CEO (Lucius Fox), another main good guy throughout the trilogy, when he was taken hostage by the villains to get the nuclear bomb, could have most likely activated a failsafe and flooded the entire underground chamber where the nuclear device was stored, submerging the device deep underwater likely disabling it or making the nuclear core impossible to extract which would have destroyed the villain’s entire plan.
The writers of the movie put no thought into the story which resulted in nothing but high-priced garbage being put on screen. The nuclear bomb in the film even conveniently has a precise countdown timer (LED display) when, as stated, it was a decaying core, so the timer makes no sense, a fact alone when demonstrates the poor writing.
The Catwoman character, for no reason, is believed by Batman to be really good despite her luring him into an trap which results in him being severely injured, kidnapped, and imprisoned, despite her never showing any redeeming qualities up to that point while the character John Blake (Robin), for the most part, is totally redundant; the character could not even exist in the film and the movie would still function exactly the same with all this character’s actions, if they were really needed for flavor, could have just been simply done by Commissioner Gordon himself or some random extra.
The villain even attacks the stock exchange and takes all the traders and people there hostage in a pointless scene and the illicit trades he and his fellow henchmen conduct during this terrorist attack just go through as normal conveniently bankrupting Bruce Wayne (Batman) no questions asked by the authorities, about what was the motive behind the attack, what were the terrorists doing during the attack when they were holding everyone hostage for ten minutes, what did the hostages-witnesses see, no disputes by Bruce Wayne over the legality of transactions, over the blatant fraud which was clearly committed during the terrorist attack.
There are no questions asked how a billionaire, one from a class of ultra-rich people who tend to have a considerable degree of diversification in their investments, meaning not all of it is tied up in the stock market, nor can it be, and certainly some cash would be safe amongst multiple accounts and holdings, can have their entire net worth reduced to zero by the villains conducting a few fraudulent trades on the stock exchange, no questions asked by the public about any of these events, about what happened, who were the terrorists, how did Bruce Wayne suddenly become poor overnight, why did Bruce Wayne suddenly going broke coincidently happen at the same time as the terrorist attack on the stock exchange, what about Bane, where camera footage and coverage of him would have been shown all over the media, he would have received much public attention prior to launching his contrived revolt. None of this is ever mentioned, none of this makes any sense!
Late in the film, the main villain, who the movie spent the last two hours attempting to establish as a formidable threat to Batman, suddenly becomes sidelined, made to be nothing but a glorified henchman which, again shows the writers weren’t thinking, their willingness to waste the audience’s time.
The movie looks good, it sounds good, everything is trying so hard to seem epic, like this is a class war, a modern French Revolution, a deep-intellectual experience, like this is supposed to be the greatest comic book movie ever, the grand finale of the Dark Knight Trilogy, but rational critics see the obvious turd in the punch bowl.
The problems of the film could be solved by simple writing fixes, easy solutions requiring only a mere ten minutes of thought, despite the movie taking four years to create.
For Example:
Perhaps the nuclear bomb does not stupidly come from Wayne Enterprises but somewhere else, like the villains raid a military base, or shoot down or hijack an aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or somehow get a nuke on the black market or build one using kidnapped experts.
Perhaps the villain (Bane) does not tell the people of Gotham about the nuclear bomb when trying to manipulate them to revolt.
Or perhaps he declares Gotham an independent city-state and publicly threatens to use said nuclear bomb or bombs (nuclear missiles in this case) externally, against the United States or anyone who tries to lay siege and invade, so this newly independent city-state of Gotham technically can be classified as a nuclear power, and perhaps he blames the bombing of the stadium, the death of the mayor, and the death of the football team that resulted and other terrorist acts on other criminals, perhaps Joker copycats or the Joker himself, as the Joker was such a menace in the previous movie, to scare the city’s population into going along with his schemes and granting him power, as the people would fear the death and anarchy the Jokers brought may return.
The villain in this case would cleverly represent the opposite extreme as the Joker who represented chaos-anarchy, the opposite extreme being totalitarian control, tyranny. The villain and his henchmen could have even pretended to be Joker gangs and/or even have broken the Joker and his supporters out of prison to invoke public panic.
In the above scenario, the Havery Dent Laws (Act), created in the wake of, and in response to, Dent’s false martyrdom, could have been used (manipulated) by the villain to establish a dictatorial regime, where the public grants him emergency power, maybe even electing him to office, enabling him to arrest people at will and sentence people to draconian punishment in the name of “stopping the Jokers and other criminals”, while defying both state and federal authority who protest to the radical authoritarian measures committed in the Gotham municipality which eventually creates the rift that allows the villain to proclaim Gotham’s independence, since he and his supporters can claim “Gotham is the place that would have to suffer from criminality and Joker anarchy unlike the rest of the nation so who are outsiders to intervene!?” Although the issue of the claim being unsubstantiated will, to some degree, still apply, this forces the police commissioner himself to tell the truth and deliver the public message to implicate Harvey Dent and exonerate Batman so that he may undermine the laws legitimacy, the villain’s phony justification for launching a rebellion, for establishing an independent, oppressive city-state where he rules as a supreme warlord.
Or perhaps, Bane is a simple terrorist who wants to blow up Gotham or suddenly decides to nihilistically blow-up the city or launch nuclear missiles externally, which just results in Gotham being blown up from the nuclear response, after Gotham’s citizens turn against him in the end.
This (thought) cannot be done, however, as the directors and writers are dogmatically never questioned and as movies today are hastily rushed, generally made on an assembly line for maximum profit, but then are cheered anyway because modern audiences are utter morons. (actually they had four years to plan (an additional year) so might be worse cause still bad)
Occupy wall street inspired DKR (police callously ignores hostages saying “im not risking my men for your money, as if people’s lives dont matter cause they are investors, hardly anyone at stock exchange is rich
people arent allowed to think for a mere five minutes but even if they do
Flaws of other previous films (anyone cooking would have been affected by the fear toxin) (other Batman movies (identify crissis of Forever, silliness of Batman and Robin) (coincidences of First Batman with Joker being a clown for clown sake)
The Maze Runner (2014) sees a female character waking up with temporary amnesia (memory loss) and start frantically attacking the male characters with rocks and threatening them with a knife instead of just being merely startled, alert, and interrogative, how any sensible person would react in that situation.
Terminator Genisys (2015) has the character Kyle Reese, a beloved protagonist from the original Terminator movie, now behave like a trigger-happy nutcase and frantically shoot at the good terminator without hesitation despite circumstances making it virtually obvious that this terminator is a good guy, and not only that, but, even after the immediate reaction, the character proceeds to continue frantically trying to shoot the good terminator in the scene despite the other character attempting to stop him, which only further insults human intellect.
These over-emotional, over-dramatic scenes are the type that would come from the daydreaming mind of a kid still in middle school.
John Wick (2014) sees the main character keep effortlessly annihilating waves and waves of bad guys to the point where, about 45 minutes into the movie, it becomes repetitive and boring, the viewer starts to feel sorry for the bad guys who never stand a chance against the main character who is basically an unchallengeable god, like he is a video game character with an infinite life bar or one playing on easy difficulty, and with a moronic story that sounds like it was created from the juvenile minds of fourteen-year old boys playing in the neighborhood:
“Bad guys kill this dude’s dog and steal his car, but it turns out this dude also happens to be a secret super assassin, and he then goes crazy and kills all the bad guys.”
Unrealism on screen is nothing new and has been going on for generations:
To Commando (1985) where a retired special forces operator singlehandedly defeats an entire company of soldiers in short order, all who shoot at the main character and conveniently keep missing him, even as he runs out into the open with his back turned to them,
To GoldenEye (1995) where the secret agent jumps off, what would have the be, due to the duration of the free fall, one of the most insanely high cliffs in existence (it’s doubtful a cliff with such a maddening height even exists on the planet, regardless, anyone standing on top at that elevation would have difficulty breathing hence there probably couldn’t be a military base for the agent to infiltrate then escape from in the first place in such a novel location), to chase a falling plane, where he then maneuvers himself through the air into the cockpit of the aircraft, takes control of the machine, and miraculously saves the plane from its fatal nose dive and flies to safety.
To Mission Impossible 2 (2000) where the main character survives lethal stunt after lethal stunt, and singlehandedly defeats and/or kills numerous armed henchmen and guards by performing absurd flip kicks which, in reality, would strike with laughably little force resulting only in the attacker’s embarrassment and by shooting them, using a pistol no less, with ultra precision while jump spinning thought the air and while driving at high speeds on a motorcycle,
To Equilibrium (2002), where the main character, an elite warrior in some totalitarian utopia which has outlawed emotions (despite emotion/feelings being needed to form a society to begin with, despite feelings being constantly shown on screen by the characters, and despite the entire society idiotically running on an honor code meaning it naively trusts people to just take their emotion-suppressing medicine) can somehow avoid bullets altogether by merely dancing around in a circle, performing “gun kata” and, using his dual-wielding pistols and martial arts, can effortlessly kill numerous armed enemies surrounding him or in front of him while they all simultaneously shoot at him. At least the Matrix (1999) had the creative excuse of that it was a computer simulation to justify its unrealistic action scenes; the characters in the film were merely bending or breaking the simulation’s rules. here in this film, however, it has no such excuse. Gun kata, which is supposed to look badass, just comes off looking ridiculous; the movie just goes too far to the point of utter absurdity. (Matrix: also had excuse of beig in future to explain sci-fi elements in real world.
Lone warrior films, like the newer John Wick, and older Commando, as increasingly popular, as more thoughtful, realistic films, such as a good person having to work with others within legal means-societal boundaries to achieve change, to achieve a good outcome, to defeat bad guys, are generally too boring for modern audiences; understandably modern audience may lack hope for this due to today’s cowardice and corruption, but the trite story of the lone, invincible warrior defeating waves upon waves of bad guys still reflects the public’s loss of contact with reality.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009) had the potential to be a great movie, a story of a desperate but capable man taking matters into his own hands by murdering the criminals who slaughtered his family in a home invasion, criminals whom the law failed to punish, whom the prosecutor shamefully cut a deal with, giving them, or at least one of them, light sentences, after which he must defend himself in court against the murder charges battling the state which has him dead-to-rights but then subsequently sees the public and media largely take his side with such praise and sympathy perhaps causing him to win in the end by being exonerated (declared “not guilty”) by the jury, a movie with a message that vigilante justice is needed if the law fails to punish evil criminals and that prosecutors and judges who aid (are soft on) criminals and deny justice to victims should be defied and exposed. This would be an intriguing story.
Unfortunately, the movie instead wanders into the realm of absurdity by having this man also be an unstoppable killing machine, an expert trap layer, a rich inventor and simultaneous elite operator with a mysterious past, despite his meekness and normality as a family man in the first scenes, including the home invasion which all but contradicts this, where he, prior to his crime spree, buys property next to the jail and sets up a stupidly elaborate tunnel system underground which somehow can enter and exit all the cells in solitary confinement, of course without any of the other inmates in solitary confinement and the guards-prison staff themselves noticing, and, after he is arrested and confined to that jail, using said tunnel system, keeps unrealistically escaping at will for hours and returning. again, without the guards ever noticing he was gone and killing people over and over again scene-to-scene with car bombs, remote weapons, and sophisticated, explosive traps.
A mature story, like having the man only killing several people at most (something more realistic): the two criminals who killed his family, their scumbag lawyer, and perhaps a judge or prosector responsible for giving the vile criminals light sentences then having a public battle in court with a message about logical vigilantism and fighting the corrupt legal system, a battle which then causes intense public debate and shakes the country to its very core is not enough; this realism now considered too boring! Now the story has to be childish, an over-the-top explosion fest, where the man is a superhuman genius that cannot be stopped and the public perspective, the deeper message, the media coverage and social aspect is sadly never even explored.
If the movie demanded a higher death count, they could have had the man kill a few more people in the movie’s later stage, after both the public and the court exonerated him for the first several murders, as perhaps his work, targeting others involved in the case, was not finished, if they truly wanted to vilify him in the end or make it seem he became the very vile criminal he sought to fight against, something the film seemingly tried to do but failed miserably because the message was poorly executed.
Adding more insult, the prosecutor himself is unrealistically depicted as also a detective and roguishly sneaks the man’s bomb into prison so the man can unknowingly blow himself up in the end (potentially killing other inmates and guards, the prosecutor even recklessly gambles with his life that the bomb is on a 30 second timer when the man activates the bomb in front of him) displaying further stupidity of the story.
Taken (2008) and The Equalizer (2014) jump on the invincible lone warrior trend, where again, one man, the main character, another one with a mysterious, well-trained past, has inhuman capabilities, such as being able to find anyone anywhere, disguise himself perfectly, and, of course, somehow, especially in the case of the latter movie, always manages to be magically present when evil is around and violating innocent people so he can conveniently stop it; the main characters of such movies coincidentally witness more evil deeds in a week in their locality than the average person probably does in a lifetime, and like the other films, singlehandedly, they defeat numerous bad guys over and over again scene-to-scene.
The main satisfaction one gets is the violence and death being brought unto the bad guys, all of whom are portrayed as utter scumbags deserving of such a fate. Still, the odds seem so stacked against the bad guys some of these movies, as stated, get boring (repetitive) and lack any tension and of course, they have no basis in reality. When it comes to their lack of realism, the two movies, Taken and Equalizer, are perhaps only slightly more forgivable than the absurd John Wick and Equilibrium. Nonetheless, the pattern shows the psychosis is only getting worse; in the long-term, the unrealism is only increasing, a growing ominous trend.
Optimists may dismiss the trend, they may dismiss the pessimists by claiming “they are just movies” and movies are designed for people to turn their brains off and have fun, but the truth is we’ re becoming more desensitized to the growing unrealism overtime. People today unfairly criticize law enforcement for not shooting suspects in the arms or legs rather than more lethally in the body and chest when arm and leg shots are far more difficult to accomplish; shooting someone in the upper body is far easier and officers have to react suddenly to threats and most often, targets are moving fast, even charging at them, and shooting a person’s legs means the bullets are usually aimed at the ground which means bullets can dangerously ricochet but people are more encouraged to spout this nonsense because of the unrealism seen on film, more specifically because they see character’s in film magically having such expert accuracy. Hitting the smallest of targets appears so easy on film, and of course, in movies, guns also never have recoil, rarely need to be reloaded, or cleaned, and their deafening noise when firing never causes the characters ear damage, even in close quarters inside, like when shooting in a car or elevator.
Suddenly holding a knife to someone’s throat in movies leads to the knife-wielder always attaining a free hostage, perhaps resulting in a stand-off with armed personnel, the person being threatened with the knife at their throat just unnaturally freezes in place and conveniently complies even when they’re free standing and have space to back up when in real life this would almost never happen; the person, firstly, would have to be otherwise restrained or somehow forced to not move. Actually trying to quickly hold a knife to someone’s throat without those conditions will just result in them reacting with sudden instinct and immediately pulling away due to self-preservation or, again due to self-preservation, it will only result in a violent struggle, with them immediately wrestling you, especially if you surprised them from behind (by attempting to sneak up to them and grab them by the hair or chin to hold the blade to their throat or eye to force compliance). In all likelihood, unlike the movies, this sudden hostage-taking-by-knife is not going to work. Behavior in reality is dissociated with the behavior in movies.
The actors have sex in the next scene after being immediately shot at despite the adrenaline making this near impossible in real life and, worse, they even unrealistically have sex immediately after getting shot, or severely injured, despite the pain and blood loss. Planet Terror (2007) sees the male protagonist and female protagonist have sex, not only on the same night where they both were involved in a serious automobile accident and have been escaping zombies for hours, but just after the female protagonist had her leg amputated.
People show show no fear of death (why should they, should have died many times same scene). Fast and furious, Godzilla, jurrasic franchise (dinosaus slip or whatever or act clumsy)
Mentally lazy (war movies, All Quiet on WF remake remake, soldiers charging in no mans land stand up tall (there was another movie: maybe somme movie with Daniel craig but will see)
Making a sarcastic comment right before they are about to die
The immaturity and unrealism worsening overtime can be seen in a 24-year gap when comparing Day of the Jackal (1973) and its successor The Jackal (1997). Being in the same franchise, both movies are about a professional assassin, the movie’s villain, codenamed the Jackal, being hired to assassinate a high-profile, political figure with the authorities acting as the good guys to stop him, but when objectively compared to the former, the latter film is far sillier.
In the first film, the Jackal creates a compact, light-weight sniper rifle, one so small it can be easily hidden under a car (when attempting to sneak it through border customs) and inside a crutch (when the Jackal disguises himself as a cripple), but in the second film, the Jackal uses an enormous, vehicle-mounted (high caliber) machine gun, the most impractical for the task, unlike a small sniper rifle, such a heavy weapon would be far more difficult to acquire and would be extremely difficult to smuggle into a country and could not be concealed without a vehicle; in the film, to smuggle the huge weapon in, the Jackal even has to buy a boat.
The film attempts to justify this by claiming the Jackal’s method is to assassinate people “publicly and brutally,” but this fails, as the small, lightweight weapon in the first film worked just as well in that regard (since it used explosive bullets which makes someone’s head burst) with none of the size, weight, and recoil drawbacks. In reality, the heavy, over-the-top gun was probably chosen for novelty and flashiness despite its obvious impracticality.
The only clever concept, superior to the first film, was the fact that it was a remote weapon, hence, unlike the sniper rifle in the first film, the shooter could aim then fire the weapon while far away at a safe distance, which significantly decreases the odds of immediate capture but there was no justification for the weapons massive size and weight when the assassin could have used a much smaller, lighter weapon remotely.
The Jackal’s trademark of getting paid or paying “half now and half on delivery,” a frequently line he used in the first film was rebirthed for the second film, probably for reasons of sounding cool, when it makes far less sense, as the Jackal here was getting paid $70 million dollars by the Russian Mob to do the assassination. Furthermore, in the second film, the Jackal explicitly states that if the assassination mission is discovered and needs to be aborted as a result, he still keeps the initial half payment (of $35 million). No one would agree to these ridiculous terms considering such a huge sum of money. Although it still had problems, the trademark line worked better in the first film when the payment was significantly less (the Jackal does not even explicitly state he keeps the initial half-payment if the mission is aborted in the first film) but it sounds utterly absurd in the second film. The assassin would certainly need money to plan the elaborate assassination, but certainly not half of the $70 million! Hell, not even 10% percent!
Unlike the lean first film, the second film also shoehorns in numerous silly action scenes, none of which make sense:
The Jackal, using the heavy machine gun, ruthlessly kills the gun’s platform designer in one scene after the designer tries to blackmail him. Although the Jackal probably always planned to kill the designer, since the blackmail amount was miniscule (again, considering the $35 million downpayment), this raises suspicion as it leaves an odd murder scene of exceptionally rare, depleted-uranium rounds as evidence when the Jackal did not want attention and he would have avoided this by simply killing the designer with standard weaponry and hiding the body somewhere. This scene is trying to be similar to the first film where the Jackal killed the forger when the forger tried to blackmail him but the second film does this in a far more ridiculous manner.
In fact, because the movie makers had to have the Jackal kill the designer by novel means, as opposed to standard means like a choke hold, neck break, knife or silenced pistol, the silly scene would have likely resulted in the designer escaping as he could have simply ran behind the weapon which could not turn 180 degrees (and even if this wasn’t the case, the Jackal and his vehicle were sitting behind the weapon so they would both have to move before firing at the fleeing designer), or, even if the Jackal held a pistol to the designer and ordered him to run down range, the designer would have simply ran off behind the range into the woods, or, more intelligently, to the side for cover in the woods eventually outside of the weapon range, and/or outside the weapon’s nine-o’clock to three-o’clock firing line.
Additionally, the weapon was shown to not yet be sighted so it initially had poor aim and was so ponderous and slow to turn it would not likely be able to hit a moving target, so, again, the designer would have more than likely escaped if he had half a brain probably resulting in the Jackal having to frantically (and embarrassingly) chase him down in the woods to kill him, but, instead, the designer just conveniently stays still down range and allows the Jackal to aim the ponderous weapon at him, fire it, and murder him. They could not even decrease the absurdity just a tad by having the Jackal tie up the designer, kneecap him, or otherwise restrain-immobilize him before the Jackal used him for target practice.
The Jackal is discovered when docking his boat in Chicago which leads to a brief, pointless dock shoot out scene where the Jackal frantically escapes in his van when this would simply have led to the Jackal’s quick capture or death, as there is no way the Jackal could have escaped the authorities, as they quickly would radioed in his presence, surrounded the area and pursed the van, especially since he was still hundreds of miles away from his target and safehouse, both were far away in Washington D.C. By contrast, the first film had the Jackal narrowly avoid the authorities in the first place by way of being tipped off by his contractor’s intelligence network, luck, and by quick thinking; having the Jackal be discovered by the authorities then somehow magically escape their clutches despite their superior capabilities to shoehorn in a needless action scene would rightfully have been seen as idiotic in 1973.
By far, the most egregious scene is when the Jackal, for no reason, abandons his mission for a time (the one he is getting paid $70 million for and that the entire movie is based around) and instead goes on a stupid side quest to assassinate a female informant (and former lover of the main character); the assassin infiltrates her home and although she is not there (she is in witness protection) the Jackal nonetheless gets into a shootout with agents guarding the home, a stupid act by the Jackal, as again it would likely have led to his immediate capture or death as, once the shootout started, once the Jackal was suspected to be on the premises, any sensible agent would have radioed in his presence and law enforcement then would have quickly responded then surrounded the home.
Yet, because modern audiences are idiots, even ones way back in 1997, we needed to have an action scene every 15 minutes or so, regardless if it makes sense or not, or risk audience boredom. Waiting patiently and tensely for an action scene to build up and become warranted is beyond their ability, even decades ago.
The casting itself for the second Jackal film was inferior. Bruce Willis may be a great actor, but he stands out too much to play a covert assassin, unlike the first film where the actor playing the Jackal, Edward Fox, was an average, unassuming man by his appearance so his ability to blend in was more believable. Casting A-level actors to play roles not suitable for them is commonplace in Hollywood though, as the intelligence of audiences has been diminishing for some time so movie makers must rely on familiar names to sell tickets.
The 1997 version even has the Jackal, (Willis) who, as stated, already stands out prominently as an actor, ridiculously use a disguise where he flamboyantly dyes his hair bright blond, almost looking as flashy as a professional wrestler (like Ric Flair or Hulk Hogan), and, as such, he stands out like a sore thumb, with the main hero of the film (although the film lacks self-awareness to state the ridiculous hair) quickly identifying him in a crowd in the finale.
And, of course, while the first film has the main protagonist be of the country (France) the Jackal was infiltrating and attempting to murder a political figure of (the main protagonist was a French Police Chief), the main protagonist in the second film, for some reason, is an Irish national, and another main character is a Russian national; they both share much screen time, even though most of the movie takes place in the United States where the U.S. authorities must stop the Jackal. Why? Maybe audiences are thought to be so stupid, even in 1997, they now always need novelty, an unfamiliar accent.
The popular trope of “the protagonist who just wants to be left alone until the antagonist, or bad circumstances, force them to action,” is today even stupidly used in stories where it shouldn’t apply, like in post-apocalyptic settings where this main character has had little-to-no social interaction with others for years, meaning they naturally would want to interact with others, especially an attractive member of the opposite sex, yet they are unrelatedly portrayed on film as perfect people who have zero human needs, so they immediately rebuff the other good characters attempting to socialize, help, and/or flirt with them until forced to do so by the plot.
Waterworld, Book of Eli, Peter Jackson (mobile city movie)
Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) takes place in such a setting, a zombie apocalypse. The main characters, however, keep ditching each other, leaving their fellow protagonists isolated and thus vulnerable to being killed (which itself displays the selfishness of the times, more accurately modern audiences’ callousness to it) despite the constant threat of zombies that require teamwork to defeat and despite the social isolation, rare encounters with other humans. In such dangerous, lonely times, people will tend to stay together for happiness (socialization, a lack of options) and safety, a better chance of survival; being alone in such a scenario, one where flesh-eating zombies roam the cities and countryside and attack in massive waves. would be too terrifying, but the film ignores this truth by having the characters just casually taking off by themselves, as if they’re going on a simple road trip. Humor aside, the characters on screen are disconnected from the threats in the fictional world, but the writers somehow still expect immersion from audiences.
A new character, a dumb attractive blonde, then enters the film, who, due to her years of social isolation, is sexually fast, and moves to immediately sleep with the younger male protagonist, yet the male character, both adult male characters, in fact, from the start, treat her as nothing but a disposable annoyance when this is not believable; it’s the exact opposite of what would really happen, as finding a young, attractive, easy blonde after more than a decade of loneliness, where there is minimal interaction and intimacy, with most of the human population wiped out, would be like randomly stumbling on a goldmine; it would be like a person who is dying of thirst after walking for days in the hot desert finally finding the oasis; the girl would be treated like a rare find, a once or, at best, a twice in a lifetime discovery, because, for a heterosexual male, it would be like winning the lottery.
The dumb blonde may be the realist depiction in the film due to her, at the very least, displaying basic human needs, as the other characters, not only are morally bereft, but lack said social and sexual needs; intelligent viewers cannot relate to their actions (like when the older male character destroys their only working vehicle with a grenade on a whim, again which is even more ridiculous given the movie’s apocalyptic setting), and will find the film breathtakingly stupid and not in a good way, as the movie intended, when it falsely presents itself as a comedy, because true comedy usually relies on some degree of realism; it’s a failed comedy! (isnt in on the joke)
For more context, for greater insult, the characters at the end of film arrive at some hippy community that outlaws, confiscates, and the subsequently destroys all firearms, when this is absurd for a postapocalyptic zombie-world, as any surviving enclave would require guns for defense, and people would instinctively demand guns since zombies are everywhere and such sensible people would have simply invaded or overthrown the hippies (the lunatic gun haters-prohibitionists) who could not stop the attack-revolt because the hippies are unarmed; plus these pigheaded pacifists would undoubtably have been the first ones to die in the zombie attack anyway. Why must there suddenly be some random hippy community in movie when it is totally inappropriate to the setting, when it’s totally unrealistic? Because the writers are making this nonsense up on the fly, or because they’re making this movie for idiots!
Nostalgia is ruining movies, as film makers have abandoned all creativity and originality, like in Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) which has the exact same story as the original films and, for no reason, casts elderly actors from the first Star Wars films who are far past their prime, despite them having none of their youthful charisma, beauty, and appeal; they are so old and weak, they are unpleasant and sad to look at, and in the Terminator Franchise which, for the same idiot nostalgia, still casts an elderly Arnold Schwarzenegger simply because he was the main star in the franchise’s original films decades ago, which means the story has to be selfishly manipulated to justify his old appearance (the human skin on the Terminator machine now must age). Movie makers arrogantly think they can just throw old stars from the original films onto the screen with the same rehashed plot and that will be enough to make a good movie.
Music and radio stations are losing their quality and being replaced more with pop culture music more watered down (diluted) for the masses; often a bands most popular song tends to be the one of the least quality, and it is played the most, much to the discomfort and annoyance of our ears. Vulgar, lewd lyrics are now commonplace with egotistical rap music being commonly accepted and praised despite it lowering our intelligence to that of primates.
In the 1980s, George Michael’s I Want Your Sex was considered edgy (now we have Wet Ass Pussy)
Singers mock the public, flaunt their degneracy and criticize all dissenteds/critics as haters
We resist this mental decay, this brain drain. We recognize social media is getting dumber and dumber and losing the logical edge, when being edgy is sensible such as advocating violence on terrorist nations and foreign enemies and advocating logical, but reasonable, vigilante justice to shameless degenerates (like Only Fans models) and traitors (like people who demand the USA should cede territory back to Mexico), to appeal to the soft masses (and because edgy content creators end up getting banned eventually anyway). This means stupid videos in time may eventually be seen as smart. We resist this. We are not fooled by recency bias, relative bias, and the dumbing down of the masses. A terrible movie that was bad 15 years ago, is still bad today. An evil man who was villainized 30 years ago, is still bad today, regardless of what the current public or current elements of the public think.
Programs, podcast, and debates, when they are not droning on and on about absolutely nothing, when they are not endlessly chatting about the future which is usually impossible to predict, when they are not spreading gossip, and reacting to useless noise, events, statements, and occurrences, most of which will be forgotten in under a week, are dignifying more and more lunatics by conversing with them and entertaining their stupid arguments, which can still prove harmful even if the host and viewers vehemently disagree.
For example, popular news channels and debate channels invite on climate alarmists (environmental loons) who vandalize property, illegally block streets and disrupt sporting events and/or who feel morally justified when committing such crime and who promote such crime as righteous, under the false noble cause of saving the environment, as if we are supposed to somehow entertain their morally warped arguments, their pathetic excuse for crime, as valid, as if we should be required to devote time to hear their side.
Anti-frauditor channels rightfully expose and humiliate frauditors (self-proclaimed first amendment auditors), pompous fools who try to look heroic by falsely accusing others of standing against rights like free speech, who use cameras to maliciously harass, loiter, provoke, blackmail, smear, and cyberbully others, who upload people online as human sacrifices to be wrongfully shamed, but then many of these seemingly good channels also frequently invite the frauditors to debate, as if these infantile vermin are worthy of debate and legitimacy.
We are entertaining more and more nonsense, more and more scumbag charlatans, more and more circus clowns, more and more crazies, more and more freaks, when, in reality, this is only hurting our intelligence, as such reprobates deserve no voice.
In clear cases such as these, there is no “other side” to argue, there is no “other side” to hear. Nonetheless, we keep wasting audience’s time (the public’s time) by giving attention to those who least deserve it, who least deserve to be heard, whether someone is arguing about computer chips in vaccines, being abducted by aliens and UFOs, or claiming men who pretend (declare themselves) to be women should participate in women’s sports (be allowed to cheat in competition and bully-injure real women), constantly giving broadcast time to lunatics, liars, and fools is bound to have a damaging effect on the mind.
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Media has devolved, first from an ass-kissing industry which never challenges or checks the fighter’s delusional statements (I want a title shot despite having barely any decent wins for years), bad behavior, or the UFC monopoly and its executives, to the other end of the extreme, to literal basement dwellers, ones who don’t even groom themselves and dress in the laziest of clothing and usually are obese, shit-talking (taunting, smearing, mocking) fighters and their fans (going after the lowest hanging fruit) to provoke negative reactions to win attention, the same trend with general media that now constantly uses degrading click-bait. Two men having a pleasant conversation with no major disagreements, both of whom had fair points, is now manipulated by so-called content creators to make it seem like one of the men was OWNED or DESTROYED in the debate, a blatantly false narrative which only serves the content creator, his desperate need for attention, video monetization and to appear morally superior.
A mutual search for truth is abandoned, the objective of today’s debates is to win by making your opponent look bad, and this can be done often by leveling the shallowest of accusations upon them. Saying:
“You’re only mad at me because I have a different opinion!”
“You are just afraid of what others have to say!”
“You don’t like when people ask questions!”
“You support Censorship!”
“You must support Violence!”
These expressions can be cunningly used to dismiss the opponent, others, and win approval of the unthinking mob, despite these statements containing nothing of substance; they are shallow accusations, as they contain no context, and evil men constantly use such shallow expressions to prevent the idiocy and cruelty of their views from being discovered.
I stand for Freedom and Prosperity I sant against tyranny (like who doesnt , these statements dont mean anything
You’re just obsessed with sex or young girls (when defending morals and no men in women’s sports)
For example, an evil man that truly believes the first-born child, at the age of five, should be murdered by being thrown off a cliff but, for the time being, attempts to hide this from being plainly spoken-uncovered, will shallowly state: “You’re just mad when others have a different opinion” when his demented views understandably cause outrage in any debate opponent. That way, blame suddenly shifts to the debate opponent and the evil man can stall (filibuster) to prevent his true intent, from being unearthed. This will commonly be stated when all decent people (his debate opponents) finally see his said true intent and rightfully are offended and scold and attack him, perhaps even walking out of the debate. But this nonsense should never be effective because any intelligent society will understand that being mad, that being angry depends on the circumstances whether it is right or wrong. Simply announcing that someone is wrong or that someone “lost the debate” because they were angry is idiotic, even though the accusation of anger, more accurately hysterical anger, is also often a falsity used to discredit.
Hurting Feelings is not the same as Offending the Conscience
Ask question about “is the moon made of cheese” problem is the answer YES
can (use such expressions) believe that, at the age of five, the first-born child should be murdered by being thrown off a cliff and somehow this evil man can still have a large following (a deluded cult) who praises (rewards) this evil man for his demented views. The outrage his viewpoint and the unjustified adulation directed at him causes will be used as further evidence against all opponents where the evil man will cravenly state “You’re just mad at me because I have a different opinion!” This will no doubt be stated when all decent people (his debate) opponents rightfully are offended by his views and scold and attack him, perhaps even walking out of the debate. This example best illustrates the shallowness of the statements today’s vile charlatans seek to use to silence all opposition, because, in reality, being mad or angry depends on the circumstances whether it is right or wrong.
But to the vile charlatan, who will attempt to escape accountability by claiming all anger is….
His viewpoint which naturally will cause much offense, much outrage, to decent people, especially when it is publicly promoted, even somehow backed by his deluded cult of followers, yet, since he is a vile charlatan, the outrage he caused will be used to
Irony is they support Censorship and loss of rights cause they are claiming a website or channel host cannot control who comments. they must be forced to allow all comments.
Also they play victim and act like I am calling cops on them for free speech.
Today’s content keeps wasting the public’s time by debating and elaborating what is self-evident. The author once saw a popular video on social media where an alleged lawyer, “attempting to use his legal expertise” made legal arguments, for nearly 30 minutes, about Why the Land in the USA was not Stolen from Mexico, as if we needed a lawyer to explain this to us. Imagine trying to either debate or use legal arguments with someone who demands you surrender your home rather than just telling them to “Go to Hell!” and chasing them off your property with a shotgun if they tried to escalate things.
Lawyer might mean well but
Lawyers do same thing with shooting videos (was use of deadly force justified when its common sense that officer had the right to shoot)
Historians now have to devote time doing interviews and making content, where they use their expertise, to argue in depth “Why the Western Allies weren’t the bad guys in World War 2” or “Why Hitler and the Nazis were the villains” when everyone should already know this simple truth but since there are now so many fools who believe otherwise, since there are so many futile contrarians who will simply say “up” when everyone says “down”, who will simply say “hot” when everyone says “cold” for no other reason than childishness, the immature desire to play “opposite day,” time must be wasted to explain the obvious, despite the fact that most of these intellectually stunted morons will just invent reasons to dismiss all the evidence presented by the historian anyway.
Germany was the victim due to harshness of Versailles (ignoring German militarism provoked the war and greater harshness of Brest-Litovsk in 1918
We have to suffer through a debate where someone is arguing in defense of Communism, that Capitalism and private property should be abolished and the government should seize (steal) all wealth and assets, the debater sitting across from them must entertain and attempt to reason with such idiocy, when the pro-Communist has no understanding of human nature, of history, of events which happened decades earlier, but such nonsense is now popular because this Communist advocate, unlike the past where his stupid beliefs would win him deserved stigma, may have hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of followers, a painful reality, where it now feels we can never begin an argument or plan from a sensible start position, a true premise, rather we must debate on and on for hours such to reach what should have been this default start point all along, and for intelligent people already existing at the default sensible point, it feels like we are holding ourselves back, that we are waiting for people who cannot even walk (and that don’t want to be taught and cannot be persuaded) to catch up.
Capitalism is undeniably superior to Communism. This is the default start point, so intelligent citizens would then naturally, from this position, argue about Capitalism’s current flaws, and what aspects of it can be improved, what are its current drawbacks, like with pornography and digital prostitution being so lucrative, like with movies and events somehow being so lazy, stupid and morally bereft (bad) but still somehow making massive profit, like with stupid YouTube channels and their vapid content being, again so financially successful, yet solutions to these contemporary problems cannot be discussed at the outset because a bunch of retrograde ignoramuses are still screaming “let’s give Communism another chance.” and public discourse demands we distract ourselves in convince them otherwise. (how profit motive and social media cannot solve free speech online so need state funded social media platform) (medical treatment financially incentivized to treat symptoms over the long term rather than applying a quick cure)
Islamic terrorists attack Israel, or any western country, and we now have to spend time “debating” who are the bad guys, the pro-Western debaters having to tolerate and listen to terrorist sympathizers and their absurd (morally warped) talking points which somehow always blame Israel and the West, and callously disregard the victims, Western citizens who have been murdered by the Jihadi fanatics, the Muslim barbarian.
The proper solution is to deny such traitorous scum no voice, and upon the rare time they are on stage to voice their wretched thoughts in a debate, to, in full public view, live on air, get security to violently remove them off stage and then throw them out in the alley, or the debate opponents themselves should, inevitably losing patience, slap or assault such swine providing entertainment to the public, who, for years, for decades even, have been asking, just once, for these treasonous weaklings to take a much deserved beating, of course, with the law itself being legally ordered by a truthful witness regime to turn a blind eye, when the traitors, unable to take their beating, their public humiliation, their deserved punishment, like men, like people of character, inevitably attempt to press charges; law enforcement should furthermore charge the traitorous scum for pressing false charges which attempt to obstruct justice in that case, as it is objective truth they deserved to get assaulted then expelled.
Once a police officer hears the complaint was seriously arguing that, for example, the Moon was made out of cheese, or that men pretending to be women (transgenders) should be allowed to compete with women in all sports, meaning they should be allowed to beat up on women and cheat, the police officer should say “yeah, you deserved to be smacked upside the head, this isn’t assault. In fact, you’re under arrest for wasting law enforcement resources, filing false report, and for insulting the public’s intellect.”
But rather than doing the right thing, we let these vermin ramble on and on, insulting public decency continuously by platforming them, allowing them to voice their perverted thoughts and ideas, something, in truth, they get sick pleasure from, as they enjoy tormenting the public by having their reprehensible thoughts and policies entertained.
No nuance, no plausible misunderstanding, no charitable interpretations, no other side to argue
Need to use data to determine something so obvious, than men shouldnt be allowed to compete in women’s sports, or whatever, might as well waste time gathering data of whether the sun rises and sets everyday
Or arguing why it’s ok to let other men sleep with your wife. (we have to listen to this cuckhold)
One guy has to argue why this is pathetic and bad but the problem is it degrades them too (having to debate this in the first place)
Shows flaws of today’s free speech (its now become a liability cause people lie, argue in bad faith and are others deluded and controlled by their impluses) (already mentioned briefly in Decline of WC)
Maybe but the below in SAMENESS
We are deluded (under sameness: maybe put in sameness section) that all ideas are worthy of debate (they only seek out ideas that confirm are existing world view
seek middle ground when middle ground can be wrong (2+2 doesnt equal 4.5 cause one side is saying it equals 5 and other 3) (scientist debate flat earthers as if both.. every idea isnt worth debating (makes us take is seriously) like mixing beverages with piss (piss becomes legimatized)
Democrats are out of touch, then they win, then Republicans are out of touch, the 4 to 8 years later..other side wins
Team wins superbowl, endless sports chatter, how team is best franchise, then a different team wins next year and it starts. Happens next year when a different team wins.
Fighter is best fighter in world when he wins or goes on a two or three fight win streak when he has many loses
I’ll let you decide something different even though it is clearly this…. (so desperate for audience approval they will accept all their opinions and thoughts as valid) (clear case of self-defense but shows channel creator is willing to tolerate liars who claim otherwise ” just for views and equality” “I’ll let you decide…
OF Models (all you have to do is be older and I am turned on.. (Say they want to share man (so desperate for online simps to cheer them
Comments; if you are listening to this or watching this in Current Year “You are a legend”
Pandering to the point women are speaking for misogynist, blacks for white supremacists…
The shallowness of Western society is increasing, and this is displayed in all forms of entertainment, as shows now rate people (judge their value/worth) based solely on their looks. Dating sites for beautiful people, and sugar daddies (women looking for rich men) are popular showing people commonly only care about looks or money, and older popular dating sites are still around, like Plenty of Fish, that functions (as its very name suggests) on the basis that everyone, all people, regardless of circumstances and uniqueness, are all equally disposable, can all be easily replaced in the end, as the site encourages a rudeness and superficiality in its users perhaps unparalleled (with women’s dating profiles often saying things like: “If you are under 5’10 don’t message me” and men’s dating profiles often saying things like “If you are flat chested or have baggage, don’t message me”. No depth in discovering the value of a person on their individual merits, beyond the surface, is seen as a worthy endeavor.
Reactionary content now dominates over careful review and analysis, like extensive movie reviews being replaced more and more with movie reactions where a person reacts to a bad movie the same as they react to a good movie, as immediate reaction gives no time to thought and reflection resulting in the bad films being usually lumped in the same lot as the good films and vice versa.
The Purge (2013) is a popular movie, even though it is about a dystopia where anyone can be victimized and eliminated (robbed, assaulted, raped, maimed, and/or killed) in certain times, or time, of the year, no mental effort in the fictional society is devoted to discerning (using thought to determine) who deserves to be eliminated, meaning, in this fictional world, a good person, a good father, mother, friend, or whatever is just as legitimate a target as a convicted felon that committed numerous heinous crimes. A person can be purged for telling a bad joke or for being a lousy date or for simply having blue eyes, the exact same as a fraudster who stole billions, the exact same as a false accuser who committed perjury and got an innocent person wrongfully imprisoned.
The ethical dilemma of
“Should people who work hard in honest professions, whether in academia, business, medicine, journalism, manual labor, law enforcement, or anything, be legally allowed, with a state sanctioned purge, to rob or attack a popular online sex worker (digital prostitute) who makes, on average, over 300 times (300x) more than them in income a year all by showing and charging desperate men, online simps, images of her body since her fame and financial success is objectively undeserved and massively offends decent people’s sense of justice, the notion that good people should be rewarded in the end and that evil people should be punished in the end?
Should devoted fans of movie franchises be legally allowed, again with a state sanctioned purge, to rob movie makers, to burglarize the movie makers luxury homes, the same movie makers who keep ruining their beloved franchises with stupid, forgettable, useless remakes while they, the greedy movie makers, still somehow magically make a killing (a massive profit) at the box office despite the movies being utter garbage and insulting the fanbase?
Should good, intelligent people be legally allowed, again with the annual state sanctioned purge, to assault, rob, and injure some ignorant thug who acted all entitled on some stupid talk show and unjustly won 2 million followers and sponsorships deals as a result, or perhaps, the target could be some contemptible boxer who, without shame, keeps taunting the public and blatantly lying to them that he is the greatest fighter in the world and who he keeps unjustly making millions upon millions of dollars per bout and publicly bragging about it and flaunting his wealth, despite him clearly only picking fights heavily rigged in his favor, despite him fighting talentless scrubs (old men, smaller men, and/or total amateurs), while he ducks (avoids) real challengers, and holds up (selfishly stalls) his division, or the entire sport, for months, if not years?
These are more relatable questions, more intimate issues, to the human condition, to our dark inner nature, to human rage and envy, and especially to our time period. as evil and stupidity seems to triumph regularly (daily, in fact) and are often financially successful; the free market has failed us. Where is God? Why is God constantly allowing the good to suffer and the bad to triumph, all while the bad constantly mock the public, flaunt their undeserved gains with impunity? This does not appear to be merely evil’s illusion! Why is nothing being done about it? Perhaps man should remedy the situation with vigilantism, or better yet, with a legal purge, so we don’t technically have to resort to vigilantism in the first place! Perhaps vengeance belongs to us, not God, since God has failed his eternal promise to man!
These questions and concepts are nothing new, but they are still deeper than random or indiscriminate targeting. It would certainly feel good, cathartic, to rob and punish such people, with vigilante justice, those narcissistic scumbags who are rich, popular, and successful, meaning they attained such triumphs by actively and cruelly insulting the public’s intelligence and sense of decency over and over again, especially if they engaged in harassment, false accusations, and endangered others to attain success which significantly multiplies the desire, perhaps even the justification, to bring retribution upon them with vigilante justice or a sanctioned purge, but this notion is abandoned by the Purge movies and instead replaced by the mentally lazy (democratic) concept of ALL CAN BE PURGED, or almost all, mainly because, using mental energy (discernment) to determine who deserves to be punished (purged) and who doesn’t (who should be immune) outside of superficial titles like political status and having the strength to both state, then defend the objective truth (in one above case ,the fact that sex workers who show off their body online, do not deserve such fame and success) is beyond the mental ability of most Western citizens (audiences).
The intolerable superficiality is also present in the superhero movies. Avengers Infinity War (2018) and its sequel Avengers Endgame (2019) was where the proclaimed “Marvel Cinematic Universe” was supposed to reach an epic conclusion, a jaw-dropping climax, in a final battle with the intergalactic superbeing Thanos, something the previous films have been building up to for years, only to have Thanos display zero depth; his entire plan has to be one of the most boring, insulting, and unimaginative in film history. Once Thanos gains some powerful stones, he plans to indiscriminately eliminate 50% of the population of the universe so the survivors, the remaining half, will have double the resources.
The plan is incredibly stupid and has already been ripped apart on social media by intelligent reviewers, especially in light of the obvious truth that resources are the highest now in human history despite Earth also having the highest human population (2020s), among other reasons, such as Thanos’ idiotic solution only being temporary since the population would eventually recover, and why wouldn’t Thanos just use the stones to simply double the resources, if he was so worried about them dwindling, which would also be temporary but not involve mass extermination, but it’s the randomity that really insults the intellect, as there is, again, no effort (no thought, no analysis, no mental energy, no selection process) to discern who should be eliminated; across the board, the chance is 50/50.
A good, intelligent person has the same equal chance to get eliminated as a deranged serial killer since “both use resources” or “everyone uses resources”. People of an advanced free culture, a civilized state, have the same chance of oblivion as savages of a superstitious tribe; those who value freedom and life have the same chance of extermination as those in a murderous death cult, as those in a terrorist regime. The shallowness displayed on screen is so breathtakingly stupid, so mentally lazy, it deserves nothing but utter contempt.
By contrast, imagine if a real historical ruler like Napoleon I (Napoleon Bonaparte: 1769-1821) had the same power as Thanos. The French Emperor would have logically used the stones to eliminate all his (the French Empire’s) enemies, the British, the Russians, the Portuguese, the Spanish, potential assassins, etc. so he could take over the world, but modern audiences are so stupid they think Napoleon indiscriminately eliminating 50% of the world’s population, including that of France itself, and France’s allied-client states, the nations, kingdoms, and populations Napoleon rules over and controls, whether directly or indirectly, is somehow an interesting plan worthy of their attention when the plan is beyond moronic because it’s self-injurious; it rejects any idea of merit and appraisal, of assessing and identifying the enemy.
Why would a patriot, a dutiful citizen, care about a hostile state, an enemy nation, also having abundant resources to feed its population? Would the USA or UK today really care about helping evil nations like North Korea and Iran maintain sufficient resources? Why would a citizen want his nation to be weakened, through the annihilation of half the population to which he should hold an allegiance, which only benefits the enemy nation; wouldn’t he just logically prefer to annihilate the enemy nation without doing harm to his, otherwise, he isn’t a patriot, he is not a good citizen, he’s a wishful mass murderer and traitor?
Ruling a nation embarked on conquest is still the greatest means by which a man can exert his power upon the world, so, does Napoleon deliberately wiping out 50% of his army, 50% of his elite imperial guard, the forces he used to subjugate and conquer Europe, and 50% of the population pool, the nation, which he drew these forces from sound like a sensible plan, one worthy of being put to screen or book? The character of this absurd story is one that is so insanely moronic that, even though he would have the power to wish away a disease on his arm, he instead would wish that the entire arm be severed to eliminate the disease. Simply put, the writers made Thanos a total moron and somehow expect us to accept him as the ultimate adversary.
Boredom can only result from this trash! There is no entertainment value! Unlike stories where a 50% or more population reduction applies, like in cases of a nuclear holocaust, plague, natural disaster, alien invasion, or whatever, the story here is far more boring, in the case of a warlord, a military tyrant on an age of conquest, on a quest to subjugate the world, whether real or imagined, because there are less people, the population is universally reduced by half and thus so are the army sizes.
Epic battles of the Napoleonic Wars, like the Battle of Borodino (September 1812), which, in real life, saw some 250,000 soldiers amassed on a single battlefield of only three-square miles, would now, in this absurd scenario be reduced to 125,000; the enormous Battle of Leipzig (October 1813) which saw nearly 500,000 soldiers amassed both in the city and around the city’s approaches is now reduced to under 250,000; this fiction is less interesting than reality, which means the story from an entertainment point of view has no reason to exist.
All the massive battles of the French Revolutionary Wars and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars would be 50% smaller, if, for example, some nutcase in 1785 used the infinity stones like Thanos and reduced the human population by half. How would this be interesting? How would this be fun? Where is the entertainment? This blatantly betrays the “cool factor” of a story about warfare.
The World Wars would be less interesting with 50% of the population reduced, all of history would. The Eastern Front in World War Two, which, at one point saw over nine million troops engaged in fighting now must be reduced to roughly 4.5 million because of some environmentalist snowflake with a mind like Thanos? It’s an affront to the imagination.
It’s no different than pathetic movies like Reign of Fire (2002), another post-apocalypse setting, which had fire-breathing dragons taking over the world…IN 2002 A.D.! Not in 1402, not in 1702, again, in 2002, in an age where mankind has machine guns, rocket launchers, helicopters, jet fighters, guided missiles, satellites, radar, anti-aircraft missiles. nuclear missiles, etc. so for mankind in the modern era, with all their advanced weaponry, to allow fire-breathing dragons to take over the Earth, they’d all have to all be mentally retarded. The threat cannot be taken seriously, nor can the stupid story which demands audiences believe that somehow these large, flying dragons remained hidden underground from humanity for all of human history.
The failure of imagination, the failure to create intriguing stories, at least in relation to their predecessors, exist all across the movie industry. We have forgettable movies like Daybreakers (2009) where we can watch a society of vampires so stupid they cannot maintain their food (blood source) and just spend the movie starving to death to the point of desperately licking blood off the floor (and since everyone is a vampire, the film isn’t scary either). We can watch Total Recall (2012) which is a useless remake of the original Total Recall (1990) but has a far less interesting story than the first film. In the original, humanity was a two-planet species living on both Earth and Mars, but in the new movie the setting has devolved with no Mars colonization whatsoever and with Earth being mostly an uninhabitable wasteland, the only two places one can live are the British Isles and Australia, who would want to live in the latter (more boring) fictional world, where they can only live and visit Britain, Ireland, and Australia, and no other part of the world, as opposed to the former fictional world, where all the Earth and Mars is available for them to potentially travel?
Another Illegitimate Threat
Man in High Castle (Axis/Germany not only won war or conquered Europe but occupy USA? So all Americans are retarded or somehow Axis have over double the populations and logistical capabilities (Germany has difficulty conquering a small island like Crete in 1941, they could not even invade Britain in 1940 which stands 20 or 20sih miles off the French coast but now, they somehow crossed the Atlantic? (Japan could not even beat Russia or conquer China of take Midway but somehow maintain the power to cross the Pacific and occupy West Coast?
The human imagination is clearly declining, as people conjure stories far less interesting than generations previous. In fact, people today are so stupid that when they daydream, when they write fiction, the stores are even less interesting than reality itself.
Final destination films..
Humans are infertile movie
Would make a movie where men dont have penises …as if anything that comes from the imagination is good
Futility of today’s imagination (and clearly evident circling back to Thanos)
Thanos was designed to be an alien tyrant, a space Hitler, but this completely fails; the writers made Thanos so stupid that he makes Adolf Hitler look intelligent and rational!
Hitler, who made numerous idiotic blunders in World War 2:
From invading the Soviet Union, especially by invading the Soviet Union, not as conquerors (as most modern history writers falsely claim when they err by fixating on some made-up binary choice, invading either as a conqueror or liberator, in which they, subsequently due to their modern softness always claim invading as a liberator, one trying to win the hearts and minds of the enemy people, is more preferable), but as something more extreme, as exterminators, which ensured greater Soviet resistance because the Russians knew they’d get enslaved, starved, then killed if they surrendered anyway since Nazi ideology considered them racial inferiors (sub-humans),
To declaring war on the United States even as German armies had failed in Russia and were freezing to death; Hitler could have likely bought more time and delayed the USA’s official entry into the war against Germany, especially as the Americans were dealing with the Japanese,
To weakening the German’s Sixth Army’s flanks and funneling more and more German troops into the deadly center, into the urban killing zone of Stalingrad where the German army was at every disadvantage to the Soviet defenders, where the Germans couldn’t use their war of maneuver and instead had to fight the Russians street-by-street, house-by-house, room-by-room in the rubble, where the weak flanks eventually caused the Germans to ultimately be surrounded, starved, and destroyed in the city as the Soviets inevitably counterattacked on the weak flanks, a stupid act, one of a military amateur as it betrayed basic military logic known since the time of Hannibal, when said Carthaginian commander surrounded and annihilated the Romans at Cannae by funneling them into the center then attacking their flanks, something German officers studied for generations; the German Chief of Staff, General Halder, even warned Hitler of the enormous casualties caused by the vicious street fighting and the obvious danger to Sixth Army’s flanks months prior to which Hitler, refusing to accept reality, threw a tantrum and promptly sacked him for it),
not only funneled Germans into urban killing zone but in mountains too (Caucasus)
To foolishly launching a frontal attack against well-prepared Russian defenses at the Battle of Kursk which only resulted in high casualties and huge tank losses for the Germans, with Hitler’s armies only gaining minimal ground, like it was a failed battle in World War One, an obvious mistake beforehand, as it was clear the Russians knew precisely where the Germans were going to attack, mainly due to the obvious salient, the massive bulge it created in the German line; the Russians has been heavily fortifying the position for months prior, so an attack at the enemy’s strongest point was always going to be folly,
As Allies were on the verge of invading Sicily (a victory which knocked Italy out of the war on Axis side and eventually forced Germany to waste its dwindling manpower to occupy the entire country)
To treating the Allied Invasion of Normandy as a diversion which denied the German Army reinforcements in the Normandy sector until it was too late (and also allowed the Western Allies to destroy German divisions piecemeal since German reinforcements were only sent to the Normandy sector gradually as the situation worsened, not immediately in bulk like they needed to be) which shows Hitler’s inability to properly assess risk, as it did not matter where the Allies landed, once they were firmly ashore (due to their material superiority added to the fact that much of the Germany Army was still fighting the Russians in the East) Germany was doomed so any sensible strategist would have had to gamble that the first place the Allies landed in serious force (especially shown by the deployment of paratroopers as these would not be sacrificed, left to be massacred) must be the primary landing zone (target).
Hitler’s fixation that Normandy was a mere diversion was, therefore, idiotic, as denying reinforcements to the Normandy sector to prepare for the supposed real Allied attack at Pas-de-Calais meant the Allies can still possibly get onshore at Normandy which ensures Germany’s defeat anyway, so the best one can hope for was that there was not going to be a diversionary attack followed by a real attack happening later in another sector of the French coast; simply put, denying the German Army reinforcements to Normandy ensures defeat while immediately reinforcing Normandy by all available means at least gives a chance of battlefield victory if the attack is not a diversion, so, after D-Day was launched, the best a military strategist could have done to increase the odds of Germany’s success is to do the exact opposite of what Hitler did historically, assume Normandy was not a diversion.
In fact, 72 hours after D-Day, it was clear the Normandy beachhead was succeeding so the Western Allies would not need to launch another attack at the Pas-de-Calais to win the war, so Hitler still treating Normandy like a diversion and denying reinforcements, even this late, days after the battle started, shines more light on his stupidity,
Hitler even got his forces surrounded and destroyed by ordering a counterattack (Avaranche) which drew his forces more into the allied pincers and got them wipes out at Falaise (like his acts lead to many other encircelments which saw his forces isolated and destroyed: Stalingrad, Tunisia, Belarus, Courland
To, in adhering to insane Nazi ideology, wasted Germany’s precious resources and personnel by ordering the mass round up and extermination of Jews across Europe while the war was still raging, while, by 1942 , Germany faced a real threat (unlike the imprisoned, starved Jews of Europe), a mighty coalition of nations that dwarfed it in size; Germany couldn’t afford to waste effort in expensive police state activity (the difficult undertaking of hunting Jews across occupied Europe, from Norway to Greece, from France to occupied Russia) and conducting an elaborate genocide requiring thousands of armed guards and numerous expensive camps to be established, all which had to be constantly supplied which only delayed and denied reinforcements, equipment, and supplies to the real battlefront,
Yet, despite all this, despite all these elementary mistakes, despite the German dictator self-sabotaging his own war effort, and assuming the magical stones in the Avenger films weren’t fiction, Hitler would still never have devised a plan so idiotic, so self-sabotaging where he would attempt use said magical stones to also wipe out 50% of the Axis population’s for which he reigned as dictator, an absolute monarch in all but name; he still would have the sense to attempt to use the stone’s power to wipe out his (the Axis’) greatest enemies: the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States and then China, then perhaps the Jews. In terms of self-defeating stupidity, Hitler does not hold a candle to Thanos.
The minions of Thanos must be equally retarded to follow a leader bent on wiping half of them out, on subjecting them to a 50% chance of death once the moron’s plan succeeds. But, of course, since people behave like unthinking robots (like NPCs in a video game) and unrealistically never fear death, they just go along with their leader regardless of the circumstances.
Dark Knight Rises (willing to just kill themselves), Black Adam and other DC movies, keep shooting when its obvious he is invulnerable to bullets
And even if Thanos had the sense to selectively spare his minions from the 50% extermination, why by random with anything else. Would Napleon want 50% of Japan’s population wiped out when is embroiled in Battle with the British and Russians, would Hitler want 50% of all neutral nations wiped out when he has to deal with over 11 million Allied troops attacking him on all sides.
Nothing is being achieved by Thanos. There is no endgame as the movie title suggests. He commits his atrocity then lives in a cave somewhere and boringly dies as a hermit. This is what passes as an entertaining story in our age? There is no interesting aftermath. By contrast, and putting the malevolent Nazi ideology aside, Hitler was at least trying to do something interesting, he was attempting to turn Germany into a superpower, a vast empire which would stretch from the English Channel to the Ural Mountains! A New Reich which would be totally self-sufficient in food and resources and would dominate the world stage.
The German Empire’s border in the East would stretch to Siberia; the land would be cleared of “the Russian sub-humans” and made way for German settlers; the Ukraine would serve as the breadbasket of the New Reich; the Donbass and Caucasus would enrich Germany in resources, in both minerals and oil; the region would turn into Germany’s Wild East just as the United States of America had its Wild West era. German film makers would eventually start making Easterns for German movie audiences, just like American movie audiences like Westerns. German frontier troops stationed on the border at the Urals would look into the vast expanses of Siberia, of Asia, into hostile territory and would even launch raids and expeditions into the region, with such probes perhaps even going so far as China and beyond.
The Caucasus Region with its massive oil reserves, as stated, would have been occupied and conquered which means Germany would now border the Middle East (Iran and Turkey) and German armies could soon threaten the region and possibly also seize its oil; in that frightening scenario, Germany would then have access to Caucasus oil, Romanian Oil, and Middle Eastern oil which means it would control much of the world’s oil reserves. And, of course, the Middle East would also be dramatically changed because the Jews of Europe would be wiped out and the state of Israel would not exist.
A different type of Cold War emerges, one where the United States has to face off, not against a nuclear U.S.S.R (which lost so much in the war against Nazi Germany and was exhausted by 1945) but against a nuclear Germany, which is far more powerful as the Nazi state lies much farther West, much closer in proximity than the Soviets since Germany conquered Norway, France, and much of Western Europe, and would also have strong alliances with Fascist Spain and would probably pressure Turkey, whom they would surround, to join them in an alliance. The United States and Great Britain, which allied with France, Norway, Turkey, other Western nations, and Israel in the real timeline now is more isolated and certainly, as long as Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy remain in power, this Cold War would be infinitely more dangerous; a space race, against the Nazis would be probably more difficult (you can actually have the Nazis land on the moon; a Nazi moon base is popularized in modern fantasy, but landing on the moon, which is all they’d be able to do, is close enough), the nuclear arms race against the Nazis would be terrifying.
Italy would control much of North African coast (from Tunisa to Lybia, to Egypt, to Sudan, to Ethophia , to Somila
The geopolitical madness, Hitler’s grandiose aims, their unrealism, the fact that Germany perhaps came closer than some suspect of achieving it and the deadly consequences is partly which so many people are interested in the history of World War Two. As evidenced by all the alternate history forums online, the story fascinates the imagination, the endgame is riveting. History dramatically changes for the darker in the event of a total German victory.
And whatever revulsion a present-day German patriot has for the Nazis, for the taint of his nation’s Nazi past, would he still not be pro-German, would he still have some degree of nationalism deep in his bones, so would he, despite wicked Nazi ideology, really protest to his nation, the German nation, in this alternate history, being 20 times larger than it is today? Would he still protest to his nation having over four times the population it does today with vastly superior (self-sufficient) resources? The patriot, the German nationalist. would likely be too tempted to overlook the barbaric means to which his empire was forged and would approve of its superpower status.
A champion attempting to attain belts in multiple weight classes intrigues the public’s imagination; a nation attempting to win for itself a vast empire through cunning diplomacy and ruthless conquest intrigues the imagination (people might even fantasize about being Gengis Khan or Hitler, ruthlessness aside, overlooking atrocity and ideology) pretending they are good versions of them in the same military scenario).
People imagine themselves being professional fighters winning championships, they imagine themselves being professional athletes winning titles, they imagine themselves being warlords, being kings, being emperors, being military commanders achieving stunning victory on the battlefield, being the savior of their nation, this is normal, but superpowers aside, who would fantasize about being Thanos? No one, at least no one intelligent, because he is an utter buffoon! Unlike the Superpowered Reich, unlike popular fantasizes, there is nothing about Thanos that inspires fascination.
Thanos would not be the professional fighter attempting to win the championship, instead he’d be the annoying pest needlessly spending his time attempting make 50% of the fighters unemployed, including firing the more interesting fighters in the promotion, fan favorites, making the fight cards less interesting, prevent interesting future matchups, all so the remaining 50% can have more base pay. He would not be the military leader embarked on conquest, he’d be the annoying environmental pansy obsessed with reducing the population of all people’s equally by half, including his own nation, which is not only cowardly treason but results in less interesting wars and battles.
The same morons who cheer garbage like Avengers Infinity War and Avengers Endgame, who view Thanos as an interesting villain, generally, somehow, still like other fictional stories like Star Wars, Star Trek, Dragonball Z and other films set in space, whether science fiction or science fantasy, despite all these fictional stories becoming less interesting if Thanos’ plan was executed. Would these intergalactic conflicts be more interesting if everyone’s armada was reduced by 50%? How can space battles be as large, as epic if everything is reduced by half? We cannot have awesome fictional worlds where interstellar civilizations, each with populations numbering trillions, battle it out, because a cowardly faggot named Thanos (in 2019) demands the population of the universe be capped at 400 billion! How pathetic are the writers of this villain! What sad excuses are they, these betrayers of fiction!
The elimination of half of the heroes of a comic could be entertaining, if the main villain or his subordinates defeated them in battle or by other clever means, meaning the bad guys earned the victory, but this is not done, rather 50% of the heroes, and the population of the universe, are simply wished away with some stupid plot contrivance which, again, achieves nothing if successful and is boring, then it’s simply overturned in the latter film making death meaningless and wasting the audience’s time, and it also ruins future films because the entire fictional world has to stupidly adjust to 50% of the human population suddenly resurrecting and being 5-years younger than the other 50% who did not get eliminated.
The writers then continue to insult the audience’s intelligence by explaining the half who were eliminated magically resurrected (materialized) in the same exact place they had died, which means all the people flying on a plane would manifest high in the air and fall to their deaths, which means all the people on a ship in the ocean would manifest above the ocean, then fall into the water and drown or freeze to death. These writers do not deserve financial success; in fact, for insulting the public’s intelligence and imagination, they’re borderline criminals deserving heavy fines, perhaps even prison, or at the very least, a stupidity tax along with public stigma.
Adolf Hitler might have been a vegan crank, but Thanos is an emasculated weakling, in spirit he’s a scrawny, tree-hugging, leftist, vegan, soy-boy, the type with green hair and dreadlocks that cries about the environment, defaces monuments, and disrupts sporting events. He is a pitiful villain, not worthy of audience’s time, at least those of basic intelligence.
He’s a villain reflecting the modern troll, the one that needlessly causes chaos and disruption without purpose, the one that states, “Ha ha, I’ve killed half of the universe; I ruined everyone’s time! Now, I will retreat to my room like a loser and masturbate to hentai porn!” He’s a villain made for stupid people who cannot tell the difference in value between a pearl and a pebble; he’s a villain made for a selfish population that does not hold allegiance to anything higher than self, than the individual, he’s a villain for those who see no value in allegiance to their civilization, to their nation, displayed by their support, them granting legitimacy to (by being entertained by) a moronic plan that erroneously treats all nations and people somehow as equal, as a universal state, a global village, a false and traitorous modern concept, a moronic plan that indiscriminately kills 50% of the galaxy’s population which lazily does not take such merit or quality, proper vetting, into account.
actually had people saying “Thanos might have an interesting point”
Use word Nihilism
Star Trek use to have philosophical depth, discussing profound ideas like when does the need of the one outweigh the needs of the many, and does superior ability always breed superior ambition, when should the prime directive of not interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations be ignored to save lives but gradually has devolved into mindless action, sex, and explosions, especially since its reboot in 2009. Any deep issues, any thoughtful ideas, any insights into humanity, into man’s nature, if any of these concepts are present in the films to begin with, are now mere given token attention, merely paid lip service, and are swiftly pushed aside for meaningless spectacle.
The 2009 film was egregiously stupid, and showed how much the franchised had fallen. Here audiences can be insulted as they are introduced to stupid villains who want vengeance upon the Federation (the good guys) after their (the villain’s) home planet, Romulus, is destroyed by a supernova; they blame the Federation, more specially Spock, one of the characters (protagonists) and an ambassador on the Federation, since he failed to save Romulus from destruction, but, after the villain’s ship falls into a black hole and the villains are sent back through time (black holes do not work like portals or wormholes, they are massive gravity wells that would mercilessly crush and spaghettify your starship and body, but nonetheless are commonly, and erroneously, depicted as portals and time travel plot devices in fiction; it is important to also mention that in this very film blackholes do whatever the writers want them to do, they sometimes destroy and sometimes act of portals based conveniently on what the plot requires in the moment), instead of warning their people/planet (the Romulans) of the future supernova and their impending doom, that the Romulan Sun will explode destroying the planet, the villains just sit around idle in space in the same spot for decades waiting for Spock, again the protagonist, to emerge through the same black hole (apparently the black hole distorts time so two ships can fall into the black hole at nearly the same time and emerge at the other end years, even decades, apart from each other; this is random and cannot be predicted). The villain’s actions of just sitting around for 25 years doing nothing, therefore, already insults the intellect with its unrealism; it’s the result of poor writing, but the movie then devolves into nothing more than a series of brainless action scenes all while destroying the canon of the original beloved series since this stupid time travel plot alters the timeline.
The main alteration, the main insult, in the timeline is the destruction of the Planet Vulcan, Spock’s home world and intellectual center of the Federation (again, the good guys) since Vulcans are generally portrayed as great thinkers, intellectuals who strictly adhere to logic while suppressing emotion. Spock’s cold, logical character traits and how they interact and often conflict with other characters on the show are one main aspects, the most entertaining parts, of the story of the original series and films, along with his ability to analyze and solve problems using such logic and intellect.
In the movie, however, the villains get revenge upon Spock by destroying the planet (his home world) and killing most of the Vulcans. The planet’s destruction not only happens after a pointless action scene, where the main character’s must recklessly space jump/sky dive on a massive laser the villains are using to drill to the planet’s core so the villains can then launch their black hole weapon (black hole bomb) in the center of the planet to destroy it (the villains could have simply denoted the bomb and created the black hole on the planet’s surface or just outside the planet’s atmosphere and it would have worked just the same without the stupid laser drill), but this unacceptable event, perhaps inadvertently or deliberately, symbolizes the downfall, the utter stupefaction of Star Trek, and of all movies in general.
Of course, the most intelligent planet and race in the United Federation of Planets were targeted and destroyed by the writers in this film, in this relaunching of the franchise, creating an alternate timeline where everyone would be dumber as a result! Star Trek itself is now a dumbed down action franchise with no meaning, and we cannot have intelligent people, the critical, independent, calculating, wise, deep and logical thinkers (the Vulcans, the intelligent fans) ruining the process, trying to insert depth to anything, and maintaining high standards
Again, no event in movie history, in fictional writing, epitomizes the dumbing down of movies, of all Hollywood, of Western society in totality than the blatant (and pointless) destruction of the Planet Vulcan in the Star Trek universe (in the 2009 film). No event in film more epitomizes the utter callousness to intelligence and logic in today’s Western society. Those who truly value wisdom, who value the light, would find it unthinkable to create such a story, an inferior alternate timeline, where Planet Vulcan, the epicenter of intelligence and reason in the fictional universe, is destroyed because everyone in the Federation (the good guys) would again, be less intelligent in the new timeline! The Federation would be unbearably weaker. It’s like people’s thinking an alternate timeline where the feudal Middle Ages never ended, and everyone is dumber as a result, with no technology, no Western population boom, industrial revolution, imperialism, discovery, enlightenment, secularism, medicine, and expansion and no future conflicts like the Seven Years War, Napoleonic War, and the World Wars where massive armies engage on the battlefield with modern technology ever happening is somehow an interesting story.
What Star Trek audience, what fans, actually favor their beloved fictional universe starting a new timeline where, not only is all the precious original canon erased, but everyone, every beloved character, is also inherently dumber? What morons the writers are! What saboteurs these same writers are! It is like they were seeking to relaunch the Star Trek franchise by first eliminating (weeding out, deliberately spitting in the face of) the older fans (the old order) who valued the original series, more accurately its substance. What total morons the movie audiences would have to be to actually see this new dumber timeline as a good thing!
SYMPATHY FOR VILLAINS, VILLAIN WORSHIP, AND AN INCREASE IN IMMORAL BEHAVIOR FROM PROTAGONIST (“THE GOOD GUYS”)
Love and tolerance for villainy in films is also common where an evil antagonist, who murdered people and caused massive destruction, somehow becomes a protagonist (and joins other protagonists) in the next film (like the characters Loki and Magneto in Marvel movies), The undeniable malevolence of evil character’s actions from the previous film is just swept under the rug which shows utter cluelessness to the true nature of evil, that wicked people do not change, that a murderer will murder again and that decent people need to cut-off all contact with the depraved.
Leatherface now anti-hero/sympathetic
Nightcrawler Film (wicked person with a camera)
Movies, like Red Dragon in the Hannibal Franchise, sympathize with the wicked by having the main character, an FBI Agent, concluding that the movie’s villain, who murdered entire families in the film, was only evil because “he suffered years of abuse as a child” and Hannibal, the sophisticated, Cannibalistic, serial killer himself, the star of the franchise, is gradually becoming more humanized and seen as the protagonist.
Man of Steel (2013) has Superman’s adopted father, when Superman was a young boy, suggest to him that “he maybe should have let drowning kids die” to hide his (Superman’s) powers, something the character, Superman’s adopted father, never would have said in previous renditions, as Western audiences had greater morals back then; they would have rightfully found this idea too abhorrent. Therefore, it’s not surprising that this same film, at best, only pays lip service to the extensive collateral damage Superman causes in the film when battling the film’s supervillains.
The Amazing Spiderman 2 (2014) shows Spiderman, who is supposed to be our hero, showing off (showboating) during a dangerous chase scene. Rather than quickly defeating the bad guy who is driving dangerously through the city streets in a high-speed police chase, and stopping his huge semi-truck, something Spiderman can easily do using his superpowers, Spiderman instead toys with the bad guy which then results in multiple fatalities, injuries, and cars being destroyed during the pursuit and later in the film, this character callously denies his dying friend a sample of his blood to save his life. The Spiderman depicted here is morally offensive, and a stark contrast the previous rendition started in 2002. In the 2002 Spiderman movie, Spiderman became Spiderman for more selfless reasons, whereas the Amazing Spiderman (2012), he first becomes Spiderman for personal revenge. The moral decay between the two franchises is obvious.
It would be one thing is these events occurred and Spiderman showed remorse (that him showboating resulted in) and shame and in subsequent scenes had him stopping bad guys without risking people by showboating but this is absent in the film, morality is absent…
Deadpool 2 sees the main character, who is still supposed to be a protagonist, immediately execute a man, while attempting to execute two more men, without due process, without trial, without any thought, without any investigation, because a child character said he was abused by the men and showed signs of suffering abuse. This is not surprising, as in the first film shows Deadpool confronting an evil stalker, doing a seemingly good deed, but only after breaking into an innocent man’s home, robbing him, assaulting him and threatening him with a gun; he also supports his taxi driver sidekick when the taxi driver kidnaps, and apparently kills people, and, also in the second movie, Deadpool casually gets most of his team killed in a reckless sky diving scene all for laughs. Deadpool’s hilarity and charisma, however, makes him difficult to despise (it’s very hard to dislike a person or character who is funny) which means audiences tend to overlook these evil acts; they fail to recognize that while Deadpool is supposed to be an anti-hero, he is actually being depicted here as just another depraved villain. Perhaps one should not assume malice here when stupidity will suffice, nonetheless, the writers for the Deadpool Franchise seem to treat murder and death in their movies as thoughtlessly and carelessly as young boys do when spontaneously playing with their action figures.
A true anti-hero may be fictional characters like Riddick (from Pitch Black) or Snake Plissken (from Escape from New York, Escape from L.A.); these two are never really seen doing depraved acts (they are only accused of such or they threaten to do such, but, in reality, they are only really ever seen though killing bad guys, or in the case of the former, bad guys and alien monsters) but by the 2020s, due to moral decay, actual villains, who clearly do depraved acts, can effectively disguise themselves as mere anti-heroes.
The Star Wars Franchise pioneered villain worship when it tried to make its most famous villain Darth Vader a sympathetic, redeemable character despite him committing depraved acts for decades in the storyline, and the Star War franchise continues to do so with other characters, like Kylo Ren, despite his depraved acts, including murdering his own father, Han Solo, in a shameful (appeasement-like) scene which showed Han Solo foolishly trying to forgive and reason with this wicked man-child (his evil son) first, in which Han Solo was subsequently killed for his efforts. Still, the notion that a man can be wicked, that he can commit malice murder, numerous atrocities, and many other acts of depravity, yet somehow can still be redeemed (becoming a good guy) is sold more and more to audiences despite its absurdity; it insults the intelligence all those who have dealt with evil abusers (psychopaths, sociopaths, malignant narcissists) and understand their dark inner nature; it insults human experience. Hardly any characters in movies seem to have conscience anymore; their motives are completely selfish with no regard for the common good and human life; today’s movies, like today’s society, are a place where evil men are more and more being sold as good men.
The film the Town (2010) now has bank robbers as the protagonists, meaning the robbers being protagonists is not done in a joking (self-aware) lighthearted way, or in a way that more morally digestible, rather, in this movie, the robbers are simply ruthless bad guys, the FBI and police are now serving as the antagonists, or, at the very least, moral equals (mere rivals, obstacles) the protagonists must overcome. That fact that the FBI and law enforcement still serve on the side of good, serve to protect the common good, serve to protect all of society, from the robbers, is a message totally absent in the film. At the end, the female lead, a bank manager who was threatened and kidnapped by the robbers in the film’s opening, even keeps stolen money the main robber gives her out of pity, and she keeps it, she does not do the right thing and turn it back into the authorities. Contrast this to the popular bank robber move Heat (1995) which, although the bank robbers were main characters with plenty of screentime, and the film itself, despite its intense shootout scenes, from an entertainment standpoint, was hurt (was drowned out) by needlessly mixing numerous personal and family problems into the plot, still had the underlying good message that the cops were on the side of justice and that the robbers needed to be stopped. What a difference a mere 15 years makes in showing the decay of societal morality in filmmaking.
Only message might be “no rest for wicked since bankrobbers on the Town are always worried about being caught but isnt intended
Law and Order, the popular TV series, has nearly every witness or potential suspect the detectives, the main characters, question act in an utterly selfish way, even if the characters being questioned are not guilty of any crime. Rather than displaying any concern for the common good, the wellbeing of society and the safety of the overall public, rather than politely and respectfully answering the detective’s questions to help law enforcement weed out potential suspects and solve the case, (especially with these cases usually involving heinous crimes like kidnapping, rape, and murder), rather than cooperating with police which helps law enforcement punish the crime and stop the dangerous criminal faster and cheaper, the people, the normal citizens being questioned barely care to give the detectives their time of day, and, furthermore. act overly offended and irritated by the routine questions the police must logically ask them when doing an investigation.
For example, when the police on the show ask simple questions like “Where were you last night between the hours of 7 pm and midnight?” or “Did the victim have any enemies, did she receive any death threats?” the characters being questioned usually give stupid, emotional, indignant responses like “You can’t possibly believe I killed her!” You cannot possibly consider me a suspect! How dare you!” “How can you think that!? She was a sweet, young girl! all idiotic responses which show clear lack of empathy, as the characters/suspects/witnesses being questioned cannot understand that the detectives just met these people and do not know them or their circumstances, all responses which show zero regard for justice, as the characters/suspects/witnesses care more about their personal feelings, their illogical offense to being questioned, more than the wellbeing of the community, of catching and stopping the criminal before they do more harm, all responses which show, even in the case where the victim is a friend, partner, colleague, or family member of these morons being questioned, zero regard for safety and justice for this victim (and other potential future victims) as again, these people care more about their stupid indignation, their irrational outrage to merely being logically questioned, than they do about someone they apparently care about, even love, being saved or receiving justice. When it comes to Law and Order, perhaps no show better displays the growing selfishness in Western society, the widespread denial of something higher than oneself.
Limitless (2011) is a film that also perfect displays the selfishness of modern society, as it holds no deeper message than keeping a revolutionary drug, which dramatically improves mental ability and productivity, all to oneself, rather than mass producing it for general consumption to improve humanity. The movie instead just has the man character selfishly use the drug to become successful; the drug is merely used for personal gain, so the insufferable character can appear superior to everyone (including the audience which the film is deliberately trying to belittle). To add further insult, the film also has the main character, this selfish scumbag, become successful in politics, when, in reality, being truly smarter and better than others, as the film suggests he is, would significantly reduce someone’s chances to be a successful politician in today’s society, as politicians are representatives of (spawn from) the evil, stupid masses, the selfish-ignorant electorate, which means to be elected, you must better reflect citizen’s lack of character and intelligence. In other words, you must be an evil fool yourself to win the vote.
Morons can try to silence critics of this garbage film by dishonestly claiming that the main character being a scumbag means he would, in fact, fit perfectly in politics, since, again, he is a scumbag like most politicians, so, according to them, the story makes sense, but while this technically true, the problem is the film is not in on the joke, it is not self-aware of this truth, it actually portrays this scumbag as a good guy we, the audience, should root and cheer for, it actually portrays his selfish behavior as normal, as some virtuous ideal to help justify a false idea of meritocracy and triumph in our evil, selfish society where, in reality, primarily the worst appear to succeed (and are incentivized to succeed). The film not only insults us by making the character selfishly horde a drug so he can then be unnaturally all better than us, it also betrays (invalidates) the human experience.
Any other messages? Like taking drugs? Murder suspect?
THE DECLINE OF MORALITY: RETURNING BACK TO COMICS AND OTHER FICTION
Professor X and Spiderman, some of the most famous Marvel Comic characters, now violate others by erasing people’s memories (the idea was still stupid in 1980 when it was pioneered by Superman 2) without the people’s knowledge and consent, whether it be the memories of the innocent or fellow protagonists, which is not only a heinous crime (basically mind rape), it furthermore nullifies what happened (the experiences) in the previous films which insults the audience, like an annoying friend who keeps hitting the reset button (turning off) a video game or deleting save files which erases all progress made; the audience now is forced to wait for the amnesia-stricken characters to have to catch back up on events when we, the audience, already know what has occurred in the previous movies and we were invested in those events, and we expect the characters to have the same experience and investment, but, since they lost their memory, they can no longer have this. Therefore, it’s not only an insult, but also tends to be self-defeating for the story (meaning it makes the story less interesting and compels people not to watch), as the movies are making it seem that all the important events, destructive battles, heroic actions, stunning achievements, moral conflicts-resolutions, and great victories in its own universe ultimately do not matter in the end.
Furthermore, as stated, it is a crime. Imagine if someone erased the memories of your most adventurous and significant experiences, events which shaped who you are:
“Billy? Nah, he does not need those memories of that relationship, he does not need those memories of hanging out with close friends, he does need those memories of being overseas in the military, he does need memories of that gorgeous woman he took to his hotel room, he does not need those memories of studying at the university and getting his degree, he does not need those memories of traveling the world.” “We will just nonchalantly erase them! I’m sure everything will be fine. It’s for the greater good! It’s not like erasing his memory also won’t make him appear stupid, immature, and unqualified for his age or anything because he will no longer have the experiences and lessons and teachings that shaped him as an adult!”
This is how pervert today’s “heroes” are, and we, the audiences, are expected to accept this moral perversion somehow as virtue. In the case of Spiderman, more specifically in the film Spiderman: No Way Home (2021) he plans to erase people’s memory using some spell from another prominent character, the wizard Dr. Strange, which sees Strange, immediately go to cast the spell without any careful planning or consideration for the enormous damage it can cause, which, of course, results in widespread damage, the entire conflict of the movie, resulting in death and destruction, including Spiderman’s aunt. These two heroes are, in reality, shown to be criminals guilty of mind rape, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and, perhaps, even manslaughter, with modern audiences completely ignoring this obvious truth because they enjoy the explosions and nostalgia the film presented (with seeing villains and former Spiderman’s from previous franchises emerge), even though the contrived manner in which it was presented ignores all moral accountability.
The film ends in an insulting way, usurpingly, with memory loss
The previous film, Spiderman Far from Home (2019), was already stupid due to the Bloop (Thanos exterminating 50%
Nick Fury, (surprise) isnt Nick Fury (surpise like its a little kid writing) all the experiences of the entire movie are suddenly thrown away (shows how much movie makers respect audiences time(
Star Wars 2015 starts off same spot as old movies (so what was the point of sacrifice on original films) Palpatine is still alive
(your better idea, error of peace and sith have to sneak in Starkiller base, frozen planet)
Insults old fans and waste’s audiences time
The female lead in Captain American, who the film makers are trying to portray as a strong heroine (some badass), in an attempt to display the durability of Captain America’s metal shield, impulsively shoots the shield while Captain America is holding it, another reckless, depraved, breathtakingly stupid act shown by these comic book movies which put the lives of everyone in the vicinity at risk, including herself, as the bullets can ricochet and kill or seriously injure someone. The filmmakers had to specifically show the bullets somehow magically not ricocheting off the shield to justify the stupid scene, when later scenes show that bullets do, in fact, ricochet off the shield. Even without this, however, her actions were still reckless, as she could have simply missed the shield and shot Captain America, or someone else, like if the bullets missed the shield and did ricochet off another surface.
Venom, a supervillain and one of Spiderman’s strongest opponents, is now apparently a good guy and audiences can watch him kill helpless common criminals who he easily overpowers and forces to surrender with his superhuman abilities, rather than just taking them to the police and providing the police the evidence. No moral query necessary. All while horror movies, like MaXXXine, have protagonist pretty much just as bad as the horrors they face, where the main character, an unscrupulous porn star, maims people and commits murder, and then, of course, gets a movie deal by the end. Hooray for justice!
Hollywood is running out of ideas, and Western populations are becoming more and more tolerant and accepting of evil, so, of course, numerous villains are now getting stand-alone films, especially in the aforementioned Spiderman Franchise, from Venom, to Kraven (despite the word craven being a synonym for cowardice), to the vampire Morbius. Disney, which currently owns Marvel, nonetheless is making its other iconic villains of the past now sympathetic, rebooting them simply as misunderstood and redeemable from Maleficent (originally the villain in Sleeping Beauty), to Cruella (originally the villain in 101 Dalmatians), to Scar (originally the villain in the Lion King), despite their past depictions showing them commit acts of utter treachery and murder, and in the case of Cruella, wanting to skin puppies. These villains were pure evil, but movies today are now trying to make us feel sorry for, and like, these same vile characters because now they have some contrived, sad backstory, as if having a troubled upbringing or past is meant to justify their depraved actions in the original films, as if they were made to do those actions and are somehow now justified and exonerated, and this goes to the point of total absurdity, like Cruella’s mother now being shown to have been killed by Dalmatians (the film Cruella 2021), a laughable backstory, one impossible to take seriously.
The remakes making villains more sympathetic has the inverse effect of making the heroes more villainous and also, we the audience. Are we bad now for wanting to defeat these villain characters, for wanting to see their downfall, after new stories suddenly reveal they had a difficult upbringings and traumatic events in the past, even though the villains still display overt malignancy? In the film Peter Pan & Wendy (2023), Captain Hook, the primary villain in Peter Pan is, again, made to be more sympathetic and redeemable, despite him killing crew mates on a whim and attempting to murder children in the movie. The story reveals though that he was now the first Lost Boy and Peter Pan banished him when James (Hook) left Neverland to find his mother which results in their arch-rivalry, where Peter subsequently cut off James’ (Hook’s) hand and fed it to the crocodile. Hook is certainly evil, but Peter Pan also sounds evil as well in this rendition; therefore, it’s like two psychopaths are battling each other for supremacy rather than a clear good fighting evil, rather than pure light vs pure darkness. In movies today, often the “good guy,” at best, now might only be slightly less dark than the bad guy.
Leatherface now anti-hero/sympathetic (change to anti-hero). Turns chain saw to corrupt police (authorities) who are responsible for family’s murder. Leader face teams up with protagonist (revealed to be his family member: cousin I think) and saves her life.
This decline in movies is partly the result of trying to humanize villains, of trying to see and restore humanity in the inhumane, an act of utter futility. The concept of no one is evil, just misunderstood and that everyone can be rehabilitated (redeemed), has infected the Western mindset, and this foolishness is displayed in our movies today, an ominous sign of the times. It is why, in the real world, the West fails to resolutely punish vile criminals resulting in more crime and evil lurking amongst us, it why the West fails to stand up to predatory states like China and Iran, as these nations constantly watch for weakness in the West, constantly look for an opportune time to strike.
MORAL DECAY IN TV SERIES
The moral decay of villain worship has infiltrated all forms of entertainment, including TV series, creating utterly unlikable characters, like the Girlfriend Experience, where audiences can watch an unlikable main character, an entitled prostitute, swindling men out of their money and stealing from her law firm (using blackmail and frivolous lawsuits), or the show Billions, where audiences can watch an unlikable main character, a greedy rich prick, constantly abuse staff and engage in criminal activity like bribery and insider buying, or the show the Idol where the main character, a decadent, lewd, publicly indecent singer (pop-star), at first seems to almost be victimized by a cult, only to then, by the end, have her suddenly take over the cult and reward the cult members for false rape accusations (she herself is also later revealed to have publicly defamed her dead mom as physically abusive, to win sympathy from fans), or the show the Boys where audiences can watch unlikable main characters, superpowered beings who are corrupt, who have no respect for human life, and who commit outright murder.
Watching TV and film today has become abusive to the audience. More accurately, it is like an abusive relationship. This is because, decades ago, in a time of greater moral clarity, such evil characters would simply serve as villains; many would be quickly dispatched and discarded, as some are so pathetic, so utterly banal, they aren’t worthy of much audience attention, of much screen time, but nonetheless all would be eventually exposed, arrested, injured, or killed by the good guys, but now, instead of being defeated, these scumbags, get their own TV series, where we can watch them, episode by episode, constantly commit wicked deeds with virtually impunity, almost as if the evil creators of the shows are mocking the audience (and Western society overall) for what sickness they can get away with on screen.
The characters, the walking cancers now put on the screen, insult our intelligence and offend our conscience, but, often, they are also so deplorable, so both worrying and intriguing because they reflect the moral decay of times evidenced by the fact that much of the viewing masses no longer see anything wrong with the immoral behavior the characters exhibit on screen, we, the good people, as the audience are still often compelled to hate-watch in frustration and fascination.
Godwin’s Law
In adherence to Godwin’s law, the malevolence of Nazi Germany is well documented in history, but moral decay of today’s Western society has reached such a point the movies can actually make audiences feel sorry for the Nazis.
Inglorious Bastards (make Nazis look good) novelly change history but allies did not want to kill Hitler cause it would martyr him (and he was conducting poor strategy)
Quentin Tara movies, (rotten characters, gross fetishes) (long tense dialog followed by short bursts of depravity and violence but too much (by his older films like DeathProof)
Allies plan an operation that is beneath them
Training Day and Fury (try hard movies) and in the case of the latter portrays a 50 year old Brad Pitt as an Enlisted Staff Sergeant
Movies like training day and fury pretentious movies trying so hard to seem tough. (Latter has American soldiers going to rape and shoot prisoners?
Add THE IDOL (which shows the degeneracy of the music industry, where characters engage in public indecency, cultlike behavior (to which they never repent) and are rewarded for false accusations.
Fury: American troops threatening to rape German women
or Inglorious bastards where Americans are seen just as worse (baseball bat and assassinations)
Rick Sanchez in Rick and Morty (audience is in on the joke when he exhibts depravity and criminal behavior) only now its degrading and frustrating
Comparing comic movies to past mythology
Man of Steel (dialogue) and Dawn of Justice (Dialogue) (also pre-historic, not ancient)
Man of Steel (father
Dark Knight Rise (people just believe Bane and he also restores Batman’s reputation which is odd))
Spiderman 3 (just happens to wander..
Star Wars (same plot as original film with empire/first order being in power and Sidious being alive which destroys meaning in first films. (Sidious would of had to survive two explosions (including Death Star)
Should have been republic built Star Killer base (with Sith Infaltrating ) but no time goes into the stories
Movies on assemble line
Star Trek (villain waits pointlessly for 26 years??) (destroys vulcan, symblozies the stupefication of film since Vulcan was intellectual center of Galatic Federation and Starfleet.
Wonder Woman 1984
Turning R rated movies to PG-13 for money
Invisible Man (rather than using invisible suit to dominate the world, or to sell for billions of dollars, or engaging in vigilantism and political assassinations, he spends the whole movie stalking his ex.
Goons shooting at superhero or villain for a full minute even though its obvious he is invincible to bullets within the first few seconds.
Both Iron Man 2 and Amazing Spiderman have dead parents somehow predicting son will find their message in impossible to predict display/ or his dad knew he would break calculator for coins to find dad’s message or whatever.
WWF/WWE Decline
Sacrifice story arcs, for single segment shock value, cannot distinguish between good head and bad heat (HHH giving title for free, Shawn Michaels trolling Canadian fans by making them think Hitman, giving belts based on time in business rather than Main event showmanship/charisma, Made Shawn Michaels join NWO (sacrilege unless it is a trick, Made NWO heels when they should have been underdogs.
EXCLUSION OF INTELLECTUALS IN FILM
In an age if self-proclaimed tolerance, a title which by itself is idiotic as to tolerate something depends on the circumstances whether it is sensible or not, there is nonetheless a cruel (evil) intolerance for the intelligent and for the wise, for the top 10% and this is shown in movies today the majority of which are now clearly designed to appeal to the bottom 90%, to the dumbest, most simpleminded amongst us, while deliberately excluding the top 10%, the critical, deepest thinkers; movie makers have become the school yard bullies seeking to abuse and ignore who they perceive to be the “nerds”, despite the fact that designing movies for the top 10% ultimately ends up satisfying everyone, both the top 10% and bottom 90% (as meaning, as substance, augments the action, appearance and special effects, the superficial things the least intelligent fixate on, while also increasing the film’s storytelling and longevity, perhaps making it a fan favorite or cult classic admired for decades, the things that the intellectual fixates on) but the stupefaction of Hollywood and the movie industry continues in the callous quest for short-sighted profit (assembly line movie making) causing most movies today to be utterly forgettable,
Movie makers rather keep abusing the public, making braindead films designed to appeal to the simpleton (the bottom 90%) while intentionally excluding the intellectual (the top 10%) showing the true depth of their “tolerance” and “inclusion”, more accurately their total lack of such. They have no regard, no sympathy, for the intellectuals who are insulted and alienated by the stupidity and amorality of their films, they have no desire to include them in the club, even though this ultimately would end up benefiting everyone. Such movie makers always give the same dismissive, bullying response to those who possess any measure of wisdom and critical thought, in other words, to those who have the mental capability to accurately appraise and analyze their movies, they always end up just saying “perhaps this movie is not for you!,” “perhaps this franchise is no longer for you!” or “well just do not watch it if you hate it!,” in response to valid criticism, in response to their vile intolerance of the light, in response to their lack of moral accountability of putting absolute idiocy on screen for people to somehow digest as entertainment.
But why? Why shouldn’t the movie be made for smart people? For what purpose are the truthful witnesses excluded? Why was the movie specifically made not for us? Why weren’t we welcomed to it? Why can’t we also enjoy the fictional world, the lore created? We weren’t we welcomed along for the ride? How can the movie industry needlessly keep excluding 10% of the population, keep throwing them under the bus, keep leaving them behind, when this 10% has the most to offer in terms of establishing quality standards in film, when there is no need for this exclusion as satisfying this 10% improves storytelling and film making for everyone, without it being anything else but a form of utter callousness, a lack of conscience? They are like the schoolyard bully who, for no reason, does not permit a certain kid to play in the game while he invites all other kids to play; like the bully, the scumbag movie makers today love leaving the deep thinkers out in the cold.
We the TW Community do not…
Hardcore fans are ignored (who know most about comics). like batman killing casually in Batman v Superman movie.
People with memory and able to go back decades (able to see more than a week in the future/past) know new star wars betrayed old as, Sidious is back and Empire still reigns making the victories in previous films meaningless. They are betrayed by “oh look Star Wars pretty, Light saber battles cool crowd”
Kevin costner says “maybe you should let them die” to keep his identity a secret” Superman has no regard for casualties (even in second one after bomb goes off next to him) he just flies away. Only Lip service to destruction he is causing and Batman kills and brands (which is a death sentence in prison)
What about hero worship (like Anakin becoming space Jesus, or Riddick becoming the man of prophecy or whatever when he was flawed in Pitch Black
The opinion of 10 hardcore fans who love the game/movie and play it, watching and have analyzed it, is superior to the opinions of 100,000 casuals who simply are not knowledgeable enough to know what’s best to make a superior product/masterpiece/work of art.
Ash v Evil Dead (resurrects in drunken stupor showing depravity)
Star Trek into Darkness (Khan , who is white for some reason, which is usually opposite, is not a good guy wanting to protect his crew, fellow supermen) (contrast him to 1960s where he and his gang are simply biological supermen who want to dominate all they deem inferior) (also reason Khan appears in movie is stupid)
DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY NOW COMMONPLACE AND NORMALIZED
Authority figures, like politicians, are constantly ridiculed and mocked on TV, on social media, and in public showing an increased in childishness of Western populations. By the 2020s, in fact, decades before the 2020s, this has become completely normalized to where even good citizens are utterly desensitized to it. It is no longer shocking to turn on a comedy show and see an actor in some skit imitating the President or Prime Minister as some laughable fool, idiot, or buffoon. This is another example of Mental Decay. Many citizens are unaware, due to long-time exposure, that this behavior is not normal and would have been totally unacceptable many decades prior because people of the past were more well behaved and virtuous so therefore had awed respect for authority. Authority figures are fools today but this must be stated, as they come from citizenry.
Click Bait and Twitter (Thumbnails)
Wonder Woman (1984)
Hereditary (cowardice)
Midsommar (cowardice)
Spiderman 3 (coincidence after coincidence: poor writing after poor writing) (only people around Paker get powers)
Dana White Throwing UFC fans (hardcore, first fans) under the bus by calling them haters for doubting PowerSlap, acting like they are the ones who always doubted him when they stood up to the haters (so quality gets replaced with lower grade). Movie franchisess now do the same thing to older generation (first fans) who claim new movies arent up to quality standard when the people they shame were the very ones who stood up for franchise in beginning from real haters and unreasonable critics.
In 1980s song with the word SEX in it was considered edgy and by 2020s we have Wet Ass Pussy and Titty Fucking… other whatever.
Prometheus sucked…all its flaws…
Titanic Flaws
Problem is the movies are praised/tolerated/normailized
Movies are intolerable but if you have kids, have to be exposed them knowing the films kids are talking about would have been morally and intellectually unacceptable today.
Conclusion
Just about everything released today insults the intelligence, movies, music, content, nearly all of it.
Everything is an affront to common sense
almost need a committee for countering Anti-intellectualism
Conclusion:
Writing on this paged had to stop as some point, but movies and shows present and future will probably be even worse, even more guilty, even worst than the ones on this page.
Despite aging population, still making movies for kids (either shows child worship or adults today think like children-are children)
Movies made for kids, too much action, see monster too soon.
Sometimes its the absence of action (just tension) which is more effective. The absence of the monster is more effective cause you are wondering where it is in the darkness. but movies are made for ADHD with non-stop activity.
Compare jaws and Relic with a Quiet Place (or whatever other horror movie which does an immediate reveal)
Movies above are cheered mostly
Appealing to the Dumbest People (why, cause they will watch anything)
Free Market is failing by letting these movies be successful.
Arent fools criticizing remakes cause we judge on individual merits
The Moral Decay is subtle, insidious, almost goes without seeing it
Might not notice due to actor charisma, exciting tone or humor of movie
Cause citizens are tolerating whatever garbage they put on screen. (in fact are demanding it)
register
login 
JOIN THE DISCUSSION