What Are Your Favorite DEEP Films Worth Re-watching? by JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Well... this thread got too political for me. SGG coming in and putting a thick coating of white guilt on it sealed the deal for me.

It's a shame we can't discuss anything here without politics muddying the waters.

I invite you to reconsider.
The conversation about some films which nobody has nominated for the category of this thread topic may be a tad off the topic, but I was/am willing to discuss them with other film fans.

However, I also would enjoy discussing other nominees for the category of DEEP films worth re-watching. Do you have some in mind?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:58 PM

Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Another film that was shit all over when it came out is "Dance With Wolves".

The end of this film upsets me.
Which part? Why?
Did you want him to stay so the Army would hunt down and destroy the tribe?
The very last few scenes when Costner's character and his wife were riding off separate from the Dakota. Those scenes showed what would become the end of an entire culture JSF. The Horse culture that was part of my ancestors and the Cheyenne and the Dakota and the Crow was coming to an end. That band would end up on a reservation. Way of life GONE.

Also at the end of the film, he wasn't in the army anymore. He had become Indian.
OK. So you are not upset that he tried to stave off the inevitable by returning to the Army so they would stop hunting down the tribe. You're only bemoaning the inevitable, the point of the film.
Costner's character rejoining the army would not have stopped anything. This film is set during the American expansion further into the West. There was no making the army stop hunting this band of Dakota.

Ceeehrist, JSF are you really that obtuse not to see that the army paved the way into the West and with that the conflict and the confrontations that occurred?

Were we just suppose to roll over and play dead because the White man wanted OUR land?
JSF is kinda right Brenda, as far as the movie goes. Hell, you're right as well.
I'll explain:

You're right about the US Cavalry/Army moving west and displacing tribes as they went along. Hell, they were being massacred. Land wasn't the only thing that was being taken, the culture and the spirit of the Native Americans were also being taken. It is well documented what the government did to the human beings that were here well before the arrival of the Europeans. Even the name Native Americans is a misnomer, as the country was "discovered" by the Europeans for Europeans.

America was so named by them after:
Quote:
Because a German map maker named it after Amerigo Vespucci because he was the first person to prove that America was a "New World" so he called it Amerigo but accidentally miss spelled it so it America.

German, Italian and soon after many other "immigrants" made their way to this country, they had a hand in the making of this country taken from those that were already here. Funny how that works isn't it. This is the land of those people and yet we have some "people" who think that building a wall is the answer to this country's problems. All I can say is Tisk, Tisk! Ironic isn't it. Land taken, stolen and those that did the stealing are claiming that others that come here are trespassing. That takes a lot of nerve. unbelievably huge balls to say anything other than thank you.

JSF is right about "Dunbar" not going back to rejoin the Cavalry at his post on the outskirts of the territory. In the movie he went back to retrieve his "dairy" and notes of his time out on the edge of the western territory, at least the edge as far as the whites were concerned. His story is one of understanding, after years of civil war and now the war against the native peoples, he describes in his book how he came to understand and care about humans that had a different way of life; different than the one he was used to.

Someone on YouTube described it as Wind in His Hair, once a bitter enemy to all whites, also came to understand that not all whites wanted his death. He came to understand Dunbar, a white man. Just as Dunbar came to understand that the natives had their own way of life, as noble as any human being. He befriended Wind in his Hair and discovered his humanity. The imagery is unforgettable, poignant and remarkable for many reasons: one is showing the Native man on top of the cliff shouting to those below and declaring his friendship and understanding. The imagery of the native on top and making the statement for all in the film and those of us watching the film - here I am a Native American finally getting my say.
I am not your enemy, I am your friend. The symbolism was utterly breathtaking.

Costner made a wise decision to use that scene, because it spoke volumes. He rode off to save the tribe he was traveling with. And he showed the Native American as a human with a heart Now, some may say that here is a white man thinking so much of himself so as to say that only he could save the Native American. I could understand that. But here's my take on that final scene, although it could be considered arrogant on Costner's part, I think he, as hero, steps aside on places the spotlight on Wind in His Hair. It is a double hero shot, the white man and Native American, riding off into the sunset.

He gets his book, which is his account of how he came to understand and appreciate his fellow man, the American native to this land.

Quote:

It is ironic and those trappers and traders in the US and Canada went on to create a new race of people on this continent and like what happened in India and other parts of the world, the children of those mixed races weren't always wanted by either sides.

I've known for a lot of years that "Indian" was a misnomer. Which is where the phrase "Native American" comes from during the late 60s and early 70s.

And I thank you for telling me how America got its name. I have tried for years to find that out and maybe I just wasn't looking in the right areas to find the information.

I will admit that it has been a while since I have seen the movie and so I probably have lost some of the finer points of it and should sit down and watch it again.

I'm glad that Costner used those scenes at the end.

Hell, SGG. My family white and American Indian had hands in the country that was to become the US. My aunt Sacajawea was with Lewis and Clark because her husband was hired by them as a tracker and he spoke a couple of languages.

Don't know if you know this but Costner did a little project a while after called, "500 Nations" that covered South America, into the US and possibly Canada. Costner himself carried NA blood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2017 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I've known for a lot of years that "Indian" was a misnomer. Which is where the phrase "Native American" comes from during the late 60s and early 70s.

And I thank you for telling me how America got its name. I have tried for years to find that out and maybe I just wasn't looking in the right areas to find the information.

My reply got deleted by the site. An hour down the drain.

Short version:
Leif Erikson visited what is now Nova Scotia, IIRC. Archeological remains of their buildings have been located.

Christopher Columbus searches for Far East (Orient), conjures that the Earth is not actually flat, and tries to go around the world, without falling off the edge of the Earth.
At landfall, the humans he finds less resemble Asians than those of India (a British Colony), so it is assumed they overshot Asia and found the east coast of India - therefore these humans are referred to as Indians.
This is the 1490's.

1499, Amerigo Vespucci travels with a small fleet, and proves the land they find (modern Brazil, West Indies) is not actually part of Asia, but a previously "unknown" 4th continent. His letters begin to get published in 1502.

1520, Ferdinand Magellan is also looking for a shortcut to the Far East - the Spice Islands. Around the southern tip of South America, he finds a new ocean - the second one of the world, and names it Pacific because it was peaceful when he found it. He thinks he is a short way to the Spice Islands, but he has found the largest Ocean on the planet, large enough to fit all landmasses within it.
Prior to this, all maps show THE OCEAN labeled as Atlantic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 30, 2017 9:10 PM

Notice that I repeatedly say that the Europeans discovered "America" for the Europeans. The country was always here, hence the undiscovered part, and the "natives" were always here.

I'm strictly speaking of how America got it's name, mistakenly named by the Europeans via the German mapmaker Martin Waldseemuller, way back when (circa 1504).
There are various accounts, but here are two that are close to what I learned in college:

Quote:
1- According to a book that I have been reading entitled "The Island of Lost Maps" by Miles Harvey,and I am reasonably sure this is the correct answer. In 1507 the cartographer, Martin Waldseemuller made one of the first maps to depict the "New World" and he was under the mistaken impression that Amerigo Vespucci had discovered the the land mass and so he named the southern part of the continent, "America",he later on found out about his error and deleted Vespucci's name from his further editions,but by that time the name "America" had stuck to the whole continent so it was too late to change that name.

Ray Sinclair, Pickering.Ontario Canada

and

Quote:
2- A Florentine businessman who moved to Seville, where he ran a ship supply busines (Incidentally supplying one for Cristophe Colon - Columbus) he visited the new world only three or four times as a lowly officer or passenger. He was not an accomplished seaman. However, in 1504-5 letters of unknown authorship began circulating in Florence stating that Vespucci had been Captain of voyages to the new world. The mistake would have gone no further except that an instructor at a small college in eastern France - Martin Waldseemuller - was working on a revised edition of Ptolemy and updated it with a new map of the world. He came across the letters with the spurious account of Vespucci's exploits and named the continent in his honour. First translating Amerigo into the Latin 'Americus' and then into its feminine form (as with Europe and Asia) America. Interestingly Vespucci is thought to have been the brother of Simonetti Vespucci - Boticelli's Venus!! All of this is taken from 'Made in America' by Bill Bryson.

Ben Roome, London

Take your pick. Both name Vespucci, and both seem to allude to mistakes made. That's all well and good, but what seems to be missing is the fact that people, native peoples, were already living here. How typical is the European mentality to dismiss anything that doesn't originate from the "Old World." This is wrongheaded
thinking that dominates the mentality of certain members of our society. The more correct approach would be to acknowledge that people inhabited these countries/nations and that the discovery of same was on behave of the Europeans -
Spanish, English, Dutch, Scandinavian, etc. - and who's history does not begin and end with the written history as we have come to know it.

My final suggestion is that "America" is a lot more than the history of 1776, our declaration of independence, but that it incorporates an amalgam of peoples. Including, but not limited to, the natives of these lands. Immigrants, after all,
are, historically speaking, uninvited guests.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Posted/edited for readability:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I've known for a lot of years that "Indian" was a misnomer. Which is where the phrase "Native American" comes from during the late 60s and early 70s.

And I thank you for telling me how America got its name. I have tried for years to find that out and maybe I just wasn't looking in the right areas to find the information.
My reply got deleted by the site. An hour down the drain.

Short version:
Leif Erikson visited what is now Nova Scotia, IIRC. Archeological remains of their buildings have been located.

Christopher Columbus searches for Far East (Orient), conjures that the Earth is not actually flat, and tries to go around the world, without falling off the edge of the Earth.
At landfall, the humans he finds less resemble Asians than those of India (a British Colony), so it is assumed they overshot Asia and found the east coast of India - therefore these humans are referred to as Indians.
This is the 1490's.

1499, Amerigo Vespucci travels with a small fleet, and proves the land they find (modern Brazil, West Indies) is not actually part of Asia, but a previously "unknown" 4th continent. His letters begin to get published in 1502.

1520, Ferdinand Magellan is also looking for a shortcut to the Far East - the Spice Islands. Around the southern tip of South America, he finds a new ocean - the second one of the world, and names it Pacific because it was peaceful when he found it. He thinks he is a short way to the Spice Islands, but he has found the largest Ocean on the planet, large enough to fit all landmasses within it.
Prior to this, all maps show THE OCEAN labeled as Atlantic.

That happens.

The only one I didn't know about was Amerigo Vespucci.

Those sites in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are still being worked on and new sites or smaller areas that were used by the Vikings are still being found.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:25 AM

OONJERAH

Columbus discovered America in 1492. (NM previous discovery by Norse-
men.) Next followed the Conquistadores, and finally, civilian colonists.
As the Spanish created their presence in the Americas, they brought
along Missionaries to teach (i.e. convert) & pacify the Natives; and
they brought horses. It will have taken a while for some of their
horses to go native, go wild on American grasslands, and to breed
in sufficient numbers to become useful to the Native tribes.

At any rate, the Horse Culture of the Plains Indians, I'll guess,
would have lasted from about 1550, as wild horses became numerous
on the great plains, until the tribes were subjugated and placed on
reservations. About 300 years. Even if all the tribes had banded
together a) they would not have had the strength to stand up to
the U.S. Army, and b) the more they tried to do so, the more people
in Washington and the frontier would call for their extermination.
A great deal of human history concerns conquest and war. And the
victors get to write their own version of it.

I know nothing of the tribes in Canada. And tho I am a child of
California, I've not read that history in 50 years. Numerous Spanish
missions we still have. Dunno if they were the 1st foreigners to
colonize here; but if you tell me there were Russian & Chinese set-
tlements here before the Spanish, I'll believe it. ... I also suspect
the bits & pieces of pre-Spanish history we have are tiny fragments
from a huge story.

Enuf Off-Topic rambling!

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

I've given up looking for the meaning of life. Now all I want is a cookie.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:12 AM

I guess that's human nature no matter what "tribe" you are with. It's inevitable that neighboring peoples will fight and disagree on occasion, all around the world.

As I have stated elsewhere, the Tainos had the Caribs. They would often come to steal the women. In "Last of the Mohicans" their enemy was the Iroquois. By the way, a good movie with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
SGG,

"Little Big Man" makes a point of showing the Cheyenne and the Pawnee as enemies.

Mine and the Hidatsa weren't exactly friends.

There was trade between different groups as Archaeologists have found sea shells that only come from the Pacific Northwest in the region that mine occupied.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 1, 2017 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
SGG,

"Little Big Man" makes a point of showing the Cheyenne and the Pawnee as enemies.

Mine and the Hidatsa weren't exactly friends.

There was trade between different groups as Archaeologists have found sea shells that only come from the Pacific Northwest in the region that mine occupied.

I guess that's human nature no matter what "tribe" you are with. It's inevitable that neighboring peoples will fight and disagree on occasion, all around the world.

As I have stated elsewhere, the Tainos had the Caribs. They would often come to steal the women. In "Last of the Mohicans" their enemy was the Iroquois. By the way, a good movie with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye.

SGG

Have you seen Black Robe (1991)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2017 1:30 AM

No, I haven't seen Black Robe.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
SGG,

"Little Big Man" makes a point of showing the Cheyenne and the Pawnee as enemies.

Mine and the Hidatsa weren't exactly friends.

There was trade between different groups as Archaeologists have found sea shells that only come from the Pacific Northwest in the region that mine occupied.

I guess that's human nature no matter what "tribe" you are with. It's inevitable that neighboring peoples will fight and disagree on occasion, all around the world.

As I have stated elsewhere, the Tainos had the Caribs. They would often come to steal the women. In "Last of the Mohicans" their enemy was the Iroquois. By the way, a good movie with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye.

SGG
Have you seen Black Robe (1991)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 2, 2017 6:46 PM

OONJERAH

I don't know anything about Deep.

As a child, here's what I learned from movies.

The hero is handsome and he rides the fastest, prettiest horse.
He's fast on the draw and never misses his shot. He can shoot
the gun out of a villain's hand without even hurting him much.
He always wins the fist fights.

Then when martial arts became the norm, I saw that fight scenes
were Deeply improved.

As I matured, my awareness of Deep remained muted.

I like pretty movies with lots of action, & I like the Good
Guys to win. The Good Guys need not be moody & conflicted.

A favorite of Chrisisall's & I agree:
"Blood of Heroes" (1989)
When I 1st had my own copy of it, I watched it every night
for a week or two.

But then it is by David Webb Peoples who also wrote "Bladerunner"
& a bunch of great stuff.

Yes, I saw "The Last of the Mohicans" was great if not deep.

~Oon-Arrested-Development

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 3, 2017 2:10 AM

I get your take on being a child of the movies and keeping it simple. Good Guys win, Bad Guys are bad and always lose in a knock-down, drag-out final fight scene.

I am big on fighting for right and for honor....Blood of Heroes fits the bill in many ways. This was a film that you learned the rules of the game as the story unfolded. This is my favorite type of storytelling. It is one of my all-time favorites. Simple, but in it's simplicity brilliant in telling the story of a warrior. I love this shit! Sort of like Gladiator and Mad Max.

Deep, naw! Just awesome!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:

I don't know anything about Deep.

As a child, here's what I learned from movies.

The hero is handsome and he rides the fastest, prettiest horse.
He's fast on the draw and never misses his shot. He can shoot
the gun out of a villain's hand without even hurting him much.
He always wins the fist fights.

Then when martial arts became the norm, I saw that fight scenes
were Deeply improved.

As I matured, my awareness of Deep remained muted.

I like pretty movies with lots of action, & I like the Good
Guys to win. The Good Guys need not be moody & conflicted.

A favorite of Chrisisall's & I agree:
"Blood of Heroes" (1989)
When I 1st had my own copy of it, I watched it every night
for a week or two.

But then it is by David Webb Peoples who also wrote "Bladerunner"
& a bunch of great stuff.

Yes, I saw "The Last of the Mohicans" was great if not deep.

~Oon-Arrested-Development

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Well... this thread got too political for me. SGG coming in and putting a thick coating of white guilt on it sealed the deal for me.

It's a shame we can't discuss anything here without politics muddying the waters.
I invite you to reconsider.
The conversation about some films which nobody has nominated for the category of this thread topic may be a tad off the topic, but I was/am willing to discuss them with other film fans.

However, I also would enjoy discussing other nominees for the category of DEEP films worth re-watching. Do you have some in mind?

I'd have to think about that one. I really haven't watched a lot of movies for a long time. TV shows are just so good today and have a lot more to offer in almost every category except for brevity.

Have you checked out the UK series Black Mirror? I've mentioned it a few times in the threads, but I don't think anybody has watched it at all.

It's like Twilight Zone but a really high production value and it centers around Technology and how it could and is effecting our lives. Generally speaking, I wouldn't recommend it for anybody who likes feeling all warm and fuzzy after watching something. There's no serious blood or gore in any of them, and most of them aren't even that type of flick which is a major plus for me. They all make you think about the world we're living in today and what it might be like in the future if we're not careful.

They're all good-to-great, but my top recommended episodes would be "White Christmas", "Shut Up And Dance" and "15 Million Merits".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Well... this thread got too political for me. SGG coming in and putting a thick coating of white guilt on it sealed the deal for me.

It's a shame we can't discuss anything here without politics muddying the waters.
I invite you to reconsider.
The conversation about some films which nobody has nominated for the category of this thread topic may be a tad off the topic, but I was/am willing to discuss them with other film fans.

However, I also would enjoy discussing other nominees for the category of DEEP films worth re-watching. Do you have some in mind?

I'd have to think about that one. I really haven't watched a lot of movies for a long time. TV shows are just so good today and have a lot more to offer in almost every category except for brevity.

Have you checked out the UK series Black Mirror? I've mentioned it a few times in the threads, but I don't think anybody has watched it at all.

It's like Twilight Zone but a really high production value and it centers around Technology and how it could and is effecting our lives. Generally speaking, I wouldn't recommend it for anybody who likes feeling all warm and fuzzy after watching something. There's no serious blood or gore in any of them, and most of them aren't even that type of flick which is a major plus for me. They all make you think about the world we're living in today and what it might be like in the future if we're not careful.

They're all good-to-great, but my top recommended episodes would be "White Christmas", "Shut Up And Dance" and "15 Million Merits".

I'm not in the UK.
TV is so hard to catch. Tune in to see something you want, and find out they changed the showtime to the previous hour, so you just missed it. Race home to see a show, same thing. Or they have baseball on instead.
Movies have show times, which seem to be fairly stable and consistent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 6, 2017 7:20 PM

I'm tellin' ya man. Google FireStick and Kodi.

40 bucks and about 5 minutes of your time if you're moderately competent with computers and you can watch any TV show you want to on your time without commercials.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:28 PM

I got a couple of movies I want to watch again now that I'm sober... I'm going to hold off on saying they're worth watching, let alone re-watching.

Circle: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3118452/?ref_=nv_sr_4

The Human Race: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1427298/?ref_=nv_sr_2

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 17, 2017 5:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Actually went and had a read on the premise of the film and I think I did get it. Might still give it a rewatch in a few months.

Which premise did you read? Got a linky?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
Actually went and had a read on the premise of the film and I think I did get it. Might still give it a rewatch in a few months.

Which premise did you read? Got a linky?

It was on Wikipedia. Sorry no linky. I suck at doing links on this site.

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_(film)

That does have some errors, but they got the gist of it.

Which part did you think you didn't get? I didn't get enough of the details until several viewings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 19, 2017 10:57 PM

My dad may have kinda ruined Arrival for me, but maybe that wasn't the big point of the movie. He said that it had an idea in it that he'd never heard before or thought about before that he found fascinating and it was that we are so unsuccessful as a race on Earth because not a single one of our languages contain proper words that allow us to communicate more effectively and..... well... I didn't see it and I'm paraphrasing him and I don't want to mis-represent what he was saying or the idea in the movie.

I suppose I'll have to put this one on the top of my list of things to watch.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
My dad may have kinda ruined Arrival for me, but maybe that wasn't the big point of the movie. He said that it had an idea in it that he'd never heard before or thought about before that he found fascinating and it was that we are so unsuccessful as a race on Earth because not a single one of our languages contain proper words that allow us to communicate more effectively and..... well... I didn't see it and I'm paraphrasing him and I don't want to mis-represent what he was saying or the idea in the movie.

I suppose I'll have to put this one on the top of my list of things to watch.

I do suggest you watch it.
Perhaps the idea that your dad shared was that almost all languages, even within each language, are riddled with terms which are "subject to interpretation" - not a quote from the film. In Hollywood, these differing interpretations provide confusion, conflict, comedy - "and hilarity ensues."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 21, 2017 6:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I do suggest you watch it.
Perhaps the idea that your dad shared was that almost all languages, even within each language, are riddled with terms which are "subject to interpretation" - not a quote from the film. In Hollywood, these differing interpretations provide confusion, conflict, comedy - "and hilarity ensues."

Maybe he picked up on something that was more subtle. I figured since you've seen it you would have known exactly what he was talking about.

I kind of got the idea that he meant that because we lacked the proper words in any language that these aliens had in their own that we were unable even to imagine concepts that would allow for the future success of our race. I immediately thought of the opposite of this in 1984 with NewSpeak and the purposeful dumbing down of the language so that the proles would one day be completely unable to even think about the idea of rebelling against Big Brother because they lacked any words to even put those ideas together.

On a side note... I thought of another movie I'd like to add to the list.

eXistenZ

As always, if you haven't seen it I suggest you go into it not knowing anything about it beforehand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 21, 2017 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
On a side note... I thought of another movie I'd like to add to the list.

eXistenZ

As always, if you haven't seen it I suggest you go into it not knowing anything about it beforehand.

Added.
How many times have you seen it?
What concepts or details are not caught the first few viewings?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 22, 2017 7:08 AM

I've probably seen it 3 or 4 times over the years.

It's hard for me to say anything about it without spoiling the movie.

Are you asking because you've already seen it? I wouldn't want to ruin it for anybody who would watch it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 22, 2017 7:31 PM

I don't think I've seen it, wondered why you conjured it applied to this topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MOOSE:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by Moose:
Jacquiline Bissett...worth watching more than once.
Dude, I agree with you. That classic picture of her in The Deep (her in scuba gear and a T-shirt and that's it).

Hubba, Hubba!

Quote:
Quote:
SGG
IIRC, the director once said that t-shirt made him a lot if money.

On DVD, that T-shirt underwater is the whole first 2 chapters.
After watching it again, I was reminded again about the racial tension, with her being sexually assaulted by the gang of black guys. That likely doesn't come through for first time viewers at this date, but back then it was a hotter topic. And rape tension was a lot more hot then, as well - not the mundane "date" rape that it's been watered down to now. I recall the tension in those scenes was palpable, while today most viewers likely don't even notice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I don't think I've seen it, wondered why you conjured it applied to this topic.

It's one of my favorite movies (eXistenZ). I think it was in the theatres about a week or two. My friend rented it one night and I'd never even heard about it. It was the first movie I'd seen Jude Law in, and it was the first time I'd seen Jennifer Jason Leigh in a movie since I was a little kid. She never looked better.

Here's what IMDB (and probably the box) says...

Quote:
A game designer on the run from assassins must play her latest virtual reality creation with a marketing trainee to determine if the game has been damaged.

I really wouldn't want to say any more than that about it. It's not a movie I'd want to ruin for anybody.

I'd say that the movie Inception probably owes quite a bit to eXistenZ.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 5:52 AM

Hey Six, I want you to know that, based on what you described, I don't think your father spoiled the movie for you. It is one of the themes within the movie and it definitely makes you think. Like JSF said, watch the movie, I believe you'll enjoy it. Then you'd be better prepared to discuss your thoughts on it. If you wanted to do that.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I do suggest you watch it.
Perhaps the idea that your dad shared was that almost all languages, even within each language, are riddled with terms which are "subject to interpretation" - not a quote from the film. In Hollywood, these differing interpretations provide confusion, conflict, comedy - "and hilarity ensues."

Maybe he picked up on something that was more subtle. I figured since you've seen it you would have known exactly what he was talking about.

I kind of got the idea that he meant that because we lacked the proper words in any language that these aliens had in their own that we were unable even to imagine concepts that would allow for the future success of our race. I immediately thought of the opposite of this in 1984 with NewSpeak and the purposeful dumbing down of the language so that the proles would one day be completely unable to even think about the idea of rebelling against Big Brother because they lacked any words to even put those ideas together.

On a side note... I thought of another movie I'd like to add to the list.

eXistenZ

As always, if you haven't seen it I suggest you go into it not knowing anything about it beforehand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2017 1:03 AM

Has anybody seen Primer (2004), or the followup film?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2017 10:03 AM

MOOSE

There was a follow up to Primer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 11, 2017 4:18 PM