Favorite team:Winthrop
Location:GA
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:4157
Registered on:12/31/2020
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
Ad Astra


An absolute sludge of a movie
Enjoyed it- just thought the casting was awful nearly all the way around.
Say what you want about Denmark- but the parties at least somewhat listen to their citizens.

Her party went from pro immigrant to institutionally the toughest crackdowns on immigration in Europe including bringing back the term ghetto
quote:

Abomination of the source. Not in any way a masterpiece.


That’s not really an argument—that’s just a strong opinion with no reasoning behind it.

If we’re going to be fair about Frankenstein, start with a simple question:
Is the job of an adaptation to copy the book… or to interpret it? If the answer is to copy it, does every single word of dialogue need be copied for it to reach your standard of a faithful adaptation?


Judging a film only by how closely it follows the text misses the point. The real test is whether it keeps the core idea intact—and it does:
• A man creates life
• Fails his responsibility
• Pays for it

That spine is still there.

They just take a different path:
• Book: Victor creates the Creature and abandons him immediately
• Movie: He tries to shape him into something human—and still fails

Different execution, same failure of the creator.

And the changes you’re pointing to aren’t random—they’re consistent shifts in emphasis:
• Elizabeth ? reworked relationship
• Creature ? more emotional, less calculated
• Violence ? more reactive than deliberate

That’s not “butchering the story”—that’s a different angle on the same moral problem.

Then you look at the film on its own terms:
• Strong acting
• Strong production design
• Clear tone

That alone rules out calling it an “abomination.”

You don’t have to like it. But if the argument is basically “it’s bad because it’s not the book,” that’s not real criticism—it’s just preference dressed up as fact.
quote:

this is an intelligent person with an MBA


Probably is- but I never attribute intelligence just because of a degree

But from what I understand, they simply had to take shortcuts to adapt it.

The book apparently goes much deeper into the science.

But regardless, it’s the first movie in a while that my entire family enjoyed- and all for different reasons.

It’s what cinema is supposed to be- entertainment. It wasn’t a groundbreaking piece of work, it was simply a good, fun, emotionally smart movie.
I need to know as well.

We ran about 15-20 minutes late and walked in about five minutes before that scene.
Just got back. The kids absolutely loved it, especially my nine year old son.

Really good family movie. I had high hopes and was not let down.
Glad someone else is watching Tousi.

He has been months ahead on the situation in Iran for about a year now.

It’s something else when that rare moment happens when his dad actually calls him from Tehran
Begging rich people to come back so she can milk them.

What an appealing pitch
I don’t see it that way. If anything, Pericles himself wasn’t exactly a model of restraint—he helped set the stage for a war Athens ultimately lost, even if he didn’t live to see the end, so it’s hard to pin all the blame on him. And for what it’s worth, Trump does share his fondness for walls.

That said, I do think there’s a real strategic parallel people overlook. Pericles’ approach was essentially: avoid getting dragged into your opponent’s strength on land, sit behind the walls, and leverage naval dominance to apply pressure and control the broader conflict. If you squint, you can see a similar instinct—leaning on power projection and avoiding certain types of entanglement rather than fighting on unfavorable terms.

Of course, the contexts are completely different, and Pericles was operating within a much more defined long-term strategy, whereas today’s global landscape is far more complex.

My main point is just that the underlying geopolitical realities—and the patterns of power—are still there, just as they were back then.

Agree. I’m anti-interventionist, but I’ve also read Thucydides cover to cover more times than I can count—and it’s just as true today as it was thousands of years ago.

I’m holding off on forming a firm opinion until this plays out.

If Trump pulls off what I think he’s attempting, it could mark one of the most significant geopolitical shifts since the end of World War I—potentially putting the U.S. in its strongest global position since that era.

If he doesn’t… it’s hard to predict what we’re looking at.

For now, I’m taking a wait-and-see approach. It’s really all you can do.
Kent’s a good man—I was in Iraq at the same time he was.

Side note- His wife was killed in a suicide bombing.

He’s a staunch anti-interventionist, and given what he’s been through, it’s not hard to understand why he resigned.

Say what you want about him, but the guy served in some of the worst conditions in some of the most badass units out there. Standing by your beliefs—whether people agree or not—takes integrity.
A large percentage of them have gay sex with men when they are young.

Thats kind of their thing

It’s gross
I watched it out of pure curiosity and because I used to love PTA movies before he was clearly past his prime.

I would not be shocked to see a sociology professor from UC Berkeley have a screen writing credit

It was like the brainchild of a sociologist and professor of African women’s studies if they decided to write a script

Frankenstein on the other hand was an absolute masterpiece in just about every regard
That company is a cancer on society
I believe it will be good. We are going to see it next weekend. I’m even more optimistic after I heard the alien character was a puppet and not CGI.
Just an awful last four episodes or so, but otherwise a good show
His interview(debate) with Tucker was freighting
If that were true- a lot of movies that lost hundreds of millions would have made hundreds of millions