The Movie Thread
- Thread starter Maddox
- Start date
It can either be very good or disastrous. I am a fan of the original, despite the Aramaic feeling overdone and some poetic liberties being taken. But Mel's been talking about this film since 2016. Every year there is a new announcement about how he will "film it this year." Either film it or stop talking about it. I'll believe it when I see it.
Here's an interesting breakdown of Titanic from a woman's POV; although this woman has been red-pilled. She identifies the reasons why it was so popular with women and why at the same time it is a feminist piece of trash.
Frankly though, I'm surprised she didn't touch on the fact that Rose spit not once, but twice in the film; and the last one was in her husband's face. I can't believe this fact didn't bother me more when I first saw the movie as a younger man.
I also wish that back in the 90s I would've seen the film for what it was, a propaganda piece designed to usher in "The Modern Woman", to do away with patriarchy, and to steal the femininity in every woman after they exit the theater.
Try watching from a US VPN.
So James Cameron sat down with some liberal feminists and wrote the script with a social engineering agenda strategy? I don’t buy it personally, I think he just tried to make a blockbuster date-night movie, that’s all. I remember my wife punching me in the shoulder at the theater when I cheered and clapped with Leo fell into the depths of the ocean. Of course she was crying just like all the other girls in the theater.
Nothing in a film is there by accident, especially a multi-million dollar film like this. And there are too many instances of feminism in this movie to ignore.
BTW, it was Kate Winslet who suggested to Cameron her character spit in the movie. She was talking about this in some Q & A talk for the film and acted all proud that she was able to get the green light to incorporate that into Rose's character.
I turned it off after an hour. Couldn’t stand listening to that whining pommy actress.
More Christology in The Dark Knight:
Harvey Dent is analogous to Adam, he starts off good but becomes corrupted by the Joker. He is about strict fairness, and so he finds an ally in the Joker's chaos. The end of the film is Batman taking the blame for the acts that Two Face commits in order to defeat the Joker. This is analogous to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Christ takes the blame for His Church and endures the wrath of God on their behalf.
Bane tells the city of Gotham that they will survive and endure, despite planting a nuke that will kill them all. He is like the devil, who promises great things, so as to deceive us into going to Hell with him. Batman sacrifices himself at the end of the movie, for the citizen and the criminal alike. The weight of the nuke is emphasized at the end, it is a heavy burden, much like the cross. The ending of the film follows the pattern of death, burial, and resurrection.
The disagreement between Batman and his villains is over whether the people of Gotham are beyond saving. Not over whether they are good or evil. Even if someone is evil, they can be redeemed. That is Batman's worldview: it is the Christian worldview. On the flipside, the Joker and co. believe that people are corrupted beyond redemption. Each villain brings out different aspects of the same philosophy. For the Joker, people are naturally evil, corrupt, and chaotic, so he wants to "rip the mask off," the mask being laws, rules, order.
Harvey Dent is analogous to Adam, he starts off good but becomes corrupted by the Joker. He is about strict fairness, and so he finds an ally in the Joker's chaos. The end of the film is Batman taking the blame for the acts that Two Face commits in order to defeat the Joker. This is analogous to the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Christ takes the blame for His Church and endures the wrath of God on their behalf.
Bane tells the city of Gotham that they will survive and endure, despite planting a nuke that will kill them all. He is like the devil, who promises great things, so as to deceive us into going to Hell with him. Batman sacrifices himself at the end of the movie, for the citizen and the criminal alike. The weight of the nuke is emphasized at the end, it is a heavy burden, much like the cross. The ending of the film follows the pattern of death, burial, and resurrection.
The disagreement between Batman and his villains is over whether the people of Gotham are beyond saving. Not over whether they are good or evil. Even if someone is evil, they can be redeemed. That is Batman's worldview: it is the Christian worldview. On the flipside, the Joker and co. believe that people are corrupted beyond redemption. Each villain brings out different aspects of the same philosophy. For the Joker, people are naturally evil, corrupt, and chaotic, so he wants to "rip the mask off," the mask being laws, rules, order.
Last edited:
Thanks for saving me an hour of my life but I'm sorry you had to sacrifice yours in the process.
El Dorado
Other Christian
Funny, I've met quite a few guys who have a thing for Emily Blunt; never quite got it, myself.
Her pommy accent never bothered me, but then I only ever saw her in A Quiet Place.
It’s the same with Nicole Kidman. People were always banging on about how beautiful and sexy she was. To me she was a plain Jane ranger (red head), who needed to get out in the sun more often.
I'd rather a media, society, and culture that found white redheads like Nicole Kidman attractive than what we have today. This isn't necessarily a racial thing given Halle Berry and Lucy Liu were heavily promoted around the same time. There was simply an expectation that women should be skinny and attractive. I honestly think part of what we have today is due to how many women and gay men took over occupations that might've once been overseen by white or predominantly Jewish men up to the 1990s and 2000s (think of how women tend to give their nicest Instagram comments to the fat and ugly girls).