|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 3:38:30 GMT
Who's watched it? Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 3:39:27 GMT
I'm about half way through and I like it. Never read the comic, but it's like a fucked up version of the X-men. If Charles was a cold hearted dick.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 3:43:54 GMT
I'm in episode 3. It's pretty interesting but it's a slow burn, and some of the acting is a bit cringy.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 4:13:25 GMT
Everytime Mary J. Blige is on the screen the cringe factor goes to 11.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 23, 2019 5:36:08 GMT
Have little interest given Ellen Page's involvement.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 6:15:33 GMT
Have little interest given Ellen Page's involvement. I've always found her acting adequate to decent. (Depending on the subject matter really) So far she's pretty believable as the mousy, awkward, depressed character. She does seem to be of the school of the Ryan Gosling Minimalist style acting.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 23, 2019 6:23:58 GMT
Have little interest given Ellen Page's involvement. I've always found her acting adequate to decent. (Depending on the subject matter really) So far she's pretty believable as the mousy, awkward, depressed character. She does seem to be of the school of the Ryan Gosling Minimalist style acting. It's not her acting, its her political activism that turns me as a consumer away from her product - she went after Chris Pratt for his Christianity and strongly defended con artist Jussie Smollett declaring that there was no way what he described happened to him that night in Chicago from last month could've been fraudulent, well, looks like it was sister.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 6:43:15 GMT
I've always found her acting adequate to decent. (Depending on the subject matter really) So far she's pretty believable as the mousy, awkward, depressed character. She does seem to be of the school of the Ryan Gosling Minimalist style acting. It's not her acting, its her political activism that turns me as a consumer away from her product - she went after Chris Pratt for his Christianity and strongly defended con artist Jussie Smollett declaring that there was no way what he described happened to him that night in Chicago from last month could've been fraudulent, well, looks like it was sister. To each their own. While I don't think Chris has done anything wrong, by being a Christian. (I don't know too much about his specific church to say it would be morally wrong to go there. I know of a few local churches here in SC that I would say it would be morally wrong to go there) I do have a problem with a lot of Christianity. And if I were a part of a group that another powerful group saw as an abomination I might get political too. My sexuality though isn't condemned, my sex life isn't described as an Abomination (which literally means "a thing that causes disgust or hatred."), and the prescription from God isn't to kill me and the consenting adult I have sex with. I think those who pick and choose to see the good of the book/religion without acknowledging the bad is giving a pass to the awful things in that religion. That's just being gay don't get me started on the Slavery bit. Edit: That's just in generalities the last bit. I also don't believe that 100% of a church's teaching means that 100% of the followers think, but you do start getting into some dark areas if what is preached and you still go. At this point, I honestly don't know enough about his church to know if, for me it's crossed that line.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 6:49:07 GMT
It's not her acting, its her political activism that turns me as a consumer away from her product - she went after Chris Pratt for his Christianity and strongly defended con artist Jussie Smollett declaring that there was no way what he described happened to him that night in Chicago from last month could've been fraudulent, well, looks like it was sister. To each their own. While I don't think Chris has done anything wrong, by being a Christian. (I don't know too much about his specific church to say it would be morally wrong to go there. I know of a few local churches here in SC that I would say it would be morally wrong to go there) I do have a problem with a lot of Christianity. And if I were a part of a group that another powerful group saw as an abomination I might get political too. My sexuality though isn't condemned, my sex life isn't described as an Abomination (which literally means "a thing that causes disgust or hatred."), and the prescription from God isn't to kill me and the consenting adult I have sex with. I think those who pick and choose to see the good of the book/religion without acknowledging the bad is giving a pass to the awful things in that religion. That's just being gay don't get me started on the Slavery bit. Edit: That's just in generalities the last bit. I also don't believe that 100% of a church's teaching means that 100% of the followers think, but you do start getting into some dark areas if what is preached and you still go. At this point, I honestly don't know enough about his church to know if, for me it's crossed that line. That still doesn't give someone the right to attack someone just because of their religion. I disagree with a lot of religions but I don't go out of my way to call them out like Page did to Pratt. Just to be clear, I'm not boycotting her shows or anything just because of what she did. I'm just saying that was a low blow.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 6:59:41 GMT
To each their own. While I don't think Chris has done anything wrong, by being a Christian. (I don't know too much about his specific church to say it would be morally wrong to go there. I know of a few local churches here in SC that I would say it would be morally wrong to go there) I do have a problem with a lot of Christianity. And if I were a part of a group that another powerful group saw as an abomination I might get political too. My sexuality though isn't condemned, my sex life isn't described as an Abomination (which literally means "a thing that causes disgust or hatred."), and the prescription from God isn't to kill me and the consenting adult I have sex with. I think those who pick and choose to see the good of the book/religion without acknowledging the bad is giving a pass to the awful things in that religion. That's just being gay don't get me started on the Slavery bit. Edit: That's just in generalities the last bit. I also don't believe that 100% of a church's teaching means that 100% of the followers think, but you do start getting into some dark areas if what is preached and you still go. At this point, I honestly don't know enough about his church to know if, for me it's crossed that line. That still doesn't give someone the right to attack someone just because of their religion. I disagree with a lot of religions but I don't go out of my way to call them out like Page did to Pratt. Just to be clear, I'm not boycotting her shows or anything just because of what she did. I'm just saying that was a low blow. If I had the power to call out the people in the church that's a few miles down the road I would. They believe Sodomy should be a Capital Offense, The Head Deacon is active member of the KKK, and feel segregation should be reinstated. They believe the bible is 100% true and use what it says about Homosexuality, Slavery, and God's Curses to back that up. That outrages me morally. I don't have the power to do anything. Who's to say that to Ellen that all Christianity is Morally Outrageous to her and it's her moral obligation to call it out? Morality is a sliding spectrum. What is moral or not that big a deal to some is shameful to others. I'm not saying what she did was right, but if she feels that way about Christianity as a whole the way I feel about that specific Church then she could see it as her moral obligation to push back on Christianity as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 7:19:14 GMT
That still doesn't give someone the right to attack someone just because of their religion. I disagree with a lot of religions but I don't go out of my way to call them out like Page did to Pratt. Just to be clear, I'm not boycotting her shows or anything just because of what she did. I'm just saying that was a low blow. If I had the power to call out the people in the church that's a few miles down the road I would. They believe Sodomy should be a Capital Offense, The Head Deacon is active member of the KKK, and feel segregation should be reinstated. They believe the bible is 100% true and use what it says about Homosexuality, Slavery, and God's Curses to back that up. That outrages me morally. I don't have the power to do anything. Who's to say that to Ellen that all Christianity is Morally Outrageous to her and it's her moral obligation to call it out? Morality is a sliding spectrum. What is moral or not that big a deal to some is shameful to others. I'm not saying what she did was right, but if she feels that way about Christianity as a whole the way I feel about that specific Church then she could see it as her moral obligation to push back on Christianity as a whole. That's a slippery slope. If you (or Ellen) feel that you have a moral obligation to call people out on their beliefs then that implies you believe you are morally superior to them... and that makes you just as bad as they are. After all, when a religious preacher approaches you and tells you that you're going to hell because you're gay, they're doing this because they feel they're morally superior to you and have a moral obligation to call you out. They'd be wrong, but then it's pretty much the same thing you just described. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the right to go around and start telling people their beliefs are wrong. Whether you're christian, buddhist, muslim, atheist, liberal, conservative, straight, gay, black, whie, male, female or whatever. Personally, I just make it a point to respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't try to force theirs on me. Because the moment I believe I'm so morally superior to someone else that I feel it's my right to interfere with their lives then I start becoming part of the problem. Sorry, didn't mean to sound preachy. Just saying tolerance needs to go both ways for it to work.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 7:56:37 GMT
If I had the power to call out the people in the church that's a few miles down the road I would. They believe Sodomy should be a Capital Offense, The Head Deacon is active member of the KKK, and feel segregation should be reinstated. They believe the bible is 100% true and use what it says about Homosexuality, Slavery, and God's Curses to back that up. That outrages me morally. I don't have the power to do anything. Who's to say that to Ellen that all Christianity is Morally Outrageous to her and it's her moral obligation to call it out? Morality is a sliding spectrum. What is moral or not that big a deal to some is shameful to others. I'm not saying what she did was right, but if she feels that way about Christianity as a whole the way I feel about that specific Church then she could see it as her moral obligation to push back on Christianity as a whole. That's a slippery slope. If you (or Ellen) feel that you have a moral obligation to call people out on their beliefs then that implies you believe you are morally superior to them... and that makes you just as bad as they are. After all, when a religious preacher approaches you and tells you that you're going to hell because you're gay, they're doing this because they feel they have a moral obligation to call you out. So it's pretty much the same thing you just described except viewed from the opposite side. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the right to go around and start telling people their beliefs are wrong. Whether you're christian, buddhist, muslim, atheist, liberal, conservative, straight, gay, black, whie, male, female or whatever. Personally, I just make it a point to respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't try to force theirs on me. Because the moment I believe I'm so morally superior to someone else that I feel it's my right to interfere with their lives then I start becoming part of the problem. Sorry, didn't mean to sound preachy. Just saying tolerance needs to go both ways for it to work. I can see the slippery slope you are eluding too, but there is a line. If your belief is it's ok to marry and have sex with a 13 year old then I got to say people have a moral obligation to speak out about it. (Which some people do believe as do some religions are proponents for.) I think people should speak out against genital mutilation in all forms against children. (which is a belief of people and of religion). The problem is there is no objective morality. It's a sliding spectrum, so there is a shit ton of grey area. I mean there are some black and white don't get me wrong. If you are an anarchist and believe it's your right to be able to murder someone because you are stronger/are able to do it then yeah pretty sure we could get 99.9999999999999% of the population to say that's morally wrong. Another problem you have is those groups beliefs that morally questionable and have the ability to effect laws. I've used this example before, but my Mom really believes that Black/African descended people are the ones Cursed by God when Ham saw Noah naked. God couldn't curse Ham because he had laid his blessing on him, but Cursed his descendants to toil the field and serve the descendants of Noah's other children. That's her belief. Her strong Religious Belief is that anybody who is from Africans are lesser by God and should never have power over any other Race. All the way down to another race serving a Black person. As in a white/Asian/Jewish/etc waitress delivering food to a Black person. Am I to respect that belief? Me telling her that treating others differently (ie badly) solely on their Skin Color/Ancestry is wrong is a bad thing?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 23, 2019 8:18:49 GMT
That's a slippery slope. If you (or Ellen) feel that you have a moral obligation to call people out on their beliefs then that implies you believe you are morally superior to them... and that makes you just as bad as they are. After all, when a religious preacher approaches you and tells you that you're going to hell because you're gay, they're doing this because they feel they have a moral obligation to call you out. So it's pretty much the same thing you just described except viewed from the opposite side. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the right to go around and start telling people their beliefs are wrong. Whether you're christian, buddhist, muslim, atheist, liberal, conservative, straight, gay, black, whie, male, female or whatever. Personally, I just make it a point to respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't try to force theirs on me. Because the moment I believe I'm so morally superior to someone else that I feel it's my right to interfere with their lives then I start becoming part of the problem. Sorry, didn't mean to sound preachy. Just saying tolerance needs to go both ways for it to work. I can see the slippery slope you are eluding too, but there is a line. If your belief is it's ok to marry and have sex with a 13 year old then I got to say people have a moral obligation to speak out about it. (Which some people do believe as do some religions are proponents for.) I think people should speak out against genital mutilation in all forms against children. (which is a belief of people and of religion). The problem is there is no objective morality. It's a sliding spectrum, so there is a shit ton of grey area. I mean there are some black and white don't get me wrong. If you are an anarchist and believe it's your right to be able to murder someone because you are stronger/are able to do it then yeah pretty sure we could get 99.9999999999999% of the population to say that's morally wrong. Another problem you have is those groups beliefs that morally questionable and have the ability to effect laws. I've used this example before, but my Mom really believes that Black/African descended people are the ones Cursed by God when Ham saw Noah naked. God couldn't curse Ham because he had laid his blessing on him, but Cursed his descendants to toil the field and serve the descendants of Noah's other children. That's her belief. Her strong Religious Belief is that anybody who is from Africans are lesser by God and should never have power over any other Race. All the way down to another race serving a Black person. As in a white/Asian/Jewish/etc waitress delivering food to a Black person. Am I to respect that belief? Me telling her that treating others differently (ie badly) solely on their Skin Color/Ancestry is wrong is a bad thing? Technically, people did get married and have sex at 13 in older times. It's only because our social norms have changed in modern periods that this is now taboo, but I don't think the act itself is inherently wrong, it will all depend on social norms. For example, I grew up in a 3rd world country where some of the tribes allowed marriage as early as 12 though my city itself allowed marriage at 18 but only with parents'consent. Am I to go to the tribes and force them to obey my social norms and insist that they completely disregard their own custom and culture? Like I said, slippery slope. As for your race example, there's a difference between believing in something and actually acting out and affecting people because of it. If your mom believes that black people are cursed then that's her right to believe so. I don't agree with it and I think it's ridiculous, but I'm not going to force her to change her beliefs (though I will try to convince her). But if she starts actively discriminating or attacking black people, then that's different and should definitely be called out and reprimanded. But that's only because she went from simple belief to taking action, and there lies the difference. Going back to Pratt and Page, Pratt never took any bigoted or harmful action that I know of, he simply got attacked for his choice of religion, and that's why Page is completely in the wrong here. Had Pratt actually made any bigoted action then it would have been different.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 8:37:28 GMT
I can see the slippery slope you are eluding too, but there is a line. If your belief is it's ok to marry and have sex with a 13 year old then I got to say people have a moral obligation to speak out about it. (Which some people do believe as do some religions are proponents for.) I think people should speak out against genital mutilation in all forms against children. (which is a belief of people and of religion). The problem is there is no objective morality. It's a sliding spectrum, so there is a shit ton of grey area. I mean there are some black and white don't get me wrong. If you are an anarchist and believe it's your right to be able to murder someone because you are stronger/are able to do it then yeah pretty sure we could get 99.9999999999999% of the population to say that's morally wrong. Another problem you have is those groups beliefs that morally questionable and have the ability to effect laws. I've used this example before, but my Mom really believes that Black/African descended people are the ones Cursed by God when Ham saw Noah naked. God couldn't curse Ham because he had laid his blessing on him, but Cursed his descendants to toil the field and serve the descendants of Noah's other children. That's her belief. Her strong Religious Belief is that anybody who is from Africans are lesser by God and should never have power over any other Race. All the way down to another race serving a Black person. As in a white/Asian/Jewish/etc waitress delivering food to a Black person. Am I to respect that belief? Me telling her that treating others differently (ie badly) solely on their Skin Color/Ancestry is wrong is a bad thing? Technically, people did get married and have sex at 13 in older times. It's only because our social norms have changed in modern periods that this is now taboo, but I don't think the act itself is inherently wrong, it will all depend on social norms. For example, I grew up in a 3rd world country where some of the tribes allowed marriage as early as 12 though my city itself allowed marriage at 18 but only with parents'consent. Am I to go to the tribes and force them to obey my social norms and insist that they completely disregard their own custom and culture? Like I said, slippery slope. As for your race example, there's a difference between believing in something and actually acting out and affecting people because of it. If your mom believes that black people are cursed then that's her right to believe so. I don't agree with it and I think it's ridiculous, but I'm not going to force her to change her beliefs (though I will try to convince her). But if she starts actively discriminating or attacking black people, then that's different and should definitely be called out and reprimanded. But that's only because she went from simple belief to taking action, and there lies the difference. Going back to Pratt and Page, Pratt never took any bigoted or harmful action that I know of, he simply got attacked for his choice of religion, and that's why Page is completely in the wrong here. Had Pratt actually made any bigoted action then it would have been different. In the past, (and still in the present even in the US I believe Alabama in certain situations allows as young as 13 as able to marry), it was more acceptable. So was Slavery recently, and mass Genocide further back. (You go to BCE era when God's word was Objectively Moral killing God's enemies and wiping out Men, Women and Children of a whole people was considered Moral then). We have less and less of that because we've had people push against it. If we didn't then those Moray's would still be ok. I will agree that actions are different than beliefs. And there is a line between the two, but if you want to get into a real slippery slope then here we go. Beliefs are the first step to action. Even if my Mom never acted on her beliefs (she has), but lets say she never actively acted on those beliefs. Beliefs do pepper how we do everything. Even if she never did anything actively discriminatory, just having those beliefs would effect every interaction. Could she be trusted to be say Principal of a School that was 85% African American with those beliefs. Would those children get the same education if she didn't have those beliefs. I know very slippery slope, but I don't think I could trust someone with that belief to do that job. It may be me being intolerant of her belief, but it's an intolerance of someone else intolerant beliefs. Sorry I'm in a weird philosophical debate-y mood. We've kinda gone off the rails.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2019 11:24:33 GMT
It's not her acting, its her political activism that turns me as a consumer away from her product - she went after Chris Pratt for his Christianity. . . Do your homework. She didn't go after Pratt for being a Christian. She went after him for associating with a homophobic, bigoted church. There's a huge difference there. One can be Christian without being a bigot, and in fact that's how many if not most Christians roll.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2019 11:28:33 GMT
That still doesn't give someone the right to attack someone just because of their religion. She didn't go after him for his religion. She went after him for associating with a bigoted church. That was literally the only thing she criticized him for. And by the way: people do have the right to attack someone because of their religion. People have the right to attack anyone for any set of beliefs, whether they are religious or not. Grow up and deal with it: religious beliefs do not merit special protection any more than political, artistic, or scientific beliefs. Lying about Page's actions is an even lower blow, pumpkin.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 23, 2019 11:36:51 GMT
Never seen it
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2019 11:42:27 GMT
If you (or Ellen) feel that you have a moral obligation to call people out on their beliefs then that implies you believe you are morally superior to them... and that makes you just as bad as they are. Oh, really? Is that how it works? So no one is actually morally superior to anyone else? Howabout a Nazi? Can't I feel morally superior to a Nazi? If I feel morally superior to a serial rapist or murderer, does that actually make me "as bad as they are"?
Sorry, but the idea you are expressing here is ethically and philosophically illiterate, in addition to being stupendously and dangerously childish and naive. Complete and utterly ignorant bullshit. If someone thinks that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that humans walked the Earth with dinosaurs, they are wrong. Not only are they wrong, they are fucking idiots and deserve to be mocked and attacked. In the world of thinking adults, some beliefs are wrong and it is absolutely our right to point this out.
In a world filled with people like you, there would be no moral or intellectual standards whatsoever, no civil rights movement, probably not even science. No. Some ideas do not deserve to be tolerated and in fact there is a moral imperative to attack them.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2019 11:45:26 GMT
I binged The Umbrella Academy last week and loved it. Loved the cast, loved the inventive, playful filmmaking, loved the soundtrack. I really hope they get enough views to make another season.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 23, 2019 11:53:05 GMT
I binged The Umbrella Academy last week and loved it. Loved the cast, loved the inventive, playful filmmaking, loved the soundtrack. I really hope they get enough views to make another season. Stopped on Episode 8. I have never read the source material, but this has some similar beats to Dark Phoenix. And yes the Soundtrack was good. Using Pop songs and or covers can be off putting, but they did a decent job here. I wouldn't say it was too on the nose like other media, it didn't seem like they were trying to hard with the choices. The unique umbrella opening in each credits was fun little add. So far the comedy vs. seriousness seems to have worked. Not all the situational funnies or jokes have landed, but they act like when me, my brothers, sister, and cousins hang out. (without a lot of the dysfunction. We jab each other with verbal barbs to show love and to get points across though) I still say Mary J. Blige can't deliver a line though.
|
|