I’ve just come to accept that Hollywood is fucked and have very low expectations especially regarding sequels. The bright side is that they can’t go back and take away the originals.
Predator 5 is fucked already and I'm heartbroken.
Think Rand Paul and Steve Scalise would have a different opinion.
Not suggesting Carano’s comparison wasn’t a little ridiculous, but the idea that both sides of the political isle aren’t without some blood and dirt on their hands is just flat out false.
3 Likes
Folks, PLEASE move the politics to off-topic!! This is an opinion thread on the merits or lack thereof of having teenagers fight predators!!
1 Like
Its completely tied to the topic, the reason why we have that primitive(from weapons point of view) teen girl fighting an intergalactic alien is why Gina got fired.
Eeehhhh… The point isnt females vs Preds. Alice Braga did a fine job, as did the woman (I forget her name, sadly) who played Leona in P2. Its the teenager bit that annoys me. The point is why must the studio always downgrade the Predator threat by consistently going with less and less capable humans, after P2? Why not a warrior, male or female ( who fuckin cares ) at their peak? Why not a team of the best hunters/warriors the Comanche had? Does this child have magic or super powers of sorts? What could her edge possibly be? It sure won’t be a height advantage or physical superiority, so what is it? The synopsis does not sell me on the prospect of the movie at all.
Yes, its the teen part. Its not only that, I’ve posted this video before:
Just listen to the braking the gender norms and rebelious and all that crap, its going to be SJ filled.
I watched and I agree, its dumb. I could swallow the gender bs, albeit harshly, if it just wasn’t a GD’d kid! I mean FFS, just get a tall-ish, kinda buff lady if theybwant a female lead in a Pred film!
Nobody would complain if that lady would be Gina Carano (or someone similar) with modern age firepower.
2 Likes
What in the fresh hell kind of strawman is this?
If freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, then you don’t have free speech. The whole point of free speech is to be able to get your ideas out without consequences, not from mobs and not from the government. Freedom of speech is the only way to discuss and challenge ideas. Any form of organized suppression of speech goes against the very notion of free speech. Yes it also protects people waving confederate flags around. Whether or not you think their ideas deserve to be expressed is irrelevant.
3 Likes
Non binary, genderless Comanche. He/she/they will also give a “how dare you?” Speech to the tribal elders for killing too many buffalo. Calling it now.
This is a joke btw. Do not attack James Cameron or you’ll be trophied.
6 Likes
I can’t stop laughing!
1 Like
So if I put on a US marines cap , does that make me a marine? 😁😁😁😁
1 Like
Ok, well if you want to deny the plainly obvious, I guess I can say that the people behind the BLM riots were MAGA agitators disguised as Antifa.
Alternatively you could just accept the fact that the attempted coup was down to Trump supporters. Plenty of hard evidence (people identified, arrests) to back this up.
Almost every Trump supporter I know is a gun owner. If they really wanted to attempt a “coup” that day it would’ve been a lot worse than it was. Anyone who really thinks it was an insurrection is either intellectually dishonest or fooled. It got out of hand, but if Trumpers wanted to take over that day they would’ve.
1 Like
No dude. It doesn’t work that way. You can say what you want and the government can’t do shit. That’s all the first amendment covers. It doesn’t say your family, friends, neighbors can’t punnish you for being a dick. One of the reasons society has become soft and weak is because people take too much disrespect from others. That shit needs to stop. If you say shit to insult or offend people, you should be prepared for the repercussions. People need to think before they open their mouths. I say bring back dueling.
They would have all been slaughtered by the national guard. Their ARs and glocks would have done little to help them against the MRAPs and tanks and drones. Get real kid.
1 Like
The original definition was not “speech can be right suppressed by anyone so long as they are not the government” “consequences of your speech” is duplicitous double speak for “we don’t like your speech, so we will prevent you from saying it, and it’s kosher because we aren’t the government”.
You’re attempting to justify mob rule. They are not infringing on the rights of others, but you are by dictating how they talk, act, or dress for the sole purpose of silencing them on a platform designed for speech.
By your definition every single human being who ever lived, in any society, ever, has had freedom of speech. If you disconnect “freedom of speech” and “freedom of consequences” then there was free speech in Soviet. You could say whatever the hell you wanted, you just had to suffer the consequences of your friends turning you in. Iran has free speech. North Korea has free speech. Nazi Germany had free speech. The inquisition & Salem practiced free speech and so on.
It’s the dumbest take imaginable. Obviously free speech means that the state actively protects citizens who say unpopular shit against the people who try to shut them down and mob them. Any other definition of free speech is meaningless.
Then learn to code and develop your own platforms. It is what it is.
Ok when big tech is decentralized.
It’s always people who don’t have an argument justifying a need for censorship to prevent people from having wrong opinions.
What is even going on here?