|
xxEightxx posted:Incorrect. Many states have laws that require a store to honor their advertised pricing, otherwise they would do exactly what happened here; advertise a price that was too good to be true just to get people interested and in the store and then switch it up on you at the last minute. For something to run afoul of bait and switch laws there would need to be an actual switch. Those laws don't apply to erroneous listings and they don't apply to automated transactions from online retailers where there is no attempt to push you toward another product. This basically a defective item. It's supposed to have 24. It has 1. It is defective and you got a refund AND got to keep the 1. Be glad of that and move on, it's just a cheap toy from a goofy movie.
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
mr. stefan posted:He doesn't need to disprove psychoanalysis because it has already been largely abandoned as archaic and misleading by most actual psychiatric authorities. I don't understand why people keep saying this as if it were meaningful. No one is trying to diagnose Del Toro or treat the film's depression. They are using a system to unpack metaphor. That system could be useful or not for that purpose, but whether it is doesn't have squat to do with whether it's useful for treating psychiatric disorders. Just because understanding that something is a phallus doesn't cure biochemical imbalances in the brain doesn't mean that the thing is not a phallus.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:The thing is that psychoanalysis wasn't abandoned because of inefficiency of patient treatment, it was abandoned because a significant number of its core theories were found to be in error. By "in error" you mean that it found to be inefficient at treating mental disorder, not that it was found to be incapable of providing structure to the metaphor present in a text. The two things aren't related.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Psychoanalysis was discredited because it lacked the power to provide a coherent explanation for human behavior. It was bad psychology. Is it also a bad model for analyzing a created text, which is a very different thing than a human mind? Maybe, but to prove it you should address it's failures to explain the text coherently or to provide insight, not just say "Freud was weird and had mommy issues so you're wrong."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Saying "it makes perfect sense within the world of the movie" is sort of a flimsy excuse because the world of the movie was written that way for a reason. It makes perfect sense within the world of Atlas Shrugged that libertarian capitalist paragons are the true engines of modern society and everyone else is bottom feeding scum, but that book is still hopelessly stupid, morally bankrupt propaganda. Likewise the question in Pacific Rim isn't "why don't the characters in the movie seek to reason with or understand the Kaiju", it's "why did the people who created this movie create a world in which the only sensible response the characters could have was one of manly action and overwhelming violence." There are answers to that question that aren't "they are fascists," but that doesn't mean it isn't worth asking or that you can brush it aside with explanations of the plot mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:This is just stupid. You are confronted with an enemy that cannot be reckoned with (or indeed communicated with at all), and the enemies don't have name tags on their chests. How exactly is it "denying them dignity" to refer to them by numbers, invented names, or categories? "No, don't fight the Kaiju, they're just poor conscripts doing what they're forced to do. No, don't give them nicknames, that denies their individual personality. Let's all stand around and flash lights at them and play peace greetings while they stomp all over our cities." Kill all bears, kill all dogs. Got it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Nope. A soldier can go on to do many things with his life but a Kaiju is an assembled weapon that is sent out to destroy and be destroyed. Trying to connect that to immigrants or whatever says more about you than it does about the movie. We don't actually know anything about what the Kaiju might do otherwise because we are given only a very small glimpse of their world. If all you ever saw of soldiers was them killing and being killed you would probably imagine much the same about them. Your stance also raises some troubling ethical questions. In "The Island" clones are created to serve as organ farms for the original person off of which the clone is based. They are "assembled" for the purpose of being destroyed to keep others alive. By your reasoning those clones are equivalent to Kaiju, simple biological tools that were build only to serve some specific purpose. That they are organic and sentient apparently doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Except Newt literally reads their mind(s) (how do you refer to a hive mind in that situation?). We know full well what they're planning on doing: killing as many humans as possible and then taking ownership of their new vermin-free planet. He literally uses the phrase "Take out the vermin". Where did I say that they weren't planning on doing that? The point is that they are sentient creatures, not automatons or drones. They have minds that can be read, they are apparently capable of feeling pain and show some level of intelligence and curiosity. They are conscripted soldiers or beasts of war. YOLOsubmarine fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jul 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:What differentiates a Kaiju from an advanced drone over Pakistan in terms of ability and agency? Use sources from the movie and related materials. Does a soldier under orders have agency? A slave? This is, of course, ignoring how stupid this comparison is given that drones are not biological constructs with DNA, and a central nervous system, and a recognizable animal biology. The film visual presentation doesn't say "automaton", it says "relatively advanced animal." Your interpretation is the one that fails to jive with what the movie presents. Colon Semicolon posted:sentience implies that they are totally independent, though. they aren't. every creature from the other side of the rift is connected together. you can say they are a collective sentience, but not much else. and that collective wants the vermin dead. Why would it imply this? Jaeger pilots are likewise participating in a shared consciousness when they are in the drift, but they are still sentient and also capable of independent thought, hence Raleigh being surprised by the sword. The movie also doesn't give any information other than a throwaway line about a hive mind, so we have no idea how it functions other than that they can share memories. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Neither does a Kaiju. Leatherback gets his ears boxed so badly his skull fractures visibly in multiple ways and shows no reaction to it. He has his arm blown off and keeps struggling. Knifehead has a plasma cannon blow a hole in it and is blasted back into the Pacific. It jumps right back out of the water to do more damage to Gipsy Danger. Slattern is literally blown up by a nuclear bomb and appears, bedraggled but still somehow menacing, to kill Gipsy. Obviously when soldiers are injured in battle but do not immediately flee for their lives the only logical assumption is that they cannot feel pain. When a boxer takes a clean punch and just keeps walking forward it is not because he has concerns that override the temporary sensation of pain and push him to continue, it is because he literally cannot fear pain. Unless a thing says, out loud "Ouch, I am in pain now!" and then runs away in full flight it is not in pain. This is why I know that Raleigh also cannot feel pain, because his arm is badly injured while fighting a Kaiju and yet he keeps fighting it. euphronius posted:This might sound facile but the tag line from the movie is we created Monsters to fight Monsters. I personally do not take this as a superficial similarity. There are a fair number of parallels that the movie draws between us and the beings on the other side of the portal but there seems to be a lot of resistance to that idea because having subtext might ruin the joy of watching big cgi toys get smashed together for two hours. I'm not sure why depth would make it less compelling, but I'm also not a child and am okay with ambiguity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
failedninja posted:Uh I'm pretty sure the people bringing up that whole Kaiju=Jaeger idea you like are the ones rejecting all the subtext. Hrm, we are attacked by colonizers who find a planet with untapped resources, displace or utterly wipe out the native inhabitants, strip the land of all of it's natural resources, cause massive toxic climate change, and then move on to the next area and start all over again. There's definitely no pointed parallels to be drawn there. They are trying to kill us with giant biological robots that participate in some type of hive mind or shared consciousness. We are fighting them with giant mechanical robots piloted by people participating in a shared consciousness or hive mind. That balance probably isn't accidental. We are the aliens 20,000 years in the future. We will run our planet dry and move on to another, and when we wipe out the indigenous life forms we will claim that it was necessary for survival (perhaps we needed oh, I don't know, "living space") and it was either us or them. The movie explicitly states that we have been terraforming the planet through climate change to make it more hospitable for the aliens. A character actually says that we are turning our world into theirs. It's not subtle. It's barely even subtext at that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2013 03:21
|
|