|
Koos Goop posted:Paranoia means the thing they're afraid of isn't real or dangerous. Yes, exactly. The question is the nature of the threat - 'the thing they're afraid of'. A homeless person suffering from paranoia might perceive a vast 'machine' deliberately holding him down. The imaginary threat is not the 'machine' (e.g. simple poverty) but the fantasy of grand, malicious intentions - the idea that he is being deliberately targeted.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yes, exactly. The question is the nature of the threat - 'the thing they're afraid of'. That's still an irrational fear, whereas Lacan and you said that even a rational fear can be paranoia, giving the example of a jealous man whose wife is cheating on him. But it's wrong to call such a fear paranoia semantically, and in my opinion, morally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Koos Goop posted:That's still an irrational fear, whereas Lacan and you said that even a rational fear can be paranoia, giving the example of a jealous man whose wife is cheating on him. But it's wrong to call such a fear paranoia semantically, and in my opinion, morally. Luckily, that is a misreading. Here's the quote again: "When a husband is pathologically jealous, obsessed by the idea that his wife sleeps with other men, his obsession remains a pathological feature even if it is proven that he is right and that his wife effectively sleeps with other men." Lacan's target is the pathological obsession. In this case, the person is 'irrationally' overreacting to the mere possibility that his wife is cheating. Whether she actually is cheating is unimportant. The point of treatment is to deal with the obsessive thoughts. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Luckily, that is a misreading. Here's the quote again: It's wrong to say someone's fear is pathological if the source of their fear is real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Koos Goop posted:It's wrong to say someone's fear is pathological if the source of their fear is real.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Nope. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:24
|
|
Koos Goop posted:Yes. Is there a point at which, say, fear of lightning strikes or home invasion becomes pathological?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
It is totally fine to follow your wife around in secret and bug her phone to make 100% sure she isn't banging anyone WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING I mean if it turns out she is,that basically makes my constant fear totally rational in retrospect right? right?? Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is there a point at which, say, fear of lightning strikes or home invasion becomes pathological? Yes, it would probably be pathological to be afraid of lightning on a sunny day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Koos Goop posted:It's wrong to say someone's fear is pathological if the source of their fear is real. Determining whether the wife is cheating or not is the job of a private detective. The job of an analyst is to help the person manage or overcome their obsessive thoughts, so that the thoughts don't overwhelm their brain and leave them unable to function.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:It is totally fine to follow your wife around in secret and bug her phone to make 100% sure she isn't banging anyone WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING Invading someone's privacy is wrong. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Determining whether the wife is cheating or not is the job of a private detective. I'll concede that if someone is overreacting to a fear, they may need help, though why they're overreacting should be considered. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:38
|
|
Koos Goop posted:Yes, it would probably be pathological to be afraid of lightning on a sunny day. Okay, I see what you mean. No disagreements on my part.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
I want to see more of this Hans Zimmer and less of the Amazing Spider-Man 2 Hans Zimmer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEaTl32ew90 4:06
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Koos Goop posted:It's wrong to say someone's fear is pathological if the source of their fear is real. Nah, it depends on if the fear is justified based on the evidence available to them. A conspiracy theorist making a lucky guess doesn't make them a rational person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is there a point at which, say, fear of lightning strikes or home invasion becomes pathological? *Cue horrible conflagration of a family member or pet* First and foremost, Lacan was a therapist and psychiatrist whose job was to make people healthy. There are unhealthy ways to be afraid of things, even if the thing is real. Speeding tickets are real (let me tell you (holy poo poo)) but driving way below the speed limit just to make sure at all times will make you take a long time and delay/annoy the drivers around you, which is often far more dangerous on a busy road. A healthy person recognises the risks and consequences of their choices and acts appropriately. Also there are plenty of situations where a person believes something to be the case before they actually have the proof for it - they simply believe they know, based on a feeling or whatever. Like conspiracy theorists, who are still waiting for key pieces of evidence that prove their theories, accepting them on the faith the proof will eventually present itself. If these theorists are proven right, their behaviour remains pathological - for such a long time they 'already knew' they were right without any evidence whatsoever but their own vague sense of doubt. It is always unhealthy to believe something is true without any proof. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 11:22 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
Koos Goop posted:Yes, it would probably be pathological to be afraid of lightning on a sunny day. And it wouldn't be less so if the person in question were, in a remarkable coincidence, to be struck by lightning on a clear day. Bad process, "good" result. Hbomberguy posted:It is always unhealthy to believe something is true without any proof. That's just absurd, unless you mean "without any evidence." And even then, that's not what paranoia is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:That's just absurd, unless you mean "without any evidence." And even then, that's not what paranoia is. It is generally good to believe things for a (good) reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Not exactly - but this has moved away from the point that Chappie is actively attacking the ideological assumptions of other films, the same way District 9 attacks Independence Day. Like, critics tend to call it a retread of Short Circuit, but there are - pointedly - no jokes along the lines of Number 5 seeing a nude woman and saying "nice software!" With a few exceptions, Chappie's humor is along the lines of the baby robot not understanding the concept 'milk', or not understanding why 'motherfucker' is a pejorative (he interprets it as a type of mother), and so-on. That stuff is characterization that gets into the character's weird robot psychology, whereas Short Circuit just provides a cartoon juxtaposition of lewdness and naïveté with a hacky robot pun. Number 5 is essentially just a stock 'dumb foreigner' character who talks about circuits instead of curry or whatever. It's something inextricably linked to Fisher Stevens' brownface performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Not exactly - but this has moved away from the point that Chappie is actively attacking the ideological assumptions of other films, the same way District 9 attacks Independence Day. Short Circuit 2 is basically an aspirational immigrant narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Yeah if it's real or dangerous it's just called, y'know, "fear" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Also, check the full tagline on the poster: "humanity's last hope isn't human." That's not what's going on in the film at all; it's not a generic 'saving the world' movie. It's not even really an action movie. The simple fact is that the studios don't know how to market this stuff - but it's also not really interesting to write about. I personally don't care whether Chappie makes money or not. I know this was a while back but I'm pretty sure the intention here was that 'humanity' isn't meant to be "humans", in the 'saving the world' sense, but instead humanity, our decency, our compassion, our capacity to love and forgive. Everyone in this movie except Chappie is flawed to the point of inhumanity, and despite that, he manages to learn what it means to be human. He has a Maker who makes him so he can die, a Father who raises him into his profession, and a Virgin Mother who is anything but. He forgives his enemy (I'm not sure if Hugh Jackman is Satan, the Antichrist, Judas or the Romans in this metaphor), and prepares his family for the Next Life. And at the same time, he's a fuckmothering indestructible titanium robot gangsta number one who jacks cars and has bling. To be honest, as much as the deeper side of Chappie is great fun to investigate, it's also a roaring great time of a movie with your brain flicked off, too. I had the same experience with D9.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
I just saw this film today, and it was great. I really enjoyed it. The part where Chappie throws the rubber chicken in front of the car, nearly killed me. There were so many funny moments, and that wasn't suppose to be the take away from this movie, but I loved the funny Chappie moments the best.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Yeah this film was everything I hoped it would be going into it. I'm loving amazed that casting Die Antwoord as Die Antwoord worked out as well as it did within the confines of the film.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I just saw this film today, and it was great. I really enjoyed it. The part where Chappie throws the rubber chicken in front of the car, nearly killed me. There were so many funny moments, and that wasn't suppose to be the take away from this movie, but I loved the funny Chappie moments the best. It wasn't? The villain is a guy in a mullet and safari shorts.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It wasn't? The villain is a guy in a mullet and safari shorts. The mullet and safari shorts makes sense because Hugh Jackman is Australian. So it's not funny, that's just how he is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I liked that the good guys were criminal gang members and the villain was a big dork who thinks that military technology is the best possible thing there is.That's like literally what kids who grow up playing "call of duty: future bullshit" will be like.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
I loved Yolandi's character especially. Reminded me of a couple of girls I went to high school with. They were all about partying and were, like most young people, idiots. Then they had kids and made themselves grow up overnight, and took parenting really seriously. It really captured that kind of person incredibly well.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Snak posted:I liked that the good guys were criminal gang members and the villain was a big dork who thinks that military technology is the best possible thing there is.That's like literally what kids who grow up playing "call of duty: future bullshit" will be like. Saints Row always was a better series.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Saints Row always was a better series. Can someone please edit the dubstep gun theme into the scene where Hugh Jackman disables Chappie with the EMP gun thingy? 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Saints Row always was a better series. I would play a chappie reskin of saints row so hard...
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
I had some issues with the film, the plot felt rushed and Chappie didn't really seem like that much of a threat, which was a failure in my opinion. But the biggest offense for me was the fact that Chappie had loving lips. Why? I tried looking for moving parts on his face that would accommodate all the emoting he was doing with his mouth and wasn't really noticing anything. Why the gently caress would Chappie need lips?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
At what point should he have been a threat?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
YIKES Stay Gooned posted:I had some issues with the film, the plot felt rushed and Chappie didn't really seem like that much of a threat, which was a failure in my opinion. But the biggest offense for me was the fact that Chappie had loving lips. Why? I tried looking for moving parts on his face that would accommodate all the emoting he was doing with his mouth and wasn't really noticing anything. Why the gently caress would Chappie need lips? ShoogaSlim posted:I had some issues with the film, the plot felt rushed and Ultron didn't really seem like that much of a threat, which was a failure in my opinion. But the biggest offense for me was the fact that Ultron had loving lips. Why? I tried looking for moving parts on his face that would accommodate all the emoting he was doing with his mouth and wasn't really noticing anything. Why the gently caress would Ultron needs lips? At least you can somewhat infer what happened with Thor's Hot Tub Time Machine but why Ultron needed lips will forever remain a mystery.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Ahahaha.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
I wouldn't call Chappie a good movie, but it was entertaining and I'm glad it exists
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
If I were south african white trash and had burnt out most of my brain cells huffing paint fumes, I too would rewrite Stranger In a Strange Land except mix it up with some music video stylings and fun use of color against a backdrop of chaos and decay. And then everybody'd think I was remaking robocop when I was actually just ripping off 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand. I loved the movie in all its fetal alcohol syndrome glory. And did Hugh Jackman have a different shirt in every scene? Impressive touch. edit: one thing I haven't noticed mentioned much was CAPPiE's resemblance to the robots in anime, like I think Appleseed? Die Antwoord are supposedly huge into anime so I simply assumed that his "rabbit ears" and "jar jar-ness" that critics seema ll up in arms about, were an intentional choice along anime lines. Atlas Hugged posted:Is Deon the Old Testament god or the New Testament god? He creates a son to be tortured and die, and is then reborn. But he also gives the son free will and tells him what he can and can't do. I could see an argument either way.  v
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 06:11 on May 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Blomkamp is both a smart dude and a huge dork, the Masamune Shirow influence on the robots in this was almost definitely a deliberate nod (Shirow wrote both Appleseed and Ghost in the Shell, the latter of which CHAPPiE shares some themes with).
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
The last 40 mins or so felt super weirdly disjointed compared to the rest. But I liked the shout out to the Jason Bourne films, chappie was basically an emergent cybourne.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
chappie you got to chappie! chappie! its funny how this guy made the same movie 3 times in a row and it got significantly more retarded each time. man the first 20 mins of district 9 were so promising, where did it all go wrong 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 07:31
|
|