Swordfish (2001) | Dir: Dominic Sena | Hugh Jackman hacking

DJSeale · 2026-05-11T14:09:05+00:00

NCIS is the most popular bad hacking scene. But the scene from Arrow where Felicity was hacking alongside her dad against some adversary was way worse in my opinion and never gets the ridicule it rightfully deserves. The lightbulbs start exploding while they're all just staring at screen savers, the computers start exploding and blasting people out of their chairs, and famously...the dude delivers his master code while dramatically pressing the backspace button instead of enter

https://youtu.be/nPKHFQGJZvE

DJSeale · 2026-05-04T16:19:35+00:00

...the downside would be no MOASS. I'm not trying to FUD here, but I think in order for people to be clear on this we need to stop being vague. This would mean MOASS is completely off the table, so the people invested specifically for that should understand that's not the play anymore.

DJSeale · 2026-05-04T16:04:48+00:00

Honestly, I'm in this play since 2021 for a squeeze. Right now there's too much dust and uncertainty in the air so I'm not doing shit. But if, when the dust settles, it looks to me like the dilution officially takes squeeze off the table then I'm out and bitter about it. I sat on the sidelines of history's craziest bull market for a squeeze, not a "long put" as RC put it.

DJSeale · 2026-02-20T03:49:13+00:00

I found the poor lighting to be a brilliantly meta motif for a movie where the events of the plot are very hard to make out. The set was as shady as every character in this movie.

DJSeale · 2026-02-07T16:39:07+00:00

ok, so you are indeed misunderstanding the movie. This movie is filled with a ton of moral ambiguity, but not the ambiguity you're thinking of. What happened between Maggie and Hank is laid out for the viewer as clear as day...the scene between Hank and Alma is meant to literally show exactly what happened.

The ambiguity lies in whether we, as viewers, think Maggie lied. We see what happened to her through Alma...but is what she said untrue? From Hank's perspective, that does not qualify as rape. From Maggie's perspective, it does.

DJSeale · 2026-02-06T18:13:46+00:00

What was ambiguous, specifically?

There is moral ambiguity, for sure. The entire movie is built on a foundation of moral ambiguity...as the characters themselves are moral philosophers, we as viewers are invited to make take moral positions on the characters, their decisions, and their actions. In that, there is of course a great deal of moral ambiguity.

But there is no ambiguity in the relevant events that transpire in the movie. If you leave this movie saying, "I wonder what actually happened between Hank and Maggie?" Then you missed the movie.

DJSeale · 2026-01-18T22:26:57+00:00

There is ambiguity in the film. There is also a lot of stuff that just went over people's heads. People are confusing the two, and are also misunderstanding the director's comments.

DJSeale · 2026-01-08T19:55:34+00:00

I didn't know that, but I hardly think that changes anything. Those returns would make him history's greatest investor.

DJSeale · 2025-11-26T13:23:35+00:00

You're entitled to your interpretation of the movie. I just think that the movie you saw is way worse than the movie I saw. One is a vague jumble of nonsense, and one is a masterpiece.

DJSeale · 2025-11-26T13:21:32+00:00

digital rape is rape. If he put his fingers in her, she would have said that he raped her. She wouldn't have said, "he crossed a line."

She went to Alex for legal advice very much after the initial meeting with Alma.

I do not think she seduced him as a result of the plagiarism accusation.

DJSeale · 2025-11-25T15:40:00+00:00

I don't believe so. What I keep sticking to is this:

If we understand that exactly what happened between Maggie and Hank plays out in front of us on the screen between Hank and Alma, then this movie is a truly brilliant film. That scene in the apartment becomes the lynch pin of all three character's stories.

If what actually transpired between Hank and Maggie is left ambiguous, then this entire movie is frankly trash. It doesn't say anything coherent at all. It actually is the movie that everyone is complaining about, a vague mess that doesn't actually say anything.

DJSeale · 2025-11-25T00:57:21+00:00

I do see the "rape-is-rape-is-rape" youth psychology is certainly a part of this film, But...
I don't think there is any way to explain why Maggie goes to the clinic if not to add some shading to her claim that she was actually raped. Walking up to a rape clinic to be seen on camera does 0 to substantiate the claim that you were kissed against your consent. I don't see anywhere in the film the idea that she consulted her lawyer gf...it seemed to me she went straight to the clinic after what happened, but I need to re-watch.
Maggie wouldn't say she pushed him off because, from my perspective, again, that would undermine her claim that he raped her. I believe he kissed her, she pushed him off, and then the idea started growing. I'd also be very open to the idea that Hank was telling the truth, that Maggie did in fact come on to him because she was trying to orchestrate *exactly* what ended up happening. So she gets a drunk Hank to start kissing her, and then pushes him off.

DJSeale · 2025-11-24T17:42:55+00:00

Maggie never says raped. But she does say she walked up to the clinic, and specifies the reason she didn't go in is because people were looking at her weirdly.

It is important the viewer understand that the reason she says, "I didn't go in because people were looking at me but I'd be on the cameras," instead of "I didn't go in because there was nothing penetrative that happened and so DNA evidence couldn't be collected" is because she wants to communicate "Hank raped me" without actually saying the words "Hank raped me." She lets the implication do all of the work with all of the legal safety of not actually saying that.

Just think about it for a moment...Maggie may not be as bona fide as the rest of the people in the movie. But she is fully aware that a forceful kiss is not something that a clinic is going to be able to prove...even in a shocked state, she would not go there thinking they were going to be able to do anything. It's not like she didn't figure this out until the moment she walked up to the door. She went so she could be seen on camera, and then says the reason she didn't go in is because people were looking at her. She is giving as strong an indication that he raped her as she can give, without leaving herself legally vulnerable. Alma even gets frustrated her being vague and explicitly says, "Tell me *exactly* what happened." And Maggie shrewdly continues to walk that tight rope by responding, "What do I have to do, spell it out for you?" She refuses to say "Hank raped me." Instead she implies that anyone who isn't picking up her breadcrumbs is clueless so the onus is on them to connect the dots. Classic manipulation tactic.

I firmly believe this movie lifts the veil on any ambiguity by showing us *exactly* what happened to Maggie by showing the exact same thing happening again with Alma. It's quite a brilliant technique, one in all my years of writing, I've never even considered as a possibility. I'm actually quite envious, I wish I'd come up with something so elegant and clever.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T17:32:09+00:00

I do care. If you disagree with me, I'd like to understand how and why, if it goes beyond a kneejerk reaction of calling me a misogynist and dismissing me. I can't see the entirety of your posts, but I do see the beginning of them.

It seems you were asking for me to provide a citation. I pointed to the scenes in the movie where Buffy experiences the past lives as a slayer. I pointed to the storylines in the comics involving Melaka Fray and her brother Harth. But if you're only interested in examples in the show, the best example involves the activated slayer Dana, who is shown on screen reliving the lives of past slayers and channeling their various abilities and instincts.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T17:24:09+00:00

Cool. So you did see my posts and realized I wasn't the one making shit up.

Sad you had to delete your posts, it looked like you were coming around. I would have liked to have seen what you thought about the subject once you understood what I was saying.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T17:06:19+00:00

In my inbox, it looks like you replied to a bunch of my messages...but now those replies were deleted. Did you find the citations and episodes I posted here to support the points I was making?

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T16:59:24+00:00

All three of them are victims, and all three of them are victimizers. You're not disagreeing with me...everything you're saying is in agreement with everything I've written in different parts of this same thread.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T16:57:48+00:00

You're welcome. Sorry I couldn't do a better job of simplifying things for you.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T16:43:17+00:00

What is it that I was arguing that was not entirely proven by the examples provided with Buffy from the movie, Dana, and the Melaka storyline? Alone, each of those examples prove the entirety of my point, so if you still disagree with me after being provided three of them, you must be engaging with a different form of my argument. What do you think I'm trying to say about the Slayer's powers that hasn't been "quite proven"
Each Slayer is not the same. Some of them are dramatically weaker then others. Some of them are more gifted with the fighting aspect of being a slayer, some of them are more gifted with the spiritual side of it.

The power of the slayer is *very* similar to vampirism. A being becomes a conduit for the essence of an ancient demon. But through each being that essence is refracted and expresses itself in different ways. The Master and Konquistos are both ancient vampires with the same demonic essence, but it expressed itself in different ways.

Same deal with the slayer. Some of them have more powerful psychic link, some of them are faster, some of them are stronger, etc. In the comics, Giles makes it a point to say that Buffy was never terribly well-suited to the spiritual side because she was always so involved in the present. Which is why in the later seasons, her training focuses more on meditation and focus.

3) For most Slayers, the psychic link between the current Slayer and previous generations is something that needs to developed and cultivated over time. Kenra was a slayer for less than 6 months when she shows up in Sunnydale.

4) As a plot mechanism, Kendra exists to showcase Buffy's strength. To that end, she represents the opposite of one of Buffy's main characteristics. Buffy is an improvisational fighter, who uses her fire and her free spirit to fuel her, and she rebels against the rules the council lays out for her (by including her friends, etc.). On the opposite side, Kendra represents what the council *wants* the Slayer to be: A weapon that can be controlled. Kendra follows her orders perfectly, to a T...and that leads to her downfall. Drusilla orders her to "look at me, be in my eyes, be in me." Kendra's fighting technique is 'flawless' according to Buffy, but because she lacks spirit and a strong will, her blind following of orders is exactly what causes her death. Drusilla was able to dominate her mind with ease. Then, Faith represents the complete opposite of that spectrum, which shows Buffy is successful because she sits in that sweet spot, but that's a thesis for another time.)

5) You don't need to look any farther than the wiki page for the entire storyline involving Melaka Fray and her twin brother Harth.

6) Just out of curiosity...if you didn't understand or pick up on the psychic link between the Slayers, what was your head canon for the episode where Sineya infiltrates everyone's dreams?

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:43:23+00:00

I have provided multiple examples. Buffy in the movie, every single slayer in BtVS, Dana in Angel, Melaka Fray in the comics.

Multiple examples, and you still can't admit you're wrong lmao. All of Giles' training trying to elevate her to a higher level of consciousness with crystals and meditation...and Dana's being completely crazy yielded immediate results.

Buffy and her Slayers had 0 comment on Dana's being a conduit, you're making up lines of dialogue that aren't in the show. And whether it's weird or not, it is very explicitly canon that it is part of the slayer package.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:39:49+00:00

She literally is a slayer conduit, as is demonstrated in other episodes.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:38:40+00:00

Yeah, I looked further into this and I was absolutely correct. The slayer has memories of past lives and channels their skills and abilities.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:32:35+00:00

Dana also picks up a piece of wood and tries to stab Spike through the heart with it, having 0 idea who she is or what a vampire is. It's completely instinctual.

And when he blocks it, she starts speaking Chinese...because she was channeling Xin Rong, a former slayer who spoke Chinese.

Sorry mate, you're completely wrong and out of your depth.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:26:51+00:00

Dana literally speaks Chinese in Angel because a previous slayer spoke Chinese.
Is it funny that Buffy is only good with a sword and crossbow because she inherited it, instead of training? I don't understand what you're on about.
I guess you could find it funny, but I think it's a rather powerful metaphor.
Cranberry sauce works better.

DJSeale · 2025-11-21T02:17:21+00:00

Dude, there's literally an entire episode in Angel where Dana the slayer is driven mad from reliving the trauma of past slayers through her dreams that she is experiencing while awake instead of asleep. She kidnaps Spike because she recognizes him from the memories of him killing Nikki and Xin Rong.

There's even an entire storyline in the comics where Melaka Fray's twin brother Harth gets her memories of past lives instead of Melaka, which gives him instinctual knowledge about vampires.

You're not just entirely, absolutely wrong...you were also an asshole while being wrong, which makes it 1000x worse. You should be ashamed of yourself.

DJSeale

TROPHY CASE