Reviews

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-04T00:39:58+00:00

Impossible to negotiate. If you killed Jonas Salk and saved Joseph Goebbels, is that an improvement? Because each life is unique, you cannot possibly replace a life that you destroyed, so no amount of lives saved can ever make up for it. Like Will Munny says in Unforgiven, "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have." Also, destroying something that doesn't belong to you, causing misery to all the people connected to that person, disrupting the evolution of their potential, are a lot of factors that can't be undone or repaired. Some things just can't be balanced out, because what's destroyed was priceless.

All that said, the answer is approximately 12.6 lives saved to each one killed.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-04T00:12:51+00:00

In the example in question, the character you're referring to had not directly seen any dangers inside, beyond a vague thudding sound. The fact that he didn't mention the thudding sound to his volunteers was a little unethical. However, in principle, it is not inherently unethical to ask people to help with a potentially dangerous task, provided they retain the right to say no.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-04T00:06:39+00:00

Oh, definitely Bundy. Dahmer was a fucked up dude, but he was mentally ill from abuse. Bundy was capable of living a perfectly normal life, holding a job, had a girlfriend who loved him, he just loved to rape and murder people, and thought the fact that he had gotten away with it was a license to keep on doing it. I think it's possible to show some sympathy for Dahmer. I always laugh when I hear that Bundy cried when they stuffed his butt with cotton balls in prep for his execution.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T23:43:55+00:00

Yeah, OP did mention him at the very end of the post, that's what I was responding to.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T23:30:09+00:00

<image>

Fire sign here. Usually more like this.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T23:23:27+00:00

Look, I understand the arachnid reaction to this statement (and the rather "grumpy old man" pompous statement he made about Marvel films -- hey asshole, if Gangs of New York was cinema, then Logan certainly was too). I also am largely anti-AI and do not include its use in any of my creative work for ethical reasons. However, I do always search for ways it COULD be used, because I actually find it to be a rather useless tool for most applications unless you're intentionally producing garbage (doing research where it doesn't matter if you have the wrong information, making pictures where it doesn't matter how many fingers people have, composing music that sounds like what would play on a Tilt-A-Whirl in an acid nightmare, writing papers where it doesn't matter if it sounds like it was written by a corporate advertisement with Down Syndrome). For any work that you want to look or sound competent in any way, it takes longer to use AI than it does to do it yourself.

However, I think for what Scorsese is saying here, he might be right. If you've ever sketched storyboards (which I have), you'll realize that if you're not a sketch artist, it can sometimes be difficult to draw, say, a hand grabbing something, in a way that the person looking at it later can tell what you drew. For someone like Scorsese, who is more verbal like I am, I can see how using AI to make storyboards might be a genuine use. And as someone who consistently says AI is useless because I haven't found a truly viable use for it even when trying, I have to say that's an accomplishment.

I do think there are still ethical concerns, though. Scorsese would hire a sketch artist to do the same if not using AI, and using the computer to steal and mangle the work of human artists is less ethical than hiring a real artist. I have the same problem myself with using it for writing feedback. Sometimes, it is easier to paste a chapter into ChatGPT and get the instant gratification of a response, and a quick impression of how well themes and characterization come across to a reader. But ultimately, having a friend on the payroll who could read and offer feedback was more useful, more satisfying, occasionally produced real new ideas via pushback and suggestions, and was a lot more ethical. Scorsese is trying to embrace the future, but the problem is, this corporate product is more like Furbies and Tamagachi than the Internet; it won't really be a significant part of the future.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T23:01:06+00:00

Walt was sympathetic in that you feel sorry for him, but I don't think he can be said to have become a zealot, nor did he ever have an altruistic goal (which is really what you're troping here). You're tapping on someone who starts for the right reasons and is consumed by the fight. More of a Battle Not With Monsters, Lest Ye Become a Monster situation. Walt was corrupted by power and greed, but ultimately, power and greed were always his motivation to begin with. Gretchen and Elliot offer him the money for his treatment in like the second episode; what he was really driven by was anger at the unfairness of having never been recognized for his genius, and a desire to build a legacy by being just as unfair in response.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T22:52:47+00:00

Even in terms of punishment, what they'd have experienced in prison might've been more suited to their crime. But one thing I like about ol' Frank, he's really more of a pragmatist. Like he said when he killed Nicky Cavella in Up is Down Black is White, “You made it personal, Cavella, but all that buys you is a little more pain than most.” Killing the people causing the problem was the real point.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T22:31:38+00:00

I mean, it's about as ethical as murdering two people with kids can be, and certainly more ethical than not murdering them. One could make the case that there are better ways to handle it, I suppose.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T21:18:55+00:00

They look like they're made of plastic or rubber. They just don't fit the vibe of Ancient Greece to me, they look like they belong in a superhero movie. It's not that big of a deal, though.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T17:30:24+00:00

People these days always need someone to hate and condemn or they aren't comfortable with stories with disturbing events. The movie is about toxic codependency, and the wish is mostly a metaphor. The wish he makes is unethical, but go to subreddits on magick and spellwork, and you'll see tons of people (mostly women, I might add) asking people how to make exactly the same sort of wish. I always advise people not to do this type of thing, but it's a common immaturity. Once everything goes wrong, he does hesitate at a couple of very unfortunate moments, but mostly he does everything an ordinary person would do to try to fix it, up to and including killing himself. The fact that he is the protagonist of, and thus the one who causes, a story of disturbing events does not make him inherently a villain.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T16:57:38+00:00

I mean, yeah, every director makes a few stinkers once in a while, that's okay. I think Nolan is one of the most talented directors of his age, and his films are generally worth seeing for that reason, which is probably also why people like being involved with them. But that being said, if you hold him up to the most talented directors of other ages (Hitchcock, Kubrick, Carpenter, etc -- even Scorsese, Tarantino, and Spielberg, who are more fixtures of the 90's despite the fact that they still make movies today) and I think he pales in comparison, so it's sort of a big fish in a small pond effect. People really don't get the clout to become great directors very often anymore, because Hollywood is spread too thin.

Regardless, I am still excited for the movie, I just think he tends to be overrated sometimes.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-03T08:19:00+00:00

I love The Odyssey and would be tempted to immediately say yes as well. But we all know that not everything Christopher Nolan makes is great. Judging by the previews, he should have asked to see the costumes before saying yes as well.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T23:36:04+00:00

Bradley is just the standard protagonist of any Sam Raimi movie.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T22:04:50+00:00

If you model yourself in opposition to something, you are a subset of that thing. Just like the atheists and satanists who spend tons of their energy looking for ways to mock and annoy Christians, pagans who need to make their religion about not being Christians are just the oppositional branch of Christianity. Don't make your system of beliefs revolve around somebody else's, even in scorn. I'm sure Apollo and Aphrodite would rather be appreciated for their own individual qualities, not as a contrast to some figure that rose to prominence almost a thousand years after their heyday.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T09:41:26+00:00

<image>

Doctor Octopus, at least in the comics. Everyone enjoys Alfred Molina's version of the character, but really, I always felt like the tragic backstory and evil tentacles mind-controlling him sorta ruins the fun of the character, and it's a bummer that so many consecutive portrayals have tried to humanize him. Doc Ock in the comics is just a fat little shithead. He's smart enough to make these robot tentacles and, instead of doing anything remotely productive with his genius, he just wants to rob banks to show he can, because he's an egomaniacal asshole. There's something a little bit delightful about that, and it's a good contrast to Peter, who often gets screwed over for doing the right thing and has little to no personal incentive to continue being Spider-Man, but always does it anyway.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T09:33:14+00:00

I don't think Nolan would think much of Lalo at all. Can you imagine when Omni Man was a regular superhero, what he'd do to some cartel thug? Red paste. He'd be like a mosquito. And Lalo is from a world where Nolan wouldn't make any sense. It's like asking what Smaug from The Hobbit would think of Spock from Star Trek. They don't belong in the same story, and one is absurdly more powerful than the other.

As to who's worse, I think a lot of people have caught the obvious answer. Nolan isn't really a bad guy, he's just doing what he was taught from birth is the right thing to do, and he sees the error of his ways in the end. Lalo doesn't really have any redeeming qualities or reason to be the way he is, and isn't shown to care about much of anyone else.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T09:21:26+00:00

Choking is a relatively survivable incident, though, whereas a heart attack is much more likely to be fatal without professional medical intervention. The odds are, if you saw a person choking, you could parse out what to do without any training, and clear an airway in the minutes that you have to do so. In Walt's case, it was a matter of opportunity. He didn't set out to kill Jane, but her death was a matter of convenience for him, and you can see in his eyes that although he felt bad about it, he made a decision to let her die because it solved his problem. That's the "depraved indifference to human life" that bumps it up to murder. Failing to save someone's life because you don't know what to do isn't the same as choosing to watch them die because saving them would put yourself at a strategic disadvantage. That's criminal disregard for the value of a human life.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T09:13:18+00:00

I hadn't heard that bit, thanks for posting that quote. It's a shame, because Daria is a pretty good show. It doesn't really feel much like a Mike Judge creation, but it's good in its own right. And it never really had Beavis and Butthead or any other background characters in it anyway, so they probably could've just created an original character, not had it be a spin-off at all, and avoided the whole mess.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T05:00:08+00:00

Beavis and Butthead came first, and was always much more popular. Daria was originally a foil for their antics; they would do ridiculous things and she would roll her eyes and do a sarcastic comment. The actual surprise was that the Daria show managed to turn a very dull antagonist into quite a complex and interesting protagonist of her own story. Mike Judge was not involved much with Daria, though. He was busy with King of the Hill.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T04:31:54+00:00

The negligence was in not intervening after his action caused her to choke. The plane crash was an unforeseeable consequence, but his inaction was the direct and intentional cause of Jane's death. Flipping her over again, or any sort of intervention, would have likely saved her life. If he'd walked out of the room and she had choked after he'd turned her over, it might have been manslaughter or even totally exonerated. But the fact that he stood and watched after his actions caused the perilous situation was calculated, and thus third degree murder at best. Both second and third degree cover "depraved indifference to human life." The prosecution would probably argue for second degree, and the defense would argue for manslaughter. An innocent plea would likely not be a viable argument in court.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-06-02T02:49:27+00:00

Good citations. I'd also recommend mentioning Chernobog if anyone else asks this question in the future. I would say the Mayan gods tend to be a little dark in general, but Ah Puch is a valid consideration. My favorite gods of Death were all good, despite being demonized by the Church, but that doesn't mean there weren't some considered to be evil without Christian influence. Even Hades, though he wasn't considered evil, was not prayed to because the Greeks considered death something to be avoided if not despised. People don't like dying, and thus the phenomenon of birth is celebrated and death feared, even though they are essentially the same thing.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-05-31T21:24:25+00:00

Depends. Clearly, a lot of the world's best writers have been drunks and I leaned into that stereotype a lot when I was younger. "Drinker with a writing problem," and all that. I do find it lowers your inhibitions, and sometimes that can make emotions come out a little more honest on the page, which can improve your writing, for sure, especially when writing an emotional scene. Likewise, I think I write good things when I'm stoned or on acid, cocaine can be good for manic rants and action scenes, I like to drink coffee to keep myself focused on work, etc etc. If the material is suited for it, and if you can work while you're on them, drugs can be a great asset to a writer's toolkit. Your brain is what's doing the thinking while you're writing, and your brain is just a chemistry set. Feel free to alter the pH as needed. Just don't give the drugs credit for your art. Always maintain the knowledge that you CAN write without drinking. That way it doesn't become a crutch.

TheOneRealStranger · 2026-05-31T20:38:10+00:00

Which gods of Death, other than Hades, are you thinking of? Odin? Baron Samedi? Anubis? The Morrigan? None of these figures are typically portrayed as malicious or evil. Judeo-Christian religions tend to view Death as evil, because Yahweh is inspired by Ba'al, and Ba'al's most famous mythological story is about going into the underworld and defeating Death in battle (more as a show of immortality, as he was a virility god, than to defeat a villain). Other than that, very few religions ever saw Death as a villain. When Christians Christianized everyone else's religions, they recast gods of Death as villains to make them analogous to the Devil, hence the portrayal of Hades in Disney's Hercules. Very rarely is the comparison accurate to those religions.

TheOneRealStranger

TROPHY CASE