Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

1319 profile views

PKD's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. So my socialist friend from Sweden continues to badmouth Ayn Rand and Objectivism. http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1465285.html?thread=72334789#t72334789 I don't really know what to say to that. In which way would a philosophy of individualism turn people into robots? He also seems to think Objectivists are devoid of empathy. Would welcome participation in that discussion. PKD
  2. No. Anyway, I found the actual movie boring. It opened with an amazingly well-written opening scene (stolen somewhat from Angel Eyes' visit to the farm in the beginning of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly") and never went back to the level of quality that this opening had you expect. I disagree that the movie was "two and a half hours of mindless violence". There was mindless violence. But for the most part the movie dwelt in boring stretches of nothing much interesting going on. The characters were not very interesting, I couldn't care about them at all. The americans were ignorant brutes, the Nazis were one-dimensional, except for the Jew Hunter, he was very well acted. The sniper hero was interesting but he was a Nazi so we're not supposed to care...I did, because he seemed realistic to me, more so than the bland caricatures of the Nazi high command...Mike Myers played a British officer, a move more distracting than enhancing. I spent my time trying to figure out what got stolen from which movie, recognised Ennio Morricone themes, themes from "Un Dollaro Bucato" (great Giuliano Gemma film), "Companeros", "A Professional Gun" (both Franco Nero flicks), etc... I don't know why but I just can't get into his characters. Kill Bill was good, but I can't say I was that interested in Kiddo. The only character I cared about in Pulp Fiction was Bruce Willis. I loved Reservoir Dogs and Deathproof was a lot of fun...so sometimes I like his work. I just wish the characters would mean something to me.
  3. I don't know that the guy who got his head bashed in was really an ardent nazi. I know that the guy who did it was a psycho. I'm also not a troll, but I have a personal context in this subject which gives me an insight others don't have. Atrocities are atrocities no matter who performs them or why.
  4. I can't answer you anymore because you keep changing the context of what I say. I'm more interested in clarification than confrontation, but I'm also getting tired of saying "blue is blue" and getting asked why I'm saying that "blue is green". -PKD
  5. Don't even. I never said that he caused controversy to become a millionaire. He was already a millionaire when he made this movie. I am not inside his head and can't tell you the exact motive for his desire to create controversy. But I can tell that he did desire it because the movie makes you feel sorry for at the least some of the bastards' victims and raises questions as to when sadism is "allowable". Being an Objectivist doesn't destroy basic empathy. If it did, there would be no difference between Objectivists and Nazis when it came to dealing with undesirables. The easy way was to use Nazis. They are universally hated by people who like to make broad generalisations about an entire nation that was mesmerised into a horrible collectivist way of thinking. Buying into this hate may have its roots in good reasons, but falling for mob enticement is not my thing. I'm more and more seeing people who just plain hate other PEOPLE and the fact that those others may be socially considered distasteful or criminal is just an excuse for the collectivists to show their true side. Anyway... not every member of the Wehrmacht was an ardent Nazi. I didn't catch that guy's rank, the one who gets his head bashed in by that jewish sociopath with the baseball bat, but he might actually have been against nazism. We'd never know. Ironically, it seems he died for what he believed in, and that's actually commendable so QT succeeded in making a Nazi character heroic. His death reminded me of the death of that mother in "Saviour", an amazing Dennis Quaid movie about revenge that is miles above "Ignoble Bashers". We need a movie of "We, the Living". I hear "Noi Vivvi" is hard to find on DVD.
  6. LMAO! No, the comment above is ridiculous. It states that to have an opinion on a movie one needs to go out and make a movie. That's ludicrous. PKD
  7. This makes me think that Tarantino wasn't really just reveling in violence. He wanted controversy and from the looks of it he got it. For cheap. The easiest most obvious way. PKD
  8. I really could have done better to explain how Objectivism views "use of force"... Anyway, this is actually pretty hilarious now that it's over. We were talking about a guy we know who kept threatening to use violence on people.
  9. I think I don't have the expectation that a Hollywood screenwriter would get the facts right. My grandfather is a pretty famous historical figure and they never got him right so I don't bother. I sit back and enjoy the ride, knowing that the version of historical figures Hollywood can offer are about as real as Darth Vader. And since you brought up Ayn Rand, what did you guys think of that "The Passion of Ayn Rand" movie? -PKD
  10. And there's no such thing as the Force or Darth Vader, yet Star Wars managed to be entertaining. ;-) If the historical inaccuracy bothers you, that's fine. But it doesn't make the plot retarded. While it's true they portrayed historical figures inaccurately, well, it's still a very well written movie with memorable characters and riveting performances. Plot wasn't bad either. ;-) -PKD
  11. Excellent music and movie. I'm curious, what about the plot did you not enjoy? I found it pretty engaging. -PKD
  12. My favourite tv show growing up was Irwin Allen's "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". Impossibly illogical absurd science in several of the episodes. I still watch it now that the whole thing is out on DVD and I think I still enjoy it just as much, no matter how absurd the science in it. My only issue is with the constant re-use of stock footage and props, sometimes two episodes in a row. On the other hand I HATED HATED HATED the movie Transformers, yet my friend Thomas who is the most rational person I know loved it (while not liking Amadeus, one of my favourites). -PKD
  13. PKD

    Your Art!

    Even if you use THAT definition, which isn't the commonly used definition, I'd say that anyone who claims that photography is not art is simply ignorant enough not to know all the intricacies that goes into photography. Lighting, exposure, shadows, angles, sharpness, etc. But I'll go ahead and let Jonathan13 say it better since I don't have the energy. ;-) -PKD
  14. PKD

    Your Art!

    I don't agree with her on this. The camera doesn't need to perform the basic task of painting anymore than a brush can perform it by itself. It is an instrument. Without the photographer it is nothing. It is what and how the photographer chooses to use the instrument that dictates that finished product. That finished product can be anything, and it can be art. If you take the definition of art to be "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" you can see that photography can qualify as art. You may think it is BAD art and that is an opinion, but it is art according to that definition. I went to dictionary.com and found quite a few definitions for art. One was "The application of skill to the production of the beautiful by imitation or design, or an occupation in which skill is so employed, as in painting and sculpture; one of the fine arts; as, he prefers art to literature." You might not find someone's photograph beautiful but if you say it isn't art then I would like to know under what definition of the word art are you using. "Beautiful" becomes the domain of subjectivity when it is an opinion. "Beautiful" according to the dictionary is "having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: a beautiful dress; a beautiful speech. " Who decides this? When the individual reacts to the work of art with his own impression of it, who is going to tell him "sorry that's not beautiful because I don't think it's beautiful, in fact it's not art because it's not what I think art is"? -PKD
  • Create New...