Lone Ranger

They tried for humor in this movie and only succeeded in making it stupid. Do not waste your money. I would have walked out on it, but I hadn't finished my popcorn, and I wanted to see just how stupid it would get.

I would have rather seen White House Down for the third time rather than it.

I had read that this one was going to be a bigger bomb that even "After Earth".

This is why I seldom go to movies.

The first two paragraphs of the movie review in the San Francisco Chronicle run

"The Lone Ranger," produced by Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer, is an action-movie bloodbath for a children's audience. It has horse manure jokes for the kiddies, as well as scenes of an Indian tribe getting wiped out, a posse of rangers getting shot to death and an intimate interlude in which a man has his heart cut out. In the latter case, you don't actually see the heart being ripped from the body, just the sound of the cutting and hacking.

But put aside the notion that children shouldn't see this film. No one should. "The Lone Ranger" is a movie for the whole family ... to avoid. It represents 2 1/2 of the longest hours on record, a jumbled botch that is so confused in its purpose and so charmless in its effect that it must be seen to be believed, but better yet, no. Don't see it, don't believe it, not unless a case of restless leg syndrome sounds like a fun time at the movies.

It gets even more vitriolic after that....

DESPICABLE ME is supposed to kill THE LONE RANGER at the box office this weekend because it opens? opened? opening? in more theaters (by about 1000) and it's kiddie entertainment that adults can enjoy. THE LONE RANGER has all sorts of warnings about taking children because of the violence.

This thread made me think of the South Park movie. It was an amazing slam of the MPAA rating system. I wish I could remember the exact quote but the gist of it was massive amounts of violence was okay. Sex and language not so much.

And here my son and I was going to go see it, THANKS for ruining it for us, I mean really thanks for letting us know, we will now wait for the download. You just saved me 25 bucks.

Now has anybody seen the new Superman movie, I really have no idea what they were thinking using a British actor to play Superman - don't they know SUPERMAN IS AN AMERICAN?

River

Riverwind (imported) wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:25 pm And here my son and I was going to go see it, THANKS for ruining it for us, I mean really thanks for letting us know, we will now wait for the download. You just saved me 25 bucks.

Now has anybody seen the new Superman movie, I really have no idea what they were thinking using a British actor to play Superman - don't they know SUPERMAN IS AN AMERICAN?

River

I liked the Superman movie and thought it was the best Superman movie made. I saw it a second time, the second time in IMAX 3D. White House Down is another movie I found worth seeing a second time at the theater. There are few movies I'll pay to see twice.

Is the William Tell overture to be heard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5-dRuTrDU

Bring back memories anyone?

Although not a great movie, I thought this take on the story was a good one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082648/

All the other rangers get slaughtered in an ambush, that is why he is the "Lone Ranger".

The series was too gentle to tell us why he was the Lone Ranger.

Was this movie a sincere effort or something manipulated like the play, "The Producers"

profits, through failure.

moi621 (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:10 am "The Producers" profits, through failure.

One of the best plays ever,

River

Many, if not all, stories are at least of two layers, the surface layer ( overstories?) which "everyone seems to get," and one or more deeper layers (understories?), which consciously elude almost everyone, often including those who write stories. This layered nature of stories is vividly apparent to me in every Eunuch Archive story I have read.

Violent stories bring near to the surface the understory of human destructive violence for some people, and bring that understory into full conscious awareness for some (few, so far?) people.

Until the at-present-mostly-understory of human human destructive violence becomes fully consciously accessible for enough people, the understory of human destructive violence will continue to drive people toward violence driven by unconscious decisions over which people are unable to exercise any semblance of willful control.

Yesterday morning, I happened to watch the Lifetime "channel" broadcast of Lifetime movie, "The Capture of the Green River Killer." This movie is available through Amazon Instant Video, only, where my wife and I live, there is no available-to-us method for downloading more than a tiny amount of Internet Video; our Internet service provider, the only one that, so far, gives to us more than dial-up Internet Access, does not have the bandwidth where we live for reliably downloading or viewing Internet video.

For those who do have the proper Internet Access, the two parts of that Lifetime miniseries are available for less than $10 total. In my view, as a "docudrama," it is about as effective a telling of the understory of human destructive violence as I have yet found.

My view of human destructive violence is one of combined theoretical and practical evolutionary biology. Human evolution let to the forming of very large brain frontal lobes, and humans, as individuals and as a species have been busy learning what those frontal lobes do well, what they do poorly, and what they do atrociously. I find that what frontal lobes do the best is of symbolic communication, as in the form of words and pictures. What they do poorly is of communication using gestures. What they do atrociously is thinking. Meanwhile, the back of the brain does poorly at best with symbolic communication, does gesture-based communication well, and does thinking superbly.

However it happened (chaos theory works as well as anything else for me), early in infancy, I noted that people who think in words or pictures seemed to misunderstand life in ways that seemed to me to often be atrocious. Please, please note that I did not have the words I am here using, however, I did have the meanings I now seek to communicate using words. Because I thought I thought adequately before I learned to say any English language words, and because I noticed that words could sometimes lead to terrible things happening, I never learned to think in, or with, words; I kept the way I thought before I was born, thinking only in thoughts.

Having never learned to think in words has prevented my living my life in accord with any sort of social contract, and especially never living in accord with "The Rule of Law," because living in accord with "The Rule of Law" social contract requires the ability to "think in words," an ability I have never acquired, and, from what I observe "thinking in words" can achieve, war, child abuse, hatred, prejudice of all kinds, murder, and a system of Adversarial Law that no one can possibly ever understand or actually obey, I cannot imagine my ever learning to think in words.

So, in a sort of peculiar way, my life is a tad like that of the Lone Ranger, except that I have no apparent equivalent of Tonto; I am unaware of any other profoundly autistic, does not think in words or pictures, properly state-licensed Ph.D. level scientist/engineer who set out, and, methinks, has actually solved the existential predicament of human destructive violence all the way to its practicable remedy. How do I come to believe that the practicable remedy actually works? Simply by actually living it.

What remedy? Living in accord with actually objective reality, rather like the "Real" of the psychoanalytic method of Jacques Lacan, for example. Or, living in accord with actually objective reality, rather like the "objectivity terminates a panic," of neuropsychiatrist Dr. Abraham A. Low.

Whatever happens, as it happens is inescapably both necessary and sufficient, this being the nearly trivially simple consequence of the directly observable fact that nothing else ever happens other than what happens as it happens.

When believing otherwise than that whatever happens as it happens is necessary and sufficient happens, what happens as a result is misunderstanding what happens, and that misunderstanding, being a misunderstanding of misunderstanding, demonstrates its erroneous nature through all the violent destructive mayhem that loss of understanding of what is, and is not, "Real" can generate.

No mistake ever made either could or should have been avoided, for it is only through accurate recognition of why and how confusing what is actually Real and what is actually not-Real that human frontal lobes can learn what they do well, do poorly, and do atrociously.

I am able to pretend that I am somewhat like a lone ranger, in that I have not yet been able to find anyone else on this planet who has been able to do the work I have done the way I have done it.

The only weapons I have in my armory are words and pictures from the front of my brain, along with gestures and overt conduct from the back of my brain, used as truthfully as it is given to me to use them.

My conscious awareness resides mainly in the back of my brain, that part of human brains which commonly become unconscious in people who successfully transition from traditional infancy to traditional childhood; that transition is not in any way an aspect of my actual life as I live it, moment by moment. Deception and dishonesty, so I observe, are only possible in the realm of pictures and words; the back of human brains is, as I observe, absolutely incapable of ether deception or dishonesty; yet is capable of various forms of misinterpretation in some situations.

The belief, the absolutely and totally biologically false belief, that someone who did something could actually (not merely hypothetically) have done what the someone did other than exactly and precisely as the someone did it, is the fundamental, and foundational, error of any word or picture based form of social contract, so I have invariably understood for the whole of my life.

If anyone actually demonstrates the actual happening of one (or more) actually avoidable accidents or actually avoidable mistakes, which I find requires actually demonstrating the actual happening of the actual mistake or accident, and, only after the mistake or accident has actually happened and has actually been demonstrated to have actually happened, been demonstrated to not have actually been demonstrated when it was actually demonstrated, I shall admit to my blunder in observing that no mistake or accident that actually happened was actually avoidable as it happened, the simple proof of every mistake or accident having actually been actually unavoidable being the mere fact that it actually happened.

Imagine that I go to the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, and experience an unexpected muscle spasm, and that unexpected muscle spasm results in the shattering of some "priceless artifact" of antiquity, say, an exceptionally archeologically significant pottery vessel. That, to me, would be an accident in the form of a mistake or a mistake in the form of an accident. For me, to refute my view that no accident or mistake that ever actually happened was actually avoidable, I find that it would be necessary to demonstrate that the particular exceptionally archeologically significant pottery vessel was not shattered when it was shattered, by demonstrating that it was actually intact and had not been shattered when it was shattered.

I find that necessary proof that my research work and findings are false, the only way I have yet been able to imagine could refute my research and findings, is of the form and function of an eternally-and-beyond absolute impossibility.

For those who do not yet grasp the significance of the prior sentence/paragraph of this post, it is the total eviscerating of post-modernism. However, no harm is done by that eviscerating, for post-modernism has always been a gutless wonder.

Please refute and rebut, not with hypothetical arguments, but with directly-observable, tangible demonstration(s).

If such refutation or rebuttal be not possible, what is actually true regarding any social-consensus-based form of social contract?

Has my research and findings not also eviscerated the notion that any social contract can ever be valid? Is such evisceration other than totally and perfectly harmless, because any and every social contract establishment of reality is inescapably a gutless, heartless, mindless, and care-less wonder?

Are many of the traditional "fairy tales" of childhood learning any less violent than the most violent of movies, or the most violent of overt human actions?

Methinks that, until human violent destructiveness becomes sufficiently accurately understood, human destructive violence will reign supreme actual human personal and public safety.

Please, if possible, demonstrate that my research and findings are significantly in error.

In the 1940s, I sometimes listened to radio programs intended for children, including Sky King, The Lone Ranger, The Green Hornet, and The Shadow. I knew then why the Lone Ranger was "Lone," the other Rangers had been ambushed and slaughtered.

In the 1940s, I also understood that my brain-function personal integrity had not been slaughtered by the infant-child transition and that such integrity of brain function had been slaughtered in everyone else with whom I had become acquainted, with the exception of exactly one other person, my mother.

Perhaps you, dear reader of this, will consider putting the following in your smoke and pipette it:

Hypothetically:

If the "religious tradition notion of sin" is actual estrangement from actually objective reality and if some religious traditions name actually objective reality as "gods" or as "God," and thus, sin as estrangement from "God" is absolutely and identically estrangement from actually objective reality, then, what if, for the second time in the evolution of human biology, if the religious notion of original sin is believing other than that whatever happens as it happens is inescapably both necessary and sufficient, there has been a mother and son, both of whom were without "original sin"?

Notice how words can form nonsense?