Pumpkin Person rating 7.5/10
I used to hate this movie with a passion, but compared to the new Halloween (2018), it’s a masterpiece.
The film was written by Daniel Farands who was just some 20-year-old nobody at the time, but he had an obsessive passion for horror films, and sent a letter to the series’ producer Moustapha Akkad, and somehow managed to land an interview circa 1989. During the interview Farands presented his encyclopedic knowledge of the series and all his ideas about where the story could go and Akkad, his co-producer and his son listened politely and then thanked him for coming by.
For four long years, Farrands heard nothing, and then one day in the mid 1990s, Farrands was suddenly hired to pen the latest Halloween film. Akkad had never forgotten the obsessed fan boy who knew more about the series than anyone he had ever met and Akkad was desperate for good ideas on where to take the series after the bizarre ending of Halloween V.
At the end of Halloween V, Michael Myers is captured and placed in jail, only to be freed by a mysterious man in black who obliterates the entire police station with a machine gun, allowing Myers to walk free. Unfortunately the people who made Halloween V just pulled this out of their hat and had no idea how to explain this odd ending.
Only Farrands had the passion to salvage the narrative. He decided that the man in black was actually the head of the mental hospital where Myers had spent his childhood, and he was the leader of a secret cult that worships and helps Myers do his killings.
But now that Myers is getting old, the man in black is stalking a six-year-old boy named Danny who moved into Myers’s old house and is hoping to turn Danny into the next Michael Myers (who killed his first victim at age six). The family thinks Danny is having nightmares, little do they know the man in black is literally hiding in Danny’s closet telling him to kill people.
Danny’s mother is horrified to learn that half the town seems to be part of the cult, including the sweet old lady who lives across the street, and suddenly pulls out a knife and says “Hello Dear”
Despite the totally contrived story-line and the poorly edited climax, this is rapidly becoming one of my favorites in the series because of the memorable characters like the verbally abusive John Strode who buys the Myers house for cheap, neglecting to tell his family that a mass murderer used to live there, or the creepy Tommy Doyle, played by Paul Rudd before he was famous.
I also loved the Halloween atmosphere they were able to capture by shooting the film in Salt Lake City Utah in November, unlike the original Halloween shot in South Pasadena.
And above all, the mask in this film was the best it’s looked since Halloween II (1981) and the actor playing Myers had the height and bulk to look scary on screen.
And last but not least, this was the last film of the great Donald Pleasence, who died before ever seeing the film. A decade later Moustapha Akkad would die in a terrorist attack.
May both men Rest in Peace.
So youre not going to mention john carpenter again?
Bumbkin? Do you know if its possible to change the link you have on your name link? Like i have an blog, but its not the one my name links to! 😦
These guys make great music around old leftist values. Not the identity crap. I think I was the only guy in my school that liked this band. Its very sad. The main songwriter just disappeared one day. More than likely a suicide.
“Often, working class Britons learn to be ashamed of their background. They lose their accent and their dialect. As the arts become increasingly dominated by the upper-middle classes, the working classes are more pressured than ever to “pass.
Nicky here is defiant of the obligation to be posh. He’s happy to show scars from bar fights that betray his working class origins.
Kerrang! editor James McMahon identified this as a central element of the appeal of the Manics
Reminds me of ‘leftist’ Hilary completely changing her accent in the late 80s. …
https://illuminaticatblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/fractal-superintelligence/
People who remember every second of their life – Total recall | 60 Minutes Australia
I remember all masturbational event of my life, shared and solo.
I’m reading ”The Devils of Loudun”… based on ”hbd crowd” europins were always ”universalists” and not ”collectivists” thanks for avoidance of twins marriage… BUT NOT. hbd’s sound soo illiterate.
The Affliction of Howard Hughes Obsessive Compulsive Disorder OCD
You have devils in your body, you need a exorcism, it’s a experimental retrocessive treatment of XVII when white race breathed the golden air of civilization.
Sign me up!
An act of education. Your videos are very long.
Today is my moms birthday. Oct 29. She is 62.
My mother birthday was in the last week
Santo, thoughts on your new president?
PT elected him. He represent Brazilian avg joey as well white aryan joey, wow!!
Leftists or pseudo-socialists have nonexistent self-awareness.
hbb mentalitet: if rape is adaptive ….
It’s a just-so story. That has been argued actually, but of course as with all just-so stories they are inherently ad hoc.
You don’t become tired of being yourself*
https://www.psypost.org/2018/10/there-is-mounting-evidence-of-a-link-between-the-herpes-virus-and-alzheimers-disease-52412
I have just seen The house that Jack built from Las Von Trier. It’s really good. The heroe is a psychopath with tested high verbal IQ who wanted to be an architect but his an engineer. He has OCD.
They don’t say it but he has probably a relatively lower spatial IQ because he is never happy with his lifelong project of building his perfect house despite getting all the material means to do it.
It’s really a metaphor of what it takes to be an artist and a self loathing and trolling of Lars about his own means and results. The movie is very self reflective and paedagogical.
There is a scene where the hero psychologically torture and humiliates a perfect (built by nature)blonde girl who happens to have probably a slightly under average verbal IQ (90). I would say it’s painful to watch because it’s such a powerful metaphor.
At the end, I agree with Lars. He did a wonderful movie but it’s not a master piece. The best he did was melancholia. The good thing is that he is honestly trying. MAybe some spatial IQ is necessary to construct an artistic cathedral masterpiece (except for Proust).
people who deify pervertson and think he is a philosopher = RETARDED
people who deify trump and think he is a genius = RETARDED
People who deify San Harris and think he’s q philosopher equals retarded.
People who have gods, metaphysical or material, are retarded.
Just today morning i was thinking what if the caucasoid race evolved in africa too and not just negroid. I always felt that the caucasoid skull is a desert adaptation. Straight hair to prevent sand accumulation in hair, narrower nose width to better absorb moisture from air, more body hair to keep warm from extremely cold desert night dry winds, but at the same time to prevent skin getting affected in hot dry winds in the day.
And the biggest desert has been the sahara even during the glacial periods. In fact it could have been the only desert at that time.
And then i read this now. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/july/the-way-we-think-about-the-first-modern-humans-in-africa.html
#justsostories
Why?
Adaptationist hypotheses are just-so stories.
The place is not the problem. It’s the fact that there would have been several groups of sapiens, each race with separated ancestry.
Adaptation start with the most basic organic activities, for example, the simple and fundamental act of breathe…
it’s not just so stories….
“what if the caucasoid race evolved in africa too and not just negroid. I always felt that the caucasoid skull is a desert adaptation. Straight hair to prevent sand accumulation in hair, narrower nose width to better absorb moisture from air, more body hair to keep warm from extremely cold desert night dry winds, but at the same time to prevent skin getting affected in hot dry winds in the day.”
To give a more scientific answer than…whatever RR thought that comment was..You’re actually not far from the mark. The advent of agriculture coincided with the shrinkage of Homo sapien’s jaws, making the skull more narrow. The narrow shape of their nose helps moisten and warm dry or cold air, while the sheer size is correlated with breath intake. Europeans are large mammals.
Their hair seems more of a recent adaptation in colder climates. Europeans have far more oily hair. which could be lethal in extremely hot environments. May explain the “jew fro” which is also present in Mediterranean countries.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/25/birth-farming-caused-jaw-dropping-changes-human-skull-scientists/
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006616
https://www.filthymonkeymen.com/2018/06/12/neanderthal-nose-big/
“Adaptationist hypotheses are just-so stories.”
New hypotheses are just so stories**
Click to access GouldLewontin.pdf
Adaptionist hypotheses are just-so stories. They explain the data they purport to explain and only the data they purport to explain. They make no new testable predictions. You’re incessant “all new hypotheses are just-so stories” doesn’t refute the objection about adaptionist/selectionist hypotheses.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00799.x
The same criticisms from Gould and Lewontin still hold today. EP is unfalsifiable. Nevermind the (false) main premises of the discipline that I’ve covered (most importantly the MMH).
So if I say selection for intelligence generally causes brain size to increase, how is that not a falsifiable statement? It can easily be falsified. Take a bunch of mice. Only allow the ones that can solve the maze fastest to breed and then observe if average brain size has increased after a few dozen generations. Then repeat the same experiment on a several other kinds of animals and if the majority show increased brain size, the theory is supported, otherwise it’s falsified.
“Selection-for” is a causal process.
Selection can’t distinguish between coextensive traits, so you can’t say large brains were “selected-for” when traits are coextensive.
Adaptionist hypotheses are unfalsifiable. Nevermind the fact that when one is discredited, the just-so storyteller creates a new just-so story, because the trait in question, according to the adaptionist, *MUST* be an adaption.
The paradigm is flawed. We need to toss out adaptionism.
Selection can’t distinguish between coextensive traits, so you can’t say large brains were “selected-for” when traits are coextensive.
You can’t prove it, but science is not about proving theories, it’s about rejecting them. When a falsifiable theory fails to be falsified, it remains viable by default.
Adaptionist hypotheses are unfalsifiable.
They might be unprovable but that’s different from unfalsifiable. You can’t prove it’s true, but you can fail to prove it’s false, and that’s the standard in science.
Nevermind the fact that when one is discredited, the just-so storyteller creates a new just-so story,
That’s what you’re supposed to do when a theory is falsified. Create a new one, but I agree they should consider all theories, not just adaptionist ones over and over again.
The paradigm is flawed. We need to toss out adaptionism.
We need to consider other theories too, but that doesn’t mean we need to toss out adaptionism completely. It’s very logical which is why most scientists cling to it.
“You can’t prove it” Hypotheses are independently verified when they make testable predictions of previously unknown knowledge that wasn’t known before the formulation of said hypothesis.
No, the hypotheses are unfalsifiable. The thought that a trait isn’t an adaption is hardly ever considered.
“That’s what you’re supposed to do” At least we agree here (adaptionist hypotheses are some of the only ones considered) and not the thorn in the adaptionists side: the neutral theory of evolution.
“Irs very logical” I don’t think so.
Hypotheses are independently verified when they make testable predictions of previously unknown knowledge that wasn’t known before the formulation of said hypothesis.
Is independent verification proof? I don’t think so. I think it’s just supporting evidence.
And I just told you how they would independently verify it. Do an experiment (i.e. do mice selected for intelligence evolve bigger brains?)
No, the hypotheses are unfalsifiable. The thought that a trait isn’t an adaption is hardly ever considered.
The fact that an alternative hypothesis is not considered does not make a hypothesis unfalsifiable. There are always going to be multiple theories to explain virtually everything. It’s not the job of a scientist to consider everything, it’s his job to tell a falsifiable story, and to reject said story when falsified, and to continue to champion said story when falsification fails.
If non-adaptionists have alternative hypothesis, the onus is on them to make it falsifiable and then test it.
“Irs very logical” I don’t think so.
It’s logical to think organisms that are well adapted to their environments will reproduce more frequently in that environment and said genotypes will become more frequent. But it’s also logical to think that a lot of evolutionary change will occur randomly, so we shouldn’t expect adaptation to have a monopoly on evolution.
“They make no new testable predictions.”
Of course they do. Convergent evolution is almost always a potential prediction to be tested, along with molecular genetics, of other organisms and the ones in question. The examples of Adaptionist theories I provided have numerous amounts of observations that could vindicate them. Within and outside of the data originally presented.
“You’re incessant “all new hypotheses are just-so stories” doesn’t refute the objection about adaptionist/selectionist hypotheses.”
It does. You’re making the assumption that Evolutionary biologists do not test or attempt to independently verify any ad hoc claims they formulate. It’s a strawman argument. There are definitely scientists you can correctly make this claim about, but it does not warrant the write off of an entire field, nor adaptionist theories in general.
Your arguments can be boiled down to: “I dont like bad science”. And no shit, no honest person does.
Refer to my syllogism in our previous argument on your blog. It is sound and showcases your misconception.
“Selection can’t distinguish between coextensive traits, so you can’t say large brains were “selected-for” when traits are coextensive”
That’s not what Fodor was saying. Fodor was arguing that Selection for is a vacuous theory. Meaning we can distinguish between coextensive traits, we just need to use other methods outside of NS. Read jerry coynes criticism of Fodor, he doesn’t fully address the main crux of the issue but he showcases how easy it is for geneticists and evolutionary biologists to distinguish coextensive traits. I mean the only way you could make such an incorrect statement is pure ignorance of the modern literature and the technological methods we use.
But that’s what happens when you ignore science and only read bad philosophy.
“the thorn in the adaptionists side: the neutral theory of evolution.”
If anyone ever wanted an example of how amateurish RR’s concept of EB is. Look no further.
“According to the adaptionist, *MUST* be an adaption.”
Who is this adaptionist you keep talking about? Or is it just another strawman?
“I don’t think so.”
I don’t believe you think at all.
“It’s logical to think organisms that are well adapted to their environments will reproduce more frequently in that environment and said genotypes will become more frequent. But it’s also logical to think that a lot of evolutionary change will occur randomly, so we shouldn’t expect adaptation to have a monopoly on evolution.”
Wow, never thought I’d see that day that pumpkin surpassed RR in intellectual integrity.
”They explain the data they purport to explain and only the data they purport to explain.”
well…
”“Selection-for” is a causal process.”
well…
”Selection can’t distinguish between coextensive traits, so you can’t say large brains were “selected-for” when traits are coextensive.”
between or among*
historically speaking we can draw a historical line and conclude that, ”large brains has been worked-for” human survive and positively selected-for. But, because our ancestrals no had this information about brain volume and intelligence, and humans has evolved [survived and improved] fundamentally basead on their intelligence…
This look like another false absolute pre-condition.
If i have wings i can fly.
If ”selection can’t distinguish *between* coextensive traits” we can’t say ”large brains were selected-for”.
But, if intelligence or certain type of intelligence has been the fundamental adaptative mode of humanity so we can say this because is the focus of human evolution.
First of all, we have a plenty of evidences showing what you’re denying.
Multi-regional origins of Homo sapiens would embolden racist people theories
Not if those other regions are in Africa too.
And the origin s maybe strongly true.
A stupid woman did a video saying, basically, racist only can be white.
Million of stupid people like this, included many stupid white people.
What is adaptation
RR, what is adaptation*
example of adaptation and empirically described example of ”adaptationism” [as a derrogative word].
Bruno,
They still could have evolved from a common ancestral species of AMH. A group of them could have migrated to the Sahara region. Or the region where they were could have become the Sahara over thousands of years .
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/4/751/665657
Maybe, blacks who have schizophrenia, are more prone to have the paranoid type [because their extroverted and narcisistic personality traits]
PP,
If you would create an IQ test, what kind of questions would you include? Any new kinds of questions you would add to the questions in current iq tests.
I would add more questions measuring social comprehension & executive functioning.