Heretic (2024 Film)

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Basically, it's the kind of thing that a UC Berkeley philosophy major would come up with after a night of illicit substances. 

It's got anti-Mormon, anti-Christian, and anti-capitalist sentiment all thrown into a blender. Even though it's the exact same things we've all faced for decades now, whoever wrote the movie thought they were producing something absolutely incredible and unique. 

I'd like to ask... who is actually surprised by this?

[Ironhold]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'd like to ask... who is actually surprised by this?

It's a plot point that one of the sisters has an IUD in her arm. 

Think about that...

[Backroads]

My brother works for the church office and apparently was sent to see this for work to scope it out.

He enjoyed it. Also agrees with @Ironhold and also found the end silly.

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, Ironhold said:

It's a plot point that one of the sisters has an IUD in her arm. 

Think about that...

IUD in her arm?

Aren't there patches or something like that which are used as birth control? 

Some women get shots these days (I'm not sure how long they last, I think it may be 3 months?), but others use a patch, which is sort of like a nicotine patch, but used to release hormones that are birth control instead.

Is it referring to something like that (because I can't imagine something saying they literally have an IUD in their arm...how would they even get it to stay on or in an arm without surgery...which would be very painful and wouldn't seem to work anyways).

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Ironhold said:

It's a plot point that one of the sisters has an IUD in her arm. 

Think about that...

Of course.  Don't you know that all religious people are closet hypocrites?

Edited November 12, 2024 by Carborendum

[Backroads]

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Of course.  Don't you know that all religious people are closet hypocrites?

I shouldn't, but when I encounter that accusation of hypocrisy I bring up my cousin's Satanist ex-husband who uses to beat her.

No! They say. Only Christians would do that kind of hypocrisy!

[Ironhold]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

IUD in her arm?

Aren't there patches or something like that which are used as birth control? 

Some women get shots these days (I'm not sure how long they last, I think it may be 3 months?), but others use a patch, which is sort of like a nicotine patch, but used to release hormones that are birth control instead.

Is it referring to something like that (because I can't imagine something saying they literally have an IUD in their arm...how would they even get it to stay on or in an arm without surgery...which would be very painful and wouldn't seem to work anyways).

No, it was an actual bit that looked like a bone screw or surgical rod, and we see the villain extract it from her bicep after feeling around for it. 

If they had explained it *as* a bone screw or surgical rod, then that wouldn't have been an issue. But the villain *literally* declared it to be birth control and went for her bicep as if he knew it would be there. 

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, Ironhold said:

No, it was an actual bit that looked like a bone screw or surgical rod, and we see the villain extract it from her bicep after feeling around for it. 

If they had explained it *as* a bone screw or surgical rod, then that wouldn't have been an issue. But the villain *literally* declared it to be birth control and went for her bicep as if he knew it would be there. 

I think what he's getting at is that (technically) an IUD is placed in the uterus.  Hence, IUD (IntraUterine Device).  But the term is loosely used to describe any type of implant that provides a slow-release of contraceptive drugs into the body.  One of the most common is placed in the upper arm.  That is what the movie seemingly depicted.

People still call those things IUDs even though it is not an accurate usage.

And, hey.  It's a movie.

[Jamie123]

I'm in the movie theatre now waiting for it to start. Hope it's not too scary! *shudder*

They are playing the theme music to The Lord of the Rings. The dadada da da da daaa theme.

[Jamie123]

Well well well ... that's the creepiest movie I've seen for a long time...

[Jamie123]

On 11/6/2024 at 5:45 PM, zil2 said:

The villain tells them that his wife is at home, in some other room.

This must be a relatively new rule because back in the 1990s when I was investigating LDS, sister missionaries visited me many times without there being anyone other than me and them present. This was before I was married, when I lived on my own (aside from my cats). This happened over several years, with at least three different pairs of sisters, and in two different stakes, so you cannot argue this was a one-off lapse. The last time sister missionaries visited my home was in 1998, and they sat together on my couch without anyone else other than me present.

And no I didn't invite them into my cellar. (For one thing I didn't have a cellar.)

Having said that, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about why this rule is probably a good one.

Edited November 16, 2024 by Jamie123

[zil2]

51 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

This must be a relatively new rule because back in the 1990s when I was investigating LDS, sister missionaries visited me many times without there being anyone other than me and them present. This was before I was married, when I lived on my own (aside from my cats). This happened over several years, with at least three different pairs of sisters, and in two different stakes, so you cannot argue this was a one-off lapse. The last time sister missionaries visited my home was in 1998, and they sat together on my couch without anyone else other than me present.

And no I didn't invite them into my cellar. (For one thing I didn't have a cellar.)

Having said that, this movie serves as a cautionary tale about why this rule is probably a good one.

Huh.  I have no idea when the rule was established, but even without the movie, it's clearly a good rule.  Note that the rule is there for male and female missionaries:

Quote

Always ensure that another adult of your own gender is present with you and your companion when you visit in person, teach in person, travel with, or have meals with an individual of the opposite gender. Seek approval from your mission president for any exceptions.

Part is safety, but part is also to avoid misperception, false accusation, etc.  (How can Firefox's dictionary be so clueless that it doesn't recognize "misperception"? )

[NeuroTypical]

44 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(How can Firefox's dictionary be so clueless that it doesn't recognize "misperception"? )

[Ordinarily, Zil would reply to a question like this with a quick fountain pen sketch of someone named "Miss Perception".  But since Zil is the one posing the question, we're left with forcing AI to come up with an image instead.  Sorry.]

[zil2]

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

[Ordinarily, Zil would reply to a question like this with a quick fountain pen sketch of someone named "Miss Perception".  But since Zil is the one posing the question, we're left with forcing AI to come up with an image instead.  Sorry.]

Did you even try to ask the AI to create this image as if drawn with a fountain pen (by someone who can barely manage a stick figure)?

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Huh.  I have no idea when the rule was established, but even without the movie, it's clearly a good rule.  Note that the rule is there for male and female missionaries:

I'm not suggesting it isn't a good rule - only that it must be a fairly recent innovation. Either that or its a rule which was until recently widely flouted.

[Vort]

I'm not sure about when that rule was implemented. I'm thinking it was sometime before the rule about getting brachial IUD implants.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Did you even try to ask the AI to create this image as if drawn with a fountain pen (by someone who can barely manage a stick figure)?

AI is nothing if not terrifyingly fast.  It also both understands and doesn't understand English at the same time.  The prompt was "Give me a stick figure cartoon character named 'Miss Perception' drawn by a fountain pen"

Absolutely, @zil could do better than this:

 

Edited November 17, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

AI is nothing if not terrifyingly fast.  It also both understands and doesn't understand English at the same time.  The prompt was "Give me a stick figure cartoon character named 'Miss Perception' drawn by a fountain pen"

Absolutely, @zil could do better than this:

 

Thank you!  (Persession?  Did Otto Co-wrecked make this request? )

Meanwhile, that nib is beyond bizarre!

[Jamie123]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm not sure about when that rule was implemented. I'm thinking it was sometime before the rule about getting brachial IUD implants.

It's interesting that it was the worldlier of the two sisters who was most resistant to Mr. Reed's philosophy. While her colleague was ready to deny Christ (choosing the "disbelief" door) hoping that this would get her to safety, she was the one who remained resolute.

[Carborendum]

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

It's interesting that it was the worldlier of the two sisters who was most resistant to Mr. Reed's philosophy. While her colleague was ready to deny Christ (choosing the "disbelief" door) hoping that this would get her to safety, she was the one who remained resolute.

It was just a messed up movie about a freaking psycho and made up characters (sister missionaries) who bore no resemblance to real characters.

[Jamie123]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It was just a messed up movie about a freaking psycho and made up characters (sister missionaries) who bore no resemblance to real characters.

You could say the same thing about Hamlet or King Lear. Does that mean there's no value to be gained from considering the characters and their motivations?

Edited November 17, 2024 by Jamie123

[JohnsonJones]

Edit:  In retrospect, my post was done in poor taste, so I'm editing it to say something different.

This doesn't seem to be my type of movie to watch, I'm not the biggest fan of these types of movies, and the content seems a little more violent than what I normally would decide to view. 

Edited November 18, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[LDSGator]

The church tried to reclaim the narrative by handing out BOMs at showings of the musical by the same name. Have they done anything like this at showings of this movie?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

The church tried to reclaim the narrative by handing out BOMs at showings of the musical by the same name. Have they done anything like this at showings of this movie?

I sincerely hope not.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I sincerely hope not.

I’ll bite. Why?