@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase No itโs not? Itโs possible to acknowledge that both play a lead role while also feeling that one of them had a more significant impact on the story. The opinion on impact does not change the fact that both are lead roles.
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase Iโm sorry but some things are just simply not up for debate. Saying his role felt โinferiorโ to Nikkiโs is a COMPLETELY different argument from saying that bear was not a lead role at all.
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase And thatโs where you are confused. Just because you say it is subjective does not mean that it is. The director intended for BOTH bear and nikki to be leads and wrote the movie as such. Nikki was present for about 48% of the movies runtime and bear was present for 83%.
@asteriodskies@tragic_endings_ Thatโs what objectification is though. Objectification means (in this context) reducing someone to just a sexual object. Essentially reducing someone to JUST boobs and butt. Sexualisation in and of itself isnt inherently bad.
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase By the way 1+1=2. Thought Iโd mention it just in case you didnโt know already. Because you knowโฆ youโre an idiot.
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase Iโm getting kinda bored now. Can you give me some more of your โopinionsโ so I can refuel my hatred. You racist?
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase There can be more than one lead in a movie you know that right? Inde was female lead and Michael was male lead. Bear was the protagonist of the movie so by definition he canโt be the supporting role
@sosillywilly26@OBESEDUCK3@PopBase Iโm sorry but what you are saying is not an opinion. It is just false. An opinion would be you saying that you dont think his performance is worthy of an oscar. THAT would be a difference of opinions. But it is a FACT that he was a lead role in the movie.
@sosillywilly26@PopBase Did you watch the movie with your eyes closed? The movie was from his perspective. There is not a single scene in the whole movie that he is not in.
@UberSoldat1025 The ends donโt justify the means because reaching the modern world would be possible without the cruelty of slavery.
If the ends can be reached without cruelty but cruelty is used anyway because itโs easier, then no, I wouldnโt say it is justified at all.
@UberSoldat1025 The idea that slavery was necessary is just false imo. Slavery was used not out of necessity but for convenience and cost cutting. Had slavery not been legal, the roll would still have progressed, though likely at lower profit margins for the ruling class.