I really don't know why they've done this. It has becomes such feces on TV. If it has a picture on its cover of a black person, a woman, or an animal, it's not worth watching. In fact almost nothing is worth watching today. This latest decade has made the worst films ever created. What isn't loaded with CGI to the point of it looks like total shit, Indiana Jones, has had awful people acting in it. It didn't always used to be like this with actors. Oh no. The amount total crap movies which you couldn't even name them, because they have issues out of the box. Titles of such complete an utter wokeness and propaganda. I shudder to think who watches them? Why are they selling it? Who is watching it, market? It's sooner damaging any representation and any otherwise movies you may have watched.
Not anymore. No way. It takes more effort trying to watch it. You know when you do you're gonna switch it off. They got paid to do that. I am not paid to watch it. At this point in history it should even be considered, if you want to act like that, pay your damn audiences. No other person should suffer it. They had more fun, and were paid more than the rest of us had trying to watch it.
Try finding a movie/show without a picture of a black person, a woman, or an animal as a center piece on its cover is impossible. If you find this and it isn't a modern action film of questionable budgets and acting you might actually be able to watch it. Rare so rare today. Rewind a decade you could watch most mainstream films and shows and even the crap ones. Not today. Not anymore. Pay your audiences if you want to act like that.
It's another flop despite of whatever rigged critic scoring, telling you what to watch. A flop from the trailer. Pay your audiences to watch it, if you want to act like that. It has become.
a) WATCH (to guard)...ones consent to others telling-a-vision (television) through suggestion keeps one wide open for reception of harm.
b) what others are suggesting represents an apparition (mere appearance, opposed to reality) aka a spectacle tempting those who consent to SPEC'TER (Latin specto, to behold); hence one willingly holding onto the suggested.
c) it's called a "movie" (motion), yet you are here complaining about holding onto what movies once were, while ignoring that motion equals change.
actors...
...are reacting to directors to tempt one to ignore to react (life) to direction (inception towards death). Consenting to suggested actors tempts one to mimic acting, hence "monkey see; monkey do".
It takes more effort trying to watch it...I am not paid to watch it.
PAY (to discharge a debt)...ones efforts, while consenting to watch suggestions by others, represents one spending resistance; hence being tempted to discharge self, while indebting self with the suggestions by others.
The more one remembers how things were; the more debt (Latin debitum, contracted; that which is due from one person to another) ones memory is burdened with.
pay your audience
Audience aka AUDIRE (to hear) aka AU (to perceive)...perceivable is offered in full (whole) to each ones perception (partial). Paying consent to the suggestions by others tempts one to ignore that.
become
Suggested "become" represents the inversion of coming (inception towards death) to be (life).
No. It has no market. It's a flop. Paying the audience to watch something is already happening. Half of any market. The rest of the globe are watching it like how? They really aren't. Hint. For free. It's the ignorant tax payers funding it. For example the price of Netflix is what cost in Africa compared to Europe? If they are even buying it.
Motion to change, anything implied, like plots, characters, story, development is a motion not it watch it, or demand compensation for being subjected towards. It's all we can ask. Perhaps people might. No they won't. It's a steaming pile of feces. It won't become anything else.
But it demands the same insertion. Yes, it's the same insertion. If you make crap show it for free or stop making it. As opposed to becoming inserted simply to exploit revenue. There is no other truth. That wage gap is what? But it's not even worth buying.
No, I don't need a bot recreating language. It wasn't racist not watching it. I am stating it's awful. The audience by the same insertion should be paid for watching it. It has detracted from other sales and hits. It hasn't changed anything else.
No implies versus yes...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent towards suggested aka a trade...sell (suggested) meets buy (consent), hence one being willingly marked by the suggestions of others.
Half of any market. The rest of the globe are watching it like how?
a) being implies center (choice) of surrounding (balance)...ones consent to the suggestions by others shapes imbalance, hence a conflict aka side vs side, while ignoring center within surrounding, hence MARKET (consent towards suggested) and SHARE (want vs not want) aka sharing conflict.
b) watching a movie tempts one to believe in rest (cessation of motion). Why? Because a suggested picture represents a "captured moment-um", while a suggested movie represents a "moving picture".
It's not about watching a suggested movie or not; but about ones consent to suggested "motion" (movie). Being implies RE (respond to) MOVE (being moved by), hence life responding to being moved from inception towards death.
One cannot move; only re-move, hence being (living) re-moved (process of dying).
The few suggest movies to a) distract the many from being moved and b) to lure them into conflicts of reason against one another, hence re-moving each other willingly.
Try viewing it from a magic perspective...the trick is about hiding perceivable motion underneath suggested "movie". The distraction is everything within and about the suggested movies.
It works like a CHARM (to subdue or control by incantation or secret influence).
Motion to change
To(wards) implies being within changing motion.
If you make crap show it for free
It's being shown for each ones "free" will of choice. Others cannot make free; only balance (dominating whole) can make choice (free partials). Being choice implies RE (responding to) MAKE (made by).
The suggested conflict between original vs remake tempts one to ignore being re-make (life) within origin (inception towards death).
Writing the above sentence gets others hostile towards me; while suggesting "Robocop...original vs remake?" would get others into countless conflicts of reason.
the same insertion
IN (being within) SERO (thrust by) aka different inserts (life) within same thrust (inception towards death).
it's awful
a) AWE (ones reverential fear) FULL (replete; having within its limits all that it can contain).
b) awful implies vs wonderful aka your consent to reason about the suggestions of others, while ignoring perceivable...being partial within whole.
c) the suggestions by others cannot be "full", since perceivable offers more than suggestions shaped within.
It hasn't changed anything else.
Each temporary thing (solid) can only exist within constant change (liquid)...other suggest movies (stop-motion for example) to distract one from that.
I really don't know why they've done this. It has becomes such feces on TV. If it has a picture on its cover of a black person, a woman, or an animal, it's not worth watching. In fact almost nothing is worth watching today. This latest decade has made the worst films ever created. What isn't loaded with CGI to the point of it looks like total shit, Indiana Jones, has had awful people acting in it. It didn't always used to be like this with actors. Oh no. The amount total crap movies which you couldn't even name them, because they have issues out of the box. Titles of such complete an utter wokeness and propaganda. I shudder to think who watches them? Why are they selling it? Who is watching it, market? It's sooner damaging any representation and any otherwise movies you may have watched.
Not anymore. No way. It takes more effort trying to watch it. You know when you do you're gonna switch it off. They got paid to do that. I am not paid to watch it. At this point in history it should even be considered, if you want to act like that, pay your damn audiences. No other person should suffer it. They had more fun, and were paid more than the rest of us had trying to watch it.
Try finding a movie/show without a picture of a black person, a woman, or an animal as a center piece on its cover is impossible. If you find this and it isn't a modern action film of questionable budgets and acting you might actually be able to watch it. Rare so rare today. Rewind a decade you could watch most mainstream films and shows and even the crap ones. Not today. Not anymore. Pay your audiences if you want to act like that.
It's another flop despite of whatever rigged critic scoring, telling you what to watch. A flop from the trailer. Pay your audiences to watch it, if you want to act like that. It has become.
a) WATCH (to guard)...ones consent to others telling-a-vision (television) through suggestion keeps one wide open for reception of harm.
b) what others are suggesting represents an apparition (mere appearance, opposed to reality) aka a spectacle tempting those who consent to SPEC'TER (Latin specto, to behold); hence one willingly holding onto the suggested.
c) it's called a "movie" (motion), yet you are here complaining about holding onto what movies once were, while ignoring that motion equals change.
...are reacting to directors to tempt one to ignore to react (life) to direction (inception towards death). Consenting to suggested actors tempts one to mimic acting, hence "monkey see; monkey do".
PAY (to discharge a debt)...ones efforts, while consenting to watch suggestions by others, represents one spending resistance; hence being tempted to discharge self, while indebting self with the suggestions by others.
The more one remembers how things were; the more debt (Latin debitum, contracted; that which is due from one person to another) ones memory is burdened with.
Audience aka AUDIRE (to hear) aka AU (to perceive)...perceivable is offered in full (whole) to each ones perception (partial). Paying consent to the suggestions by others tempts one to ignore that.
Suggested "become" represents the inversion of coming (inception towards death) to be (life).
No. It has no market. It's a flop. Paying the audience to watch something is already happening. Half of any market. The rest of the globe are watching it like how? They really aren't. Hint. For free. It's the ignorant tax payers funding it. For example the price of Netflix is what cost in Africa compared to Europe? If they are even buying it.
Motion to change, anything implied, like plots, characters, story, development is a motion not it watch it, or demand compensation for being subjected towards. It's all we can ask. Perhaps people might. No they won't. It's a steaming pile of feces. It won't become anything else.
But it demands the same insertion. Yes, it's the same insertion. If you make crap show it for free or stop making it. As opposed to becoming inserted simply to exploit revenue. There is no other truth. That wage gap is what? But it's not even worth buying.
No, I don't need a bot recreating language. It wasn't racist not watching it. I am stating it's awful. The audience by the same insertion should be paid for watching it. It has detracted from other sales and hits. It hasn't changed anything else.
No implies versus yes...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent towards suggested aka a trade...sell (suggested) meets buy (consent), hence one being willingly marked by the suggestions of others.
a) being implies center (choice) of surrounding (balance)...ones consent to the suggestions by others shapes imbalance, hence a conflict aka side vs side, while ignoring center within surrounding, hence MARKET (consent towards suggested) and SHARE (want vs not want) aka sharing conflict.
b) watching a movie tempts one to believe in rest (cessation of motion). Why? Because a suggested picture represents a "captured moment-um", while a suggested movie represents a "moving picture".
It's not about watching a suggested movie or not; but about ones consent to suggested "motion" (movie). Being implies RE (respond to) MOVE (being moved by), hence life responding to being moved from inception towards death.
One cannot move; only re-move, hence being (living) re-moved (process of dying).
The few suggest movies to a) distract the many from being moved and b) to lure them into conflicts of reason against one another, hence re-moving each other willingly.
Try viewing it from a magic perspective...the trick is about hiding perceivable motion underneath suggested "movie". The distraction is everything within and about the suggested movies.
It works like a CHARM (to subdue or control by incantation or secret influence).
To(wards) implies being within changing motion.
It's being shown for each ones "free" will of choice. Others cannot make free; only balance (dominating whole) can make choice (free partials). Being choice implies RE (responding to) MAKE (made by).
The suggested conflict between original vs remake tempts one to ignore being re-make (life) within origin (inception towards death).
Writing the above sentence gets others hostile towards me; while suggesting "Robocop...original vs remake?" would get others into countless conflicts of reason.
IN (being within) SERO (thrust by) aka different inserts (life) within same thrust (inception towards death).
a) AWE (ones reverential fear) FULL (replete; having within its limits all that it can contain).
b) awful implies vs wonderful aka your consent to reason about the suggestions of others, while ignoring perceivable...being partial within whole.
c) the suggestions by others cannot be "full", since perceivable offers more than suggestions shaped within.
Each temporary thing (solid) can only exist within constant change (liquid)...other suggest movies (stop-motion for example) to distract one from that.