Alderaan

Well I’m going to disagree with the premise of your post. The media didn’t play along because it loves a horse race (although yes that was part of it)–the media knew the Clinton campaign and the DNC were simply playing along with Bernie because:

1. they wanted to keep Hillary in the news until the convention
2. they wanted to use Bernie as a whip to round up voters for her

Yes, the race was over before June '16. And the breaking news story the night before may or may not have had any impact on the outcome of those final primaries. But that’s beside the point really. It’s ridiculous and perhaps illegal for a wire service to be colluding with a political campaign to try and affect the outcome of an election.

Well despite the partisan slant of most media outlets in the U.S., up until recently you could count on wire services to stay above the editorial fray and stick straight to reporting breaking news stories with factual accuracy. I was simply referring to them losing that prestigious credibility by colluding with a political campaign.

TV’s Frink said:

So how is any of that relevant to what I posted?

The conversation was about media credibility, and then I was replying to CatBus.

OK I’m going to embarrass myself here and mea culpa if it was the AP who pulled that stunt, although it may have been both. I don’t remember at this point anymore.

CatBus said:

We get the other anti-Clinton Reuters out here, I wish they’d use different names to avoid confusing people.

Come on don’t play naive. On the night before the last primaries, despite there not having been any votes in weeks, they suddenly create a “BREAKING NEWS STORY” that Hillary had enough delegates to win the nomination.

Of course, she already had the same number of delegates weeks earlier. Or on the contrary, none of the superdelegates had voted yet or were bound to vote for anyone yet.

But the point was they were colluding with the Clinton campaign, who had already wrapped up the nomination, to save her any possible embarrassment of losing California the next day. They were behaving just like the New York Times, The L.A. Times, NBC, CNN, and many other liberal outlets, which is a shame, because an organization like Reuters should just stick to the facts.

Reuters cannot even be taken seriously anymore, unfortunately. Considering they were colluding with the Clinton campaign in the primary.

Fox News is a “legitimate” media outlet that is still mostly propaganda and nonsense. So are CNN and MSNBC. Like I said, it’s best to hear information from as many sources as possible, and then get a feel for how to filter out the noise.

Zerohedge is an interesting study, because there are legitimately good articles on there you won’t find anywhere else related to finance and politics. On the other hand, there is also a lot of crazy nonsense and propaganda.

I’ve learned in my life to not trust any one source for information. But there is value in having many eyes and ears.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve heard plenty of people say that.

Yeah I have too, but I think it’s still the minority.

And I’m probably in the minority, but I think The Godfather Part II is actually better than the original.

Warbler said:

I just saw Godfather 3 other day on AMC.

The Godfather Parts I and II are a couple of my favorite films, and the best films from the 1970s in my opinion, even ahead of Star Wars. Godfather 3 sucked though. Saw it once and will never watch it again.

Kinda like Star Wars, I consider the story over after the original films.

Respecting his right to have his own opinion is as far as we have to go. Don’t go overboard now.

Feature film broadcasts were still a big thing on rare occasions in the 1990s on NBC.

Schindler’s List aired without commercial interruption in 1993(?) and it was a very big deal. Braveheart was another film that was heavily promo’d by NBC and ran at least once in primetime on a Sunday night, if not more.

I’m sure there were other films, but those are the two that stick out off the top of my head. Otherwise, films would get broadcast in dead time slots like Saturday night or something. Mini-series were already the network’s preferred movie avenue dating back to the 1980s.

Return of the Jedi is fine, except when the Ewok nonsense goes too far.

Jetrell Fo said:

I never really cared much for MST3K. The Three Stooges were way funnier.

Blasphemy. I loved watching MST3K back in the 90s.

darthrush said:

This definetly was a negative for me. I think Emma did fine for the most part but there was definetly some lines that were not hit well at all and stuck out to me.

Missed notes or glaring mistakes weren’t the problem for me. It was the lack of a transcendent voice. There were just no “wow, damn that girl can sing” moments that are really needed to carry a musical. It was just all auto-tuned, robotic monotony.

darthrush said:
The mother teapot’s singing of “Tale as Old as Time” was the one song I thought was done justice.

I agree that this rendition by Emma Thompson was fine. Not as good as Angela Lansbury’s, but still fine on its own.

darthrush said:

Beauty and the Beast

I actually ended up really enjoying myself. Found it to be a little slow at some points but a lot of the music was really fun and I came to really care for all the characters. A fun ride overall.

I enjoyed the production quality, but would you agree it’s a mistake to cast actors who can’t sing as leading roles in a musical?

SwissArmyTin said:

Sooooo Frink pointing out hypocrisy is harassment, but slinging threats of moderation action and banning him isn’t?

…ok

Alderaan said:

Consider this–especially that last sentence–your friendly warning.

I asked him to stop harassing me across multiple unrelated threads. He chose to ignore my request, or apologize, or simply move on. Instead he did the typical Frink thing, which was try and get in the last word, and threaten me instead.

Anyone can go and look for themselves that in multiple threads, some of us were discussing various other things: the lack of OOT, the quality of the DVD releases, Disney bots, SE alterations, you name it, and there was Frink popping in with the same out-of-context cross-post, followed by only “HAHAHAHAHAHAHA”. When other users pointed out that the threads were not new film threads, nor were the new films even being discussed, he did another typical Frink thing, which was to try and backtrack, like the junior high kid who trips over his own feet and then tries to play it off like he meant to do that all along.

I mean, it’s not even my style to go this route. Frink and I have not gotten along or often agreed with each other, but that’s what happens in the world sometimes. I let him take his shots at me whenever he wants as long as he’s not abusing the forum, and I’m sure he’s done the same with me. At some point though, he’s just acting so ridiculous, that I asked him to stop. Instead, he threatened me, so c’est la vie.

ETA: this is the last post of mine on this topic, since it’s a complete derail, and not relevant to the thread. Carry on.

Good. I gave you a warning, and you decided to ignore it. I’m sure you can figure out what that means.

Fang Zei said:

That’s because Anakin “died” when he turned to the dark side.

Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.

I don’t agree with this at all. For one, he doesn’t look completely different, it’s quite clear it’s the same person. Second, anyone with a brain could tell from the context who the new ghost was. And third, it was the old man who saved Luke, not the smirking child killer. And of course, there are the inconsistencies on top of it all.

The only reason George put Hayden in there was because he wanted to sell the prequels as legitimate films. People rejected them as inferior to the OT, he took offense to it, and he hijacked the original movies as a big FU, you must like my prequel films, to the rest of us.

As I mentioned and as other posters have mentioned, this is at least the third or fourth thread that is not a new films thread, where other topics have been discussed (such as the lack of OT release and SE inferiority in this thread) where you have taken disagreements with me over the really bad Disney films and hijacked the thread to continue your personal grudge.

Simply, you are acting like a petulant child.

Hard Rules:

Breaking the following rules will result in an immediate and permanent ban with no prior warning:

6. Do not harass other members, either publicly or via PM. Any unwanted contact after a request to stay away will be considered harassment.

Consider this–especially that last sentence–your friendly warning.

Fink, is there something wrong with your brain? This is at least the third or fourth thread that is not a new film thread where you’ve cross posted a quote that is not relevant, then laughed like an insane person at your own joke.

At this point, I’m going to have to ask a moderator to step in and put an end to your belligerent behavior. Actually, it’s for your own good.

For the record Duracell, I’m trolling you with both of those posts.

Sorry, missed it. Took special offense at being linked to a guy who considers the '97 SE the definitive version. Should report you for that, actually.

General Guidelines

2. Don’t moderate unless you’re a moderator. If you see problematic behavior, report it. Report new members you suspect to be trolls/socks, but don’t accuse them publicly without proof.