DominicCobb

Possessed said:

Seems weird calling Solo a bomb considering it was still the number one movie while it was out for at least a little bit wasn’t it? I could be wrong about that. It underperformed compared to other star wars movies though. But if it hadn’t had that massive star wars budget it would have been fine…

Depends on your definition/perspective. One of the most infamous bombs of all time, Cleopatra, was the number one movie the year it came out, but it still lost money. It all depends on how much it cost to make, and Solo cost way too much to have a disappointing run.

I’m partial to Sunrise, though I haven’t seen all that many silent films to be honest (probably somewhere between 10-12).

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

I’ve been doing intermittent fasting intermittently for quite awhile now (mostly out of laziness/cheapness), but I haven’t lost any weight, although I’m not necessarily trying to or even need to in the first place. I will say it’s remarkable how little hunger you feel once you get used to it. There are some days I have to remind myself to eat at all. Let’s be honest, it’s probably not healthy (though everywhere I’ve read says it is).

I do that too, not consciously. Sometimes I forget to eat until I nearly pass out from the low blood pressure. That’s not too healthy, but neither is the food I eat. I suppose it balances out and I’m not fat at all.

I didn’t start doing it on purpose. I always wake up at the last minute so no chance to eat breakfast. Then the food at work is too expensive and I’m too lazy to bring my own. I will say though I’ve never passed out or even come close to. I really need to eat food that’s a lot healthier too.

I definitely have some fat on me but only really enough that it’s noticeable to me. I once lost 30 pounds in three or so months (just by better managing my calorie intake and cutting out certain foods) and pretty much no one noticed.

I’ve been doing intermittent fasting intermittently for quite awhile now (mostly out of laziness/cheapness), but I haven’t lost any weight, although I’m not necessarily trying to or even need to in the first place. I will say it’s remarkable how little hunger you feel once you get used to it. There are some days I have to remind myself to eat at all. Let’s be honest, it’s probably not healthy (though everywhere I’ve read says it is).

darthrush said:

I agree with SOME of what you say ShoppingMaul. Not really on Luke but I like your points about how RotJ treats the Dark side of the force. I hate the idea that losing your temper and being angry is what makes you permanently turn to the dark side. To me, the dark side is a immoral use of power that is tempting to someone who wishes to abuse such power. It actually seemed like a constant moral challenge. But just because you resist giving into anger, you’re safe from the dark side???

Where in ROTJ is it stated that losing your temper makes you permanently turn to the dark side? I’d argue it shows the opposite - as Vader turns back.

The only thing that would seem to qualify is when Ben mentions that Anakin “ceased to be,” but even then there’s nothing said that contradicts what you talk about, not one choice but many. What makes Luke’s resistance powerful is that “once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.” There’ nothing in the film to indicate he’s safe from temptation forever, only that he faced this one challenge and came out like a true Jedi. There isn’t anything in the film that suggests there won’t be further challenges (except whatever implications you take from a fairy tale happy ending).

Gotta disagree with much of the rest of what ShoppingMaul said too. What makes Luke’s victory so powerful is that it technically wasn’t a traditional battle victory, but a victory enabled through reaching the heart and mind of Vader - which is much more the Jedi way. Luke was the last hope for the Jedi yes, but for the galaxy too, in the sense that the Jedi are the spirtual and ethical soul of the galaxy. Also, yes aggression is not the Jedi way, but fighting isn’t not necessarily the Jedi way (it depends on where you’re coming from).

Watching movies is hard.

NeverarGreat said:

Reading through some of the older threads, even ones from just a few years ago, reminded me that this used to be a more positive forum. Not that negativity didn’t exist of course, just that people seemed more agreeable.

Fuck you Neverar.

suspiciouscoffee said:

I got a new poster for my dorm.

Funny, I just got this:

moviefreakedmind said:

Lacking a belief in a god or gods doesn’t mean that someone is 100% certain about that fact. I call myself an atheist because I don’t believe in a god. I choose not to say I’m agnostic because, as others have pointed out, the word agnostic these days implies being in the middle between theism and atheism and I’m not. I have no reason to believe in any god so I don’t. I don’t believe. I have no reason to believe that aliens are monitoring the human species. I don’t believe that’s happening, but I’m not 100% certain. I don’t feel the need to preface every statement with that caveat.

Exactly.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
plural noun: agnostics
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More

Dictionary definitions are one thing, cultural assumptions are another. Often people think an agnostic is someone on the fence who can be swayed one way or another. Which is why many just identify as aetheist - they’re not going to claim they know without a single doubt there is no God, but they’re not religious in any way and live life as if there almost definitely isn’t.

I hate labels either way. Once you say you’re one thing or another people start to assume things about your beliefs. In my mind, saying you’re atheist shouldn’t imply anything except that you’re not religious and don’t believe in God. But some people think as if it’s a religion itself.

As for the president asking citizens to pray, it’s obviously not a big deal, but it is one of the many ways religion has wrongfully ingrained itself in our government. So yeah, it’s not a big deal, but it’s not completely okay either.

Words have definitions.

Words also have connotations, misunderstandings, and, of course, more than one specific definition.

Ultimately, it comes down to this for me. I think being an agnostic is just a subset of atheism (or of theism, depending on where you’re leaning, this is where the more specific definitions come in). So when I identify as an atheist (which I don’t often do, sometimes I just say I’m not religious), I don’t think I’m really ignoring anything but the strictest definitions of the word. I tend not to identify as an agnostic because that brings along with it certain assumptions that aren’t in Merriam Webster and don’t apply to me.

Words have meaning beyond what’s written in the dictionary.

Maybe, but dictionary definitions shouldn’t be ignored. Otherwise, words don’t have any real meaning and they just mean whatever each individual wants them to mean. What if I tried to call myself an athiest? How would you show I was wrong to do that? By showing me the definition, that’s how. Words have definitions.

Words can have multiple definitions, which logically would mean whenever you use a word there is a decent chance you could be ignoring one or more dictionary definitions. Some definitions are more relevant than others. Being able to parse that doesn’t mean ignoring the concept of dictionary definitions entirely.

And if one is to understand and communicate with others at an intelligent level, they must realize there’s more to words than what’s in the dictionary. Keep in mind, most people aren’t familiar with exact dictionary definitions. Because the dictionary only defines what people have determined to be things’ meanings… until meanings evolve and the dictionary changes to fit.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
plural noun: agnostics
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More

Dictionary definitions are one thing, cultural assumptions are another. Often people think an agnostic is someone on the fence who can be swayed one way or another. Which is why many just identify as aetheist - they’re not going to claim they know without a single doubt there is no God, but they’re not religious in any way and live life as if there almost definitely isn’t.

I hate labels either way. Once you say you’re one thing or another people start to assume things about your beliefs. In my mind, saying you’re atheist shouldn’t imply anything except that you’re not religious and don’t believe in God. But some people think as if it’s a religion itself.

As for the president asking citizens to pray, it’s obviously not a big deal, but it is one of the many ways religion has wrongfully ingrained itself in our government. So yeah, it’s not a big deal, but it’s not completely okay either.

Words have definitions.

Words also have connotations, misunderstandings, and, of course, more than one specific definition.

Ultimately, it comes down to this for me. I think being an agnostic is just a subset of atheism (or of theism, depending on where you’re leaning, this is where the more specific definitions come in). So when I identify as an atheist (which I don’t often do, sometimes I just say I’m not religious), I don’t think I’m really ignoring anything but the strictest definitions of the word. I tend not to identify as an agnostic because that brings along with it certain assumptions that aren’t in Merriam Webster and don’t apply to me.

Words have meaning beyond what’s written in the dictionary.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Atheism is definitely NOT a religion, in my opinion. People even say that science is a religion, but that is even less true. Religion generally includes one or more articles of faith, and that is one thing that science has no place for. In science nothing is sacred, and anything “proven” today can be disproven tomorrow. Science strives to offer the best explanation given the limits of current measurement tools and analytical techniques. Thus its conclusions can change as tools and techniques improve. It is ironic that a highly educated scientist is less certain about his knowledge than is an uneducated but devout religious person. That is the nature of faith, and what in my mind fundamentally distinguishes atheism, agnosticism, and science from religion.

Yep

Warbler said:

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/Submit
noun
plural noun: agnostics
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; More

Dictionary definitions are one thing, cultural assumptions are another. Often people think an agnostic is someone on the fence who can be swayed one way or another. Which is why many just identify as aetheist - they’re not going to claim they know without a single doubt there is no God, but they’re not religious in any way and live life as if there almost definitely isn’t.

I hate labels either way. Once you say you’re one thing or another people start to assume things about your beliefs. In my mind, saying you’re atheist shouldn’t imply anything except that you’re not religious and don’t believe in God. But some people think as if it’s a religion itself.

As for the president asking citizens to pray, it’s obviously not a big deal, but it is one of the many ways religion has wrongfully ingrained itself in our government. So yeah, it’s not a big deal, but it’s not completely okay either.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I’m worried it’s a change that works better intellectually than in practice.

Here’s a more straightforward version:
https://vimeo.com/288085981

DominicCobb said:

Going to see John Williams perform tonight, with special guest Steven Spielberg… so this might be the best day of my life.

Can confirm. Amongst other things, seeing the last 15 minutes of ET performed live to projection, conducted by Williams, with Spielberg watching on stage, is something I will never forget.

Eighth Grade (2018) - Probably one of the most cringey movies I’ve ever seen, but of course done intentionally and with good purpose. Lots of laughs, but mostly good natured ones that come from a place of understanding and sympathy. Genuine. B+

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004) - A remarkably well-thought out “what if” mockumentary. Perhaps spends too much time on the intricacies of the alternate history and not enough on what makes the satire relevant, but there’s definitely still some potency. B-

Sabotage (1936) - Early Hitchcock with a rathe simple story not quite as many thrills as one would expect. Still, he makes it all work as usual, even if (as he apparently admitted) he ruined the suspense somewhat in the film’s most famous scene (the bomb on the bus). B-

25th Hour (2002) - The narrative at times feels messy and perhaps a tad melodramatic, but the story is still a powerful one, the type of which is rarely told. B

Inside Man (2006) - A finely crafted heist film that turns into something much more fascinating and nuanced. Great performances and great direction make it stick with you. B+

BlacKkKlansman (2018) - A story that was made to be filmed - a perfect blend of suspense, humor, and social relevance. Obviously some things were fabricated, and while some of those things are obvious, some seem obviously Hollywood but aren’t. An interesting balancing act that definitely isn’t perfect, but is certainly worth watching. B+

New Jack City (1991) - An interesting concoction, which seems to combine blacksploitation characters and actors with a serious crime drama plot and tone, plus a unique style that makes the film all its own. B

Dark Star (1974) - More amusing than funny, with effects that are impressive insofar as they make it obvious the film’s low budget and make you go “oh that’s kinda clever.” C

How the West Was Won (1962) - This is a film that sounds a lot better on paper than in reality. The cinematographic process used is breathtaking but often distracting, the cast is incredible but mostly underutilized, the scope of the story sounds epic but is ultimately extremely broadly sketched. This is the rare film pushing three hours that I think could have been a lot better if it was a lot longer. B

2010: The Year We Made Contact (1984) - Is there any film sequel as stylistically divergent from its predecessor as 2010 to 2001? I really doubt it. Usually, I’d appreciate a unique direction for a follow-up, but this is actually just taking something that was unique and making it incredibly generic. Were it a random sci-fi film I wouldn’t think twice. In comparison to 2001, it looks like a steaming pile of shit. C-

Presumed Innocent (1990) - A very quiet and understated crime/character drama, but with an unflinching intensity. Harrison Ford playing very much against type here, and doing it so well I wish he did it more often. B+

Family Plot (1976) - Hitchcock’s last, obviously not his best, but he didn’t go out on a sour note here. I love Hitchcock when he’s playful and humorous, even if the film isn’t even all that funny. Still, it’s a fun one. B

Going to see John Williams perform tonight, with special guest Steven Spielberg… so this might be the best day of my life.

Handman said:

Not to mention, not all marriages that end in divorce are failures

What?

People get divorce after being together for decades. It’s possible to have a happy marriage and then years down the line change and decide to move on. It’s not “giving up.”

But it is a failure. Why would you get a divorce if it’s a happy marriage? Clearly something changed down the line.

It can start happy and then go another way. What I mean is not all marriages are complete failures. You can get a divorce and not regret the marriage.

Possessed said:

Lol. Just because you don’t like the definition of something doesn’t change the definition. If you don’t want to get married there’s nothing wrong with that, but saying marriage isn’t supposed to last forever is wrong, whether you wish that wasn’t what it meant or not.

*awaits cursing and ridicule for not feeling the same way as others*

It’s not about me personally not the liking “the definition.” There are literally multiple definitions.

(As well there should be, I don’t know why everyone should have to conform their relationships to one specific definition.)

Possessed said:

If it’s not in the official use to last forever they should stop saying till death do us part then

Man… you realize not everyone says that right?

Handman said:

I’ve never encountered anyone who has judged someone harshly for a divorce, unless they were the cause (infidelity etc.). It’s something to feel bad about, because it is a failure, no way around that. But failure is what makes us stronger and wiser.

First of all, it’s the marriage that’s the failure, not the divorce. Divorce is the solution.

Not to mention, not all marriages that end in divorce are failures people get divorce after being together for decades. It’s possible to have a happy marriage and then years down the line change and decide to move on. It’s not “giving up.”

Possessed said:

I wasn’t saying that anyone who gets a divorce just because “it’s not working out” is a bad person, I was only saying that the concept of marriage in general probably isn’t for them.

I’ll just reiterate my point, marriage as a “concept” isn’t as strictly defined as you make it out to be, nor should it be. I know you’re not saying they’re bad people, but many judge those who get divorced harshly, simply because they don’t hold the same narrow definition of marriage as they do. No one should have their relationship be judged on someone else’s rigid terms.

MalàStrana said:

DZ-330 said:

MalàStrana said:

Not feasible and pointless I guess. The guy is never called Wedge anyway. He’sjust a random and very nervous pilot.

With the same voice as Wedge…

Really ? I’ve never noticed that !

But Mala, Wedge is such an important character with such a memorable and non-generic voice, how could you not notice?

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

and there are many practical reasons one might decide to form such a union.

The tax breaks?

That’s part of it sure, but there are plenty of benefits, from big things like health coverage, to things you’d never think of like dry cleaning discounts (if Seinfeld is to be believed).

Being in a relationship merely for financial discounts… what an emotionally hollow, unfulfilling farce. Might as well change one’s vows from “til death do us part” to “until my field of fucks runs out.”

Ridiculous.

I never said merely, though it is a fairly important and practical reason for getting married, much moreso than just to form an imaginary pact (which also ‘forces’ you to stay with someone you could end up hating, only because you don’t want to embarrass yourself to your friends and family).

If not for the legal benefits, I’d think marriage to be a nearly pointless and archaic construct. But that’s just me. My point is that marriage can be different things to different people. Just because you see it one way doesn’t mean every else does, nor should they conform their lives to what is ultimately just your opinion of it.

Handman said:

and there are many practical reasons one might decide to form such a union.

The tax breaks?

That’s part of it sure, but there are plenty of benefits, from big things like health coverage, to things you’d never think of like dry cleaning discounts (if Seinfeld is to be believed).

When people get married they make a promise to each other. If they both mutually agree it’s not working, then there’s pretty much no reason to keep the promise just for the sake of it. I don’t see how wasting years on a relationship that doesn’t work is preferable to admitting you made a mistake.

Not to mention the whole ~sacred vow~ business is really quite silly. There’s no way to predict the future. Years go on and people change. It’s only natural. The whole “forever” expectation is dumb, if you ask me. There’s no way to know for sure what will happen between now and eternity. Trying to stay true to your word just sounds like trying to prove you’re right, which isn’t necessarily the basis of a good relationship.

As for what “getting married actually means,” I think you’ll find there’s a lot of different definitions floating around. One could even say it depends on what it means to those getting married? Not everyone considers it a holy pact, and there are many practical reasons one might decide to form such a union.