Color me dissapointed.
The adaptation is trimmed down by necessity... but they trim out EVERYTHING that would make it different from "Blade Runner."
omnipresent Buster Friendly show? Gone.
So I'm listening to a well made, not-quite-Blade Runner. I'm a tad let down.
Just saw the new GODZILLA.
SPOILERS
All the sophistication, grittyness, and Bryan Cranston the previews seemed to offer went out the window at about 20 min, and it was a ball to the wall monster fest with a nice dull (and dumb as dirt) white soldier protaganist.
Decent monster action. A fun ride. Really, all I could ask for.
Kersh had never.made a SciFi flick before. Maybe they should look to odd picks like Debra Krenuk (Winters Bone) or Kary Fukanawa (Jane Eyre).
Ryan McAvoy said:
Tobar said:
*crosses fingers for Duncan Jones for IX*
Absolutely!
So the dude made a pretty good flick where all he could afford was models. I don't see why that makes him the Chosen One.
Just bought TNA Wrestling Slammiversary 2008 for $3.
Different directors is a good thing. Keep them from feeling stale.
I didn't like the first one, can't imagine what a second one would be about. It made me embarrased to be a fan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046j873
Heads up, espeically to you jerks in the UK who wont have to pirate this, James Purefoy is starring in a radio version of Phillip K Dicks novel that Blade Runner is loosely based on.
AWESOME!!
Warbler said:
it is unfair when you focus and complain about the evil in one religious book but don't say anything about the exact same evil in another religious book.
Every time I eat at Del Taco, I get the worst diarrhea. It pissed me off because everyone always want to go and enjoy their bargain priced Mexican goodies, like the ChiliCheese Burrito, or the Double Del Combo.
My coworker today was all, "Hey, lets go to Del Taco and get some delicious Chili Nacho Tostadas"
I was all, "No way. I get mad diarrhea when I eat at Del Taco."
He was totally as like, "That's not fair. You would get the same diarrhea if you ate at Taco-Time, Del Taco's Northern California competitor. Why you be hating bro?"
That's probably true about Taco-Time, but I haven't been to a Taco-Time or gotten sick from their gooey "Mexi-Fries" in years, and there are no Taco-Times around me.
Is it unfair of me to complain about Del Taco? Am I being unjust somehow? Should I always finish a complaint about Del Taco with a lengthy caveat about Taco-Time's menu, or how it might as well apply to many America Tex-Mex fast food establishments, possibly including but not limited to Moe's Southwest Grill, Nacho Harry's in Sacramento, or Taco Bell?
Jetrell Fo said:
That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.
Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions.
These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.
I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration. How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question. Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature? Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it? How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?
Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct? Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality? Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?
Respect requires boundaries to work properly. If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.
How far does equality have to go? What an asinine question.
Imagine yourself in the Jim Crow south, addressing a victim of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, public stoning, some young man with his eyes melted from bleach, some woman being executed for being the wrong religion in the wrong country, and asking "how far do we have to go to satisfy you people??"
So actually yes. If something old, capital 'C' Covenant or not, is based on discrimination and oppression, changing it would probably be good... or at least acknowledging that yes, we're discriminatory but we don't want to change because we enjoy our position of power and privilege.
Looking back on the past and acknowledging the bad things humans have done is a good thing (off the top of my head lets start with the chemical castration of the greatest war hero of WWII because he was gay). Erasing the past is usually what people who want to justify/continue oppression (lets call them the Bad Guys) want to do.
As for gay dinosaurs, deep down you must know your opinion is based on irrational prejudice , or else you wouldn't seek to justify it with something so utterly mouth-breathingly stupid.
My cousin and her wife are the most loving wonderful couple I know... but fuck it, I guess we all might as well be dead.
darth_ender said:
TheBoost said:
If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.
If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.
Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages. We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least). Such is the nature of freedom.
I think we're in agreement here Endy.
For example. I would never let my son be a Boy Scout, and I tell them to fuck off when I see their organization at the supermarket, but they have the right as a private organization to be prejudiced, discriminatory assholes.
(I also believe the government is justified in limiting the right to be discriminatory cunts in certain cases, like job hiring, housing, lunch counters, etc).
But the BSA admits "We don't like no queers, and don't want no queers around. Praise Jesus." They ADMIT they are discriminatory fucks.
(Although Ender, when finding common ground, it kinda hurts when in one breath you somehow see a parity between gay marriage and marrying animals. Just an FYI)
RicOlie_2 said:
If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.
It's a private university, so it should be able to ask for Christian conduct. According to Christian religious belief, gay marriages are not genuine marriages.
Discrimination would look more like this:
heterosexuals can have sex; homosexuals must abstain from sex.
However, the rule is that everyone must practice abstinence unless they are married.
You're cognitive dissonance just made my head blow up.
"Christians believe homosexual marriage isn't genuine, so they can never get married. Let's include in our code of conduct the privileges marriage grants that can never be achieved by homosexuals."
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION. Literally. You could put that in a dictionary as an example.
Listen. I get it. you don't like gays, you don't think they should be allowed to marry, you want to be able to discriminate against them, and if those Canucks get to discriminate against gays you're happy for them.
At least that dude in Oklahoma admits he wants to stone gays.
If you're for a system where people in a group by virtue of their power get additional rights and privileges... why keep lying and saying you aren't for that?
Warbler said:
TheBoost said:
Warbler said:
what about about all the gay people suffering in Muslim countries? Why doesn't Bingo want to talk about them?
I don't know. You aren't talking about them. Why should he?
because he talks so much about gays suffering because of Christinity?
I honestly don't see the point you're trying to make here Warb.
my point is that he only talks about one and not the other. I seek equality.
Again, not trying to speak for Bingo, but really? Really? People need to complain equally about all the evils in the world or it's somehow unfair?
Really?
Jetrell Fo said:
They are not ravings ..... it's frustration ..... it's wondering how far equality has to go to be satisfied or is it's requirements infinite.
Well... equality would be a pretty good place. You're opposed to that?
Warbler said:
what about about all the gay people suffering in Muslim countries? Why doesn't Bingo want to talk about them?
I don't know. You aren't talking about them. Why should he?
I honestly don't see the point you're trying to make here Warb.
Warbler said:
TV's Frink said:
Warbler said:
TV's Frink said:
Does anyone here follow the Koran?
So you admit that Bingo is just complaining to annoy people here?
I'm saying that what you said is irrelevant unless someone here follows the Koran's teachings.
and I am saying unless he is just doing this to annoy the people here, he should complain about the anti-gay stuff in the Koran as much as he does the anti-gay stuff in the Bible. The fact that no one here follows the Koran is irrelevant.
I don't think Bingo (or most of us) live in a world where the Quran is effecting us daily. We could go on about the horrors done by Muslims, Buddhists, Shinto practitioners, the indigenous religions of Tonga, or the state religion of North Korea.
But that's not Bingo's job.
Feel free to bring something up, and we might all join in, but NOT talking about the Quran doesn't somehow excuse the Bible of anyhing.
RicOlie_2 said:
TheBoost said:
I understand the reasoning, but I disagree with it. It's a Christian law school, and it prohibits sex outside of marriage. Period. Marriage in the Christian religion (aside from some more liberal denominations) is, by definition, between heterosexuals. It isn't discrimination, it's just what we consider marriage to be. Also, people choose to have sex, they don't choose to be black or white. The rules don't prohibit homosexuals from attending the school--that would indeed be wrongful discrimination--they just prohibit sex outside of marriage for staff/students in attendance.
Again, not claiming to know anything about Canadian law, education, or customs (don't they have some kind of tribal vendetta system?) but "It's not discrimination, it's just discrimination" doesn't hold water.
The house I used to live in, on the deed said "This house cannot be sold to Jews." That's not discrimination. The same rules applied to non-Jews. Is that discrimination?
When we were beating Native Americans who spoke their own language or practiced their own religion in forced boarding schools, those rules against speaking and practicing also applied to white Christians. Was that discrimination?
If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.
thejediknighthusezni said:
TheBoost said:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html
Finally, some honesty from a politician.
(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)
Well, a RADICAL HATE-MONGERING rag says he wants that in spite of his claiming "he doesn't remember" (as the rag put it).
That's good enough for me. Obviously, homosexuals must do EVEN MORE to destroy everything normal people value in life. Their children must be raped and defiled and have their sexuality destroyed in front of the faces of these evil and vile normies. They must be made to choke and call it wonderfull "progress" as their lives are crushed and they SUFFER AND DIE!!!!!!
The herd needs it's culling anyway. How will the homosexuals be galvinized to do the job without pretending to believe that there is an epidemic of horrible violence against them?
Actual severe violence for no other reason than hate for an innocent homosexual is more rare than man-bites-dog. This is why things like the Wyoming attack become national news. It turns out it was about drugs. The normies must NEVER be mindful that TENS OF MILLIONS of children and confused teens(regressed children) are violently crushed while the hate-mongering media desperately scours a nation of 300 million to find just one case that can be twisted into "only because the innocent dear was gay".
Do you know how many of the rapes of females are commited by males who had their sexuality destroyed by homosexaul predators? There's an epedemic!
It's the only way. Our elite masters must have their utterly depraved shock troops.
My personal opinion is that you're a troll who takes this as some kind of performance art. On the small chance I'm wrong, do you intentionally try to come off like some twitching lunatic writing on the wall with your own feces? Because even trying to parse your meaning gives me a headache.
RicOlie_2 said:
On a more serious note, I'm disgusted at the bigotry being displayed towards Trinity Western's law school.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/lawyers+vote+overwhelmingly+against+Trinity+Western+school+amid+claims+discrimination/9926606/story.html#ixzz34NU8NWxh
It's a Christian law school--should they not be allowed to dictate their own rules? They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals. I don't know how they enforce their rules which apply to the most private part of people's lives, but they should be allowed to do so. If people have a problem with that, they can go to a different school. I can't believe that people don't recognize that they are opposing freedom of religion when they oppose the rules upheld by the law school, but think they're doing a service to "gay rights" instead.
/rant
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. Before clicking that link i didn't even know Canada has laws.
BUT sir, you're being extremely disingenuous if you say
They aren't even discriminating against gays like people are claiming because the same rules apply to heterosexuals.
Because the rule is:
They were particularly concerned about the import of the evangelical covenant that the university insists staff, faculty and students sign, which forbids sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
This is of itself, discriminatory.
In the past here in America, we had a law that said only white people could vote. Same rules applied to white and black people. Was that discriminatory?
Finally, some honesty from a politician.
(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)
DOUBLE SUPERHEROS
Affleck- Daredevil/ Batman
Evans- Johnny Storm/ Captain American
Berry- Storm/ Catwoman
DNoffrio- Thor/ Kingpin
am I missing any?
Johnny Ringo said:
okay, serious question -
How long do you guys think the MCU can sustain itself with the way things are headed?
Marvel seems to be hemorrhaging directors these days.
I'm sure there are plenty of talented directors wanting to make enormous epic films (and paychecks) who are willing to work in the constraints Marvel gives them.
Tobar said:
TheBoost said:
How about Obi's line "How uncivilized" when he kills Greivous.
That's a gag line paying off a line he wont say for two more movies!
The line "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" is in the next film.
Sorry, I get my PTs confused. That was ROTS wasn't it?
How about Obi's line "How uncivilized" when he kills Greivous.
That's a gag line paying off a line he wont say for two more movies!
darth_ender said:
^Seems like a silly quibble since everyone but Luke and 3PO were played by different actors. Obviously they are going for what people will already have in their heads rather than less familiar actors filling the roles. When I listen to Perry King's Han Solo, even though he sounds and acts very differently from Harrison Ford, I still picture Ford in my head.
I wont quibble, but I would like to see a cover done up with the likeness's of the radio actors, just for novelties sake.