logo Sign In

chyron8472

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Aug-2010
Last activity
16-Jun-2025
Posts
3,571

Post History

Post
#1163411
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I still am under no obligation to like it.

You’re also under no obligation to steal Ric Olie’s thunder, and yet here you are.

If art is subjective, and I already said my opinion of the film was subjective, why then do you guys feel obligated to contradict me or say my preferences are in bad taste? Apparently having to defend my position is not a Captain Obvious move if people are telling me my initial reasoning is flawed.

Post
#1163403
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

I don’t really watch films/shows or read books to ponder their message about the human condition. I watch movies for the stories and characters in and of themselves, not for what they say about me.

Case in point, my wife and I both really enjoy Harry Potter, and at one point my mother started talking to us about a book she read called “Finding God in Harry Potter”. Both my wife and I internally roll our eyes at the subject whenever it is mentioned, because whether or not such spiritual/religious themes exist in Harry Potter (or Lord of the Rings, for which there is a similar book), that’s not why we enjoy them nor what we find interesting to talk about about them.

JEDIT:

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

I (will) still use it as evidence that winning Best Picture does not mean I’ll like a film and that therefore I don’t really care who wins it.

Really though, you needed this movie to show that winning Best Picture dosen’t mean you’ll love it?

I already said I watched it on a whim and that using Best Picture as almost the only reason for recommendation turned out to be a mistake.

Post
#1163394
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Well, while you all have fun picking apart my reasoning for not liking No Country, I still am under no obligation to like it. Yay, it’s an allegory. Umm… okay?
I don’t really care. I still hated it. And I (will) still use it as evidence that winning Best Picture does not mean I’ll like a film and that therefore I don’t really care who wins it.

Post
#1163235
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

darthrush said:

No Country for Old Men

Might be one of the most outstanding movies I have ever seen.

Ugh.

Of course you did.

What is that supposed to mean?

I have legitimate grievances, like how you don’t even know the protagonist’s name until well into the film; how Woody Harrelson’s character’s sideplot was completely pointless; how the climax of the film happens offscreen; how depressing the ending was; or how I felt duped into watching it because it was nominated for eight Oscars while winning four of them including Best Picture.

That was the last time I cared about films winning Oscars. Boss Baby getting nominated recently kind of confirms it.

Did you even watch the movie? I’m pretty sure you’re supposed to feel unsatisfied.

Perhaps I wasn’t satisfied with feeling unsatisfied.

And don’t you learn his name when he goes home to his wife? I didn’t think that was more than 25 minutes in.

25 minutes is well into the film. We’re following this guy for a long time without knowing who he is or why we should even care. It’s not like we’d been following other plot elements until he gets introduced later a la Luke Skywalker.

JEDIT: I’m not saying it’s objectively awful. I’m saying it didn’t meet my expectations, it’s apparently not my kind of film (being a “neo-western neo-noir thriller”, as Wiki puts it), and I just generally did not enjoy myself while watching it. I watched it on a whim with my Dad, as we went to the theatre to see what movies were playing, and the book they had there said it won Best Picture. Apparently that was a mistake. My Dad doesn’t even remember what the film was about when I cite it as an example of Best Picture winners not necessarily being subjectively enjoyable movies.

Post
#1163217
Topic
Last movie seen
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

darthrush said:

No Country for Old Men

Might be one of the most outstanding movies I have ever seen.

Ugh.

Of course you did.

What is that supposed to mean?

I have legitimate grievances, like how you don’t even know the protagonist’s name until well into the film; how Woody Harrelson’s character’s sideplot was completely pointless; how the climax of the film happens offscreen; how depressing the ending was; or how I felt duped into watching it because it was nominated for eight Oscars while winning four of them including Best Picture.

That was the last time I cared about films winning Oscars. Boss Baby getting nominated recently kind of confirms it.

Post
#1162453
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

The banned members thread should be unlocked. We’re discusdibg it here, so there’s no point in not having a seperate thread. And the incident that caused it to be locked is very unlikely to happen again.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Why-was-this-user-banned-thread/id/54235

That thread is not locked.

Yet.

Which is why I haven’t posted in it yet. I’m not sure it wouldn’t be poking the bear.

Post
#1162343
Topic
The Last Jedi: Official Review and Opinions Thread ** SPOILERS **
Time

Mocata said:

DrDre said:
This would be fine, if it were not for the fact, that Han, Luke, and Leia are main characters in the saga, and the fact that we’ve already seen three movies about a relatively small rebel force fighting a big bad Empire. It’s extremely jarring to just skip the development of characters you’re invested in, at least for me.

I have no problem skipping stuff since they are not the protagonists.

This.

Post
#1161935
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

Speaking for myself, I don’t have a printer that prints discs, although I think maybe Office Depot or Kinko’s or some place like that might maybe have one. You might call them first if you were going to check it out.

Anyway, I have been putting sticky labels on my discs, and so far it seems to be working fine. I would burn a disc before printing on it either way though, because you should probably test the burned disc to make sure it works in a standalone player before labelling it.

JEDIT: Also, if you’re going to get a printer that prints on discs or else take the discs to somewhere that can print on them, be sure to use printable discs, not regular ones. (Printable discs are solid white on top.)

https://www.amazon.com/s/field-keywords=printable+disc+verbatim

Post
#1161929
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

TheTrueSpottedfeather said:

MusicallyInspired said:

There are printers you can buy with a disc slot where you place an ink-jet printable disc and then it’s just a matter of choosing the mode in the driver when you go to print. I was lucky as my workplace has a CD/DVD burning robot with a printer built in. Not the best quality, but better than nothing. There are certainly better ones out there.

Is something like that expensive ? Would printed sticky labels be a bad thing ? I know it would be cheaper and easier…

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Products-IP7220-Wireless-Printer/dp/B00AGV7TQ6/

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-TS9020-Wireless-Printer-Scanner/dp/B01N2RB71T/

No, it’s not expensive. I just went to Amazon and did a search for “disc printer”. People say sticky labels are apparently bad because the adhesive supposedly ruins the plastic over time and can make the disc unreadable. I don’t know how long a time that is supposed to take or whether that’s actually happened to people here yet.

Post
#1161884
Topic
How many 'Bad' Star Wars movies could you take before you check out?
Time

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

ExNihilo said:

dahmage said:

Can we please stop saying Disney and say LucasFilm? I mean, does anyone really think Disney is pulling the strings?

It is a fair way to say that it is LucasFilm under Disney rather than under George.

I suppose. but it feels more like it is an easy way to cry about some perceived mega corp unhuman thing is directing everything that happens. And i think that is dishonest.

What do you suggest?
Lucasfilm under the helm of Disney= LD
Lucasfilm under the helm of George= LG
?

I guess i don’t see the difference between Lucasfilm LD or LG

LD is headed by Kathy Kennedy and she has some crazy feminist agenda that ruins Star Wars as as a fantasy for the white working class male.

/sarcasm

Post
#1161850
Topic
How many 'Bad' Star Wars movies could you take before you check out?
Time

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch.

Pre-1997, you could buy the merch AND see the thing you loved that motivated the purchase. Post-1997, you can just buy the merch based on a memory of loving something a few decades back. To me, that’s a notable distinction.

But as I said, that distinction only applies when people can’t acquire the originally loved thing. But I can. People can. It’s been mentioned in more than a few articles. Whether they want to bother or not is up to them.

Meanwhile, if I mention loving the original Original Trilogy, I get called a “purist” by my friends and acquaintances, so there we are. If people don’t care, they won’t bother, and that’s on them.

Post
#1161845
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Frink, I agree with Warbler when he says your hyperbole often comes across as annoying and/or insulting. Just because you don’t give a crap about whether or not that’s true doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Well gee I never saw this coming!

If you didn’t see it coming, maybe you should have. If you did see it coming, maybe you should have done something about it. You don’t exactly go out of your way to be polite to people.

And Warb swearing at you that once does not exhibit a pattern of behavior. You did not get a temp ban for just one incident. You were temp-banned because “attacking another member because something offended you personally […] became a pattern that has affected how other members discuss certain topics.”

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1146839

Post
#1161835
Topic
How many 'Bad' Star Wars movies could you take before you check out?
Time

CatBus said:

But IMO there is a difference between cashing in on an available property (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins pre-1997), and cashing in on the fading collective memory of a property that nobody can actually have anymore (Star Wars merchandising and tie-ins 1997 and onward).

I don’t see what the difference is between cashing in on OOT merch and cashing on on SE/PT/ST merch. It’s all merch. And I don’t see why Disney, as a company, is to blame for ruining Star Wars simply by making money on it.

Post
#1161803
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Well that seems unnecessary, but I’ll give a try and let you know how it goes.

What seems unnecessarry is postings all the Sanchez pics(whom hasn’t been on the team for years) which was obviously done because you are annoyed with me and when I ask for an explanation, instead of explaining yourself you post another Sanchez pic.

I thought there was some rule about not posting image-only posts unless the image has a direct bearing on the topic at hand and it adds value to the discussion.

Frink, I agree with Warbler when he says your hyperbole often comes across as annoying and/or insulting. Just because you don’t give a crap about whether or not that’s true doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Post
#1161797
Topic
How many 'Bad' Star Wars movies could you take before you check out?
Time

hairy_hen said:

The movies that got us all hooked on the galaxy far, far away have essentially died as far as official policy is concerned - that is my point. Disney has the power to resurrect them, but they are either unwilling to do so, or just can’t be bothered. Star Wars should have been allowed to die in peace, to just exist for what it was without having to be continually revisited. And yet the commercial exploitation continues and shows no sign of ever stopping.
George Lucas, for all his infuriating stubbornness, at least had personal and artistic reasons for doing what he did, misguided though it was. Disney, on the other hand, doesn’t care about anything except money.

Are you actually saying that George didn’t commercially exploit Star Wars out the wazoo before Disney got a hold of it? Because I seriously beg to differ. Star Wars was merchandised like mad since the very beginning.

Of course Disney cares about making money, but you say so with the assumption that George did not. Plus, you actually sound apologist for George refusing to release the OOT. That is George’s fault, not Disney’s. It may very well be true that the powers-that-be at Disney are not releasing the OOT because George asked them not to, if what’s-his-buckets who commented about it on twitter recently was to be believed.

Artistic reasons or not, George is not of lesser blame than Disney, and he certainly did not care less about making money than they do.

Finally, you accuse Disney of wrecking Star Wars by changing characters into people for which you don’t like their portrayal. As though Disney, as an entity unto itself, was making those artistic decisions as opposed to the particular writers and directors involved. I would certainly say that to blame Disney for story and character elements you don’t like is definitely misplaced. Blame Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt, and Rian Johnson because you don’t agree with their artistic interpretations of possible events. Just because someone is working on a Star Wars project at Disney, it doesn’t mean Disney as an entity is making those artistic choices.

It’s also not like Disney cares so much about money and so little about art that Disney itself is purposefully crapping on Star Wars for the sake of the almighty dollar. And even if they were, George had already been doing that for decades.