lol, i know.
“iamyou”
-an ominous text from my brother
it’s probably his twitter password
I don’t even remember what it was
JEDIT: ARGH!!!
I’ll let you have ooJason and The Arrogants
and i just think its funny that chyron is complaining about it being a topic du jour, and yet him complaining about it just contributes to it being in the news.
That’s funny because I had the exact opposite reaction. In theaters I couldn’t remember anyone’s name and didn’t find anything compelling about anyone other than Chirrut, Baze, and sort of Krennic. Since then I’ve grown much more attached to the other characters.
The problem with Krennic is that he’s a weak villain and gets weaker and weaker over the movie, while Chirrut and Baze had no reasons to be in the movie, since they’re not even connected to the plot at all (they’re also the cliché-ridden tragic homosexual couple). One of the problems the Disney movies have (IMO) is too many characters at the same time, which makes things more confusing and/or bloated. Remove Chirrut and Baze and Rogue One gets better.
Krennic works well as the guy who is losing power. it makes him desperate. I don’t get your complaint that him getting weaker is a problem.
and i don’t think i will respect the rest of your post. Chirrut and Baze were wonderful characters.
All that matters to me, is that it makes sense for Lando to be pansexual given how he acts in the other movies.
He repeatedly hits on Leia. And… that’s about it. He’s a player. In the early 80’s, that was a thing.
so were pansexuals.
also whatever
You had to escape the green vortex at some point.
It was the fight of my life. Someday they’ll make a movie about it.
You never saw the Green Mile?
if we aren’t being honest, then yes i have
but my avatar was only 200px²
You had to escape the green vortex at some point.
It was the fight of my life. Someday they’ll make a movie about it.
back to my normal self (not bender)
I say it like broccoli, but with less brah and more Rick.
I’ve never said it out loud.
Why not give it a try right now?
I pronounce it ::facepalm::
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
If conservative = misogynist, sure.
Thinking that makeup isn’t necessary in the workplace is misogynist. Ha, yeah, okay.
This is why words don’t mean anything anymore, the supposed “blue wave” coming this November is going to fall flat on its face, and Trump stands a good chance of being reelected in 2020.
Hopefully he’ll be able to lose the popular vote by less than 2.8 million votes this time.
A win by Electoral College without the popular vote is still a win. I guess some people haven’t figured that out yet.
Maybe he’ll get impeached for his obstruction of justice before 2020 though.
Entirely possible, but banking on that happening could also be a waste of time.
Also, way to deliberately misread Frink’s post. It’s misogynist to think that serious women who wear makeup are hypocrites, not that makeup is unnecessary.
Why is it misogynist? What’s the purpose of makeup in a professional setting? Can you articulate a response?
I don’t think he’s right, but I don’t think he’s a misogynist for saying it either.
what exactly is the problem with people wearing makeup? i don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
I don’t have a problem with people wearing makeup at work or elsewhere.
This is all about Peterson’s opinion that professional women wearing makeup are hypocrites, and Frink’s/mfm’s labeling him a misogynist because of it. Just read the last page or two.
i did (but not in depth, just to move past it). it seemed like you were continuing the conversation, so i asked why. maybe i read wrong. in that case, we can all just move along.
I grew up in a barrel.
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
If conservative = misogynist, sure.
Thinking that makeup isn’t necessary in the workplace is misogynist. Ha, yeah, okay.
This is why words don’t mean anything anymore, the supposed “blue wave” coming this November is going to fall flat on its face, and Trump stands a good chance of being reelected in 2020.
Hopefully he’ll be able to lose the popular vote by less than 2.8 million votes this time.
A win by Electoral College without the popular vote is still a win. I guess some people haven’t figured that out yet.
Maybe he’ll get impeached for his obstruction of justice before 2020 though.
Entirely possible, but banking on that happening could also be a waste of time.
Also, way to deliberately misread Frink’s post. It’s misogynist to think that serious women who wear makeup are hypocrites, not that makeup is unnecessary.
Why is it misogynist? What’s the purpose of makeup in a professional setting? Can you articulate a response?
I don’t think he’s right, but I don’t think he’s a misogynist for saying it either.
what exactly is the problem with people wearing makeup? i don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
Let me guess. Is there
female nudity
in the film?
What does this even mean?
Anybody who restarts that discussion is getting reported.
Why don’t you relax, pal? Maybe take your top off and chill for a bit?
ALLOL.
Missed the movie in theaters, but discovered that it was a book first, so I’ve started to read it. I like it so far.
I listened to the audiovisual book.
Saruman.
I didn’t say there weren’t parts of the ROTK EE I liked, but on balance it’s not as good as the theatrical.
I’m not a huge fan of the Mouth of Sauron scene myself, but it’s mostly the extra stuff with Aragorn the ghost army that make me prefer the theatrical. It’s not just that, but that’s most of it.
You have a point. In ROTK EE the extra scenes really kill the pacing more than in the other two.
The army of the dead really does this. The Ents also. I mean, I love all the little bits of the story they add, but it doesn’t make a better movie.
Let me guess. Is there
female nudity
in the film?
What does this even mean?
Anybody who restarts that discussion is getting reported.
So…is this more detailed or less detailed compared to other major preservations like the Neverar Technicolor version of the 2004/2011 SE? Is every frame that’s in the GOUT accounted for here?
My thoughts on this are [here], but the short of it is that it’s differently detailed. The major difference other than the SE changes are that the colors are less consistent in 4K77.
Psuedo link
And paying too much attention to Twitter / social media will skew your perception of reality.
Those platforms amplify immediate reaction, not deep discourse.
JEDIT: whoa a whole 'nother page…
