moviefreakedmind

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Apparently Fergie (of The Black Eyed Peas) did a terribad rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cOvyDpWfM&t=12s

they should find someone with ability to sing it, someone whose singing style fits the Anthem sung straight. The Anthem is not rap, rock, swing, or Jazz song.

I entirely agree. Sing it straight or find someone else who can.

I entirely disagree. We should just stop signing the national anthem at sporting events.

I’m late to this discussion, but I agree. It has nothing to do with sports.

What about at video game and/or chess tournaments?

As long as I don’t have to stand. The flag worship always reminds me of when I was forced to go to church on occasion as a kid.

dahmage said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Apparently Fergie (of The Black Eyed Peas) did a terribad rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5cOvyDpWfM&t=12s

they should find someone with ability to sing it, someone whose singing style fits the Anthem sung straight. The Anthem is not rap, rock, swing, or Jazz song.

I entirely agree. Sing it straight or find someone else who can.

I entirely disagree. We should just stop signing the national anthem at sporting events.

I’m late to this discussion, but I agree. It has nothing to do with sports.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I really wanted to go into the newest Star Wars movie spoiler free, but people on this site have been carelessly referring to the film’s title outside of the spoiler thread, and I consider the title to be a major spoiler. I also saw someone post the movie poster too, and that’s a huge spoiler. I actually saw part of the trailer on Youtube! Now that I’ve been exposed to so many spoilers I just don’t even see a reason to watch the film.

I…

…

…this is a joke, right? I mean, it has to be, but just making sure.

Yes.

I’ve seen similar sentiments from people on this forum before.

I really wanted to go into the newest Star Wars movie spoiler free, but people on this site have been carelessly referring to the film’s title outside of the spoiler thread, and I consider the title to be a major spoiler. I also saw someone post the movie poster too, and that’s a huge spoiler. I actually saw part of the trailer on Youtube! Now that I’ve been exposed to so many spoilers I just don’t even see a reason to watch the film.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

As a liberal, I was very upset at Obama’s use of drones and his massive deportations.

Me too.

Which is why I found it ironic that the right painted him soft on immigration and defense.

Ironic? Yes. Surprising? Not at all. Almost all of the right’s criticisms of Obama were total lies.

chyron8472 said:
I cited RDJ from Tropic Thunder as a white person realistically made up as black, but that was dismissed as deliberately humorous. I couldn’t disagree, having not seen the film.

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen that film, but I’m pretty sure RDJ was literally playing a white character that wore black face. He wasn’t playing a black guy I don’t think.

Why would you want to do that in the first place?

rodneyfaile said:

Digital release in one week! Can’t wait to see that documentary!

It’s already coming out?

I should also say that I don’t think you’d be confused having read the original version, I think you’d just notice that King obviously changed his mind on how he wanted to portray Roland and his world once he got to the next volumes in the story.

Yeah. A Stephen King SE equivalent example would be if he went back and made drastic changes to The Shining so that it would fit in with things in Dr. Sleep even though Dr. Sleep was written almost forty years later.

Ask them why they are ignoring you. If done respectfully and honestly, it’ll snap them out of their uncaring ways if they’re really your friends. If not, then they probably aren’t very caring to begin with.

I thought we were more or less past the days of worrying about whether or not a film communicated appropriate family values.

I don’t think he did.

Maybe, but it also gives him a logical reason to do what he did when he didn’t originally.

I know, I just felt like Dek’s appraisal of the revision of The Gunslinger as being an unfair criticism of something that he hadn’t read based purely on the fact that it was a changed version of a preexisting work. It’s something I see on this site quite a bit, though not from everybody.

Revisionism is revisionism 😉

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.

I’ve never read anything by Stephen King (and I don’t really plan to), but wouldn’t the original version be what he intended to be published after originally finishing the book? Like, wouldn’t all that extra material just be essentially filler? It just seems like a Special Edition situation from the POV of someone who’s never read them.

The revised version fits much better within the seven-part story. Supposedly the original book was more of a collection of five loosely connected short stories (so he says) than it was the first entry in one epic novel.

Pretty much my point. He changed the story and made additions to make it align with the sequels, rather than letting people read the book for what it was. Not that it would be nearly as bad as the SE situation, I just thought it sounded like the same sort of jimmerjammering Lucas did.

The difference is that King’s revision expanded the story and made it more consistent within the world that its characters inhabit. Lucas just added hideous CGI to the screen.

EDIT: And before anyone says anything, yes, the big difference between whether revisionism is obnoxious or not is whether it improves the quality of the piece. Controversial around here, I know.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.

I’ve never read anything by Stephen King (and I don’t really plan to), but wouldn’t the original version be what he intended to be published after originally finishing the book? Like, wouldn’t all that extra material just be essentially filler? It just seems like a Special Edition situation from the POV of someone who’s never read them.

The revised version fits much better within the seven-part story. Supposedly the original book was more of a collection of five loosely connected short stories (so he says) than it was the first entry in one epic novel.

It’s such a short read that I’d say it’s worth it. There’s also more than just inconsistencies. There’s about thirty extra pages of material to the revised version.

I would recommend reading the revised based on what I know of what’s been changed. If you’re reading the whole series back to back then you’ll definitely notice some big plotholes and inconsistencies.

one69chev said:

Sexual relations between adults and children are illegal; it is not ‘just a number’.

If the ages are 17 and 24 then at worst there could be an imbalance of power and maturity that could make the relationship problematic and potentially abusive, but it is definitely not pedophilia.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

moviefreakedmind said:

17 and 24 isn’t a big deal. I don’t see how that would appeal to pedophiles since pedophiles are known to prey on children, not young men that are legally adults in most states and countries.

In the novel they are 17 and 24. I don’t remember that being mentioned in the film, where they look 14 and 40.

Oh, okay. That’s potentially different then. Again, I haven’t seen the movie. It is strange that such a thing would get positive attention now given Hollywood’s problem with power dynamics and sexual relationships, harassment aside.

17 and 24 isn’t a big deal. I don’t see how that would appeal to pedophiles since pedophiles are known to prey on children, not young men that are legally adults in most states and countries.

EDIT: I agree though that the parental response that you described is extremely unrealistic if that’s how it was portrayed. I haven’t seen the movie and never will.

I’m curious, do any of you think that the Academy Awards hold any real weight? It seems like most people just complain about how they picked the wrong movies or actors every single year, which implies that the Academy is clueless or biased or wrong, etc. etc. so I don’t get why people watch them.

Mrebo said:

Handman said:

All of my friendships are entirely unrewarding. I might as well not know anybody.

I’m not sure what makes a friendship rewarding other than pleasure of company.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I just assumed that my insanity and lack of empathy was making me miss the point so I’m glad to find someone who agrees with me. .