Sign In

suspiciouscoffee

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
23-Dec-2015
Last activity
19-Jul-2018
Posts
4632

Post History

Post
#992069
Topic
General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread
Time

Lord Haseo said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Lord Haseo said:

Would someone, literally anyone, attempting to fool people into seeing midichlorians as a cool concept count as apologizing?

Yes.

Personally I think James was trying to make the best out of the poor material he was given rather than trying to purposefully deceive people into thinking the idea was good in it’s original form. But that’s just me.

I’ve never read any PT era EU books, so I don’t actually know what Luceno did. However, he should’ve known that any attempt to make meaty-chlorines a “cool concept” is futile.

Post
#991803
Topic
All Things Star Trek
Time

The video’s getting pretty popular online. My brother (a non-Trekkie and fan of that guy’s videos) told me about it and told me to watch it… and eventually told me to calm down when it sent me into a lengthy, angry rant. “It’s just a theory man, why are you so mad?”

EDIT: well, it was getting popular. Seems like fewer and fewer tweets now are saying “I liked a YouTube video…” when I search Star Trek. I’m glad it’s dying quickly.

Post
#991780
Topic
Ranking the Star Wars films
Time

generalfrevious said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

generalfrevious said:

TFA might be a better film than ROTJ, but my cognitive bias will deny that fact. Maybe Episode VIII will be better than both films, Episode IX definitely not.

How could you possibly already be making a judgment on IX lol

Have you seen Jurassic World? Disney hired Trevorrow not because of talent, but money.

I didn’t think Jurassic World was that bad. Not good, mind you, but to preemptively dislike a film he’s directing just because he made a sub-par Jurassic Park movie (aka any JP movie after the first) is silly.

Post
#991756
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

SilverWook said:

NeverarGreat said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

ray_afraid said:

TV’s Frink said:

I just meant you can shoot someone in the head and it’s PG-13, but show a penis for one second and it’s NC-17.

You can simulate shooting someone in the head. It isn’t real. The penis is.
Not saying I agree with the ratings boards, but I don’t like the idea that simulated violence = the real thing.

jedit- THE PENIS IS REAL! NEVER FORGET!

Watchmen is R for (among other things) nudity, yet much of the nudity is CGI.

What?

I’ve never seen Watchmen. Why is there CGI nudity?

Dr Manhattan in his blue energy form is completely nude for a few scenes.

I believe he’s naked in the comics too?

That’s true, but the genitals are shown far less often in the comics IIRC (maybe two or three times total in the whole series).

Post
#990707
Topic
<em>The Prequels Strike Back: A Fan's Journey</em>
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

ZkinandBonez said:

imperialscum said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Too many people act like movies should adhere to a strict, realistic narrative – that there should always be a clear series of events with a defined beginning, middle, and end, with characters acting/reacting logically. They don’t have to and they shouldn’t have to.

There’s nothing wrong with finding surrealist filmmaking not to your liking – if it’s not to your tastes, it’s not to your tastes. But when you insist that its bad – with no understanding of the genre – then you’re just being a narrow-minded populist.

You have just defended PT without noticing it.

Last time I checked SW was not an attempt at “surrealist filmmaking”.

Idk, the bubble opera of innuendo was pretty surreal.

A lot of films have surreal or abstract moments in them (f.ex. the Dagobah cave vision). However that does not make the entire film “surreal”.
Mulholland Drive is a surreal movie and the plot is very hard to describe (except for on a very basic level).
SW on the other hand is pretty straight forward as it follows a very normal story structure. It may have subleties, and even some weird moments, but all in all they’re all good vs evil action/adventure stories.

I’d hardly put them in the same category ad Eraserhead simply because of the bubble opera scene in ROTS.

I wasn’t being totally serious (or serious at all really).

Post
#990702
Topic
<em>The Prequels Strike Back: A Fan's Journey</em>
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

imperialscum said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Too many people act like movies should adhere to a strict, realistic narrative – that there should always be a clear series of events with a defined beginning, middle, and end, with characters acting/reacting logically. They don’t have to and they shouldn’t have to.

There’s nothing wrong with finding surrealist filmmaking not to your liking – if it’s not to your tastes, it’s not to your tastes. But when you insist that its bad – with no understanding of the genre – then you’re just being a narrow-minded populist.

You have just defended PT without noticing it.

Last time I checked SW was not an attempt at “surrealist filmmaking”.

Idk, the bubble opera of innuendo was pretty surreal.