twooffour

The guy in the picture said that sentence.

((See quote above, for association.))

Am I now the third worst person? Pls?

^^

It's off-topic, but I just wonder... what if Bane had killed Trinity?

I mean, they decide to fly together (would it've been cool if Neo flew alone?), then Smith attacks them... Trinity survives so she can drive the ship, then she gets offed in a "Matrix movie" equivalent of car accident (®). Wow that was pointless!

So it'd be rather harsh if Smith sliced her neck, but then, he already stabbed another chick in the film, so obviously they're up for that.
Neo would develop an immortal grudge at Smith, and the final fight woud've had SPARKLES in it!!

Let them fly a bit more over the epic robot scenery before Bane attacks, then just let Neo walk by foot (like Frodo) or drive the ship based on his gold vision - I see no problems with that.

So that's one way it could've been done right! (Or better.)



Details like this would decide how convincing Han's arc might come off in a rewrite.

For all of ROTJ's"flawts", I actually thought hooking him up with Leia was a pretty fine idea to begin with :D


The kinda cheesy way they did it "ok, you and Luke" "No, Luke is my brother" ..." ":DDD" with the cheering Ewok in the background, along with the general lack of tension and "flatness" between the two (Han had some douchey moments, but it kinda paled in comparison to ESB), was the flaw.

Would've also been better without Luke being her brother, so that the "triangle" (that was never as present in the first place) was resolved in a slightly less convenient way - Luke becomes the "traumatized spiritual leader" or something + they finally realize their feelings for each other are and have always been platonic... almost like siblings.
Kinda the same in spirit, but without the cheesy kinship.

Han could've done something more interesting and significant than planting a bomb, to round up his arc better.
But hookin' up with Leia is a nice touch in itself ;)

Sure enough, delivery and execution are the key.

It's just this makes me think of the Matrix sequels way too much - similar thoughts could be said there, first Neo rescues his beloved one because he just "loves her so much" and they get a romantic happy ending complete with "oh my love i can't even imagine losing you", the next time she dies a senseless death and he can't save her this time, facing actual loss this time, in the middle of nowhere.
The first time, she risked her life for him, and he went over the edge of his abilities to do the same for her. The second time, she dies in an accident, they're lost in a depressing hell-hole and Neo is heading off for certain death himself.

All sounds very "poetic", but all you REALLY think is: Oh FUCK he just rescued her in the last movie with epic drama music, and now she just dies again? FUCK YOU.


So that kind of thing would be the risk with ROTJ, too, although I don't think it would've ultimately been worse than what resulted.

That sounds completely awesome - one thing, though, I know Han was originally planned to die and many people here approve of that, but it doesn't catch me.

After already getting his "execution" in the previous movie (would've loved me a little more suspense on his state, maybe, instead of "ok, he's alive" moments after the dramatic freezing scene... but it was cool), him dying AGAIN, leaving Leia a SECOND TIME, could very easily come off as repetitive.

There would be some interesting questions to deal with, like, maybe sacrificing himself again would be tougher for him just after waking up from death, or maybe he'd embrace it more - but it would've been risky.

The way it turned out - Han not taking any interesting character change or development from his ordeal, merely becoming a complete "nice guy" now and being all pals with his best black buddy - obviously wasn't optimal either.
But dying a second time after "coming back"? I can take a second evil ship that looks just like the last one, but a main character is a more sensitive issue.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

It's like with movies - in order to care-a-lot, people need a connection to a character.
Show them lots of mass atrocities (or cartoon Jedis killed), and they'll be like "oh no this is bad" for a few minutes, then move on. Do something to a well-portrayed character they've built an emotional connection to - and you've got yourself a memorable movie experience.

Which explains why I didn't give a shit when MJ died, why I don't give a shit about this, and why I haven't given a shit about all the other shocking, untimely, often self induced, celebrity deaths of the past decade.

I feel less cold hearted now.

How about the not self-induced ones? ;)

That aside, but keeping with the general topic, there's a fun little "hypocrisy" I've noticed on various boards (not news comments), cropping up in threads like this one.

No one really gives a shit about spending time on an entertainment forum, or discussing entertainment issues on off-topic, instead of doing something beneficial or important (probably rightfully so, because it doesn't disable one from doing that outside of the board). Even like partaking on some serious board discussing politics or medicine or whatever.

But whenever someone posts a thread about the death of a celebrity (i.e. an entertainment figure), there will be inevitably several people saying how this isn't as important as some mass tragedy happening to occur at around the same time elsewhere.

So if we can all obviously keep two sets of books in terms of "good stuff we like" on one hand, and "bad stuff we should care about", why can't that apply to death or some other calamity hitting one of those in the first category?
It's like, we can all talk about fun stuff and enjoy works of entertainment, but as soon as someone's dead, bam, let's care more about Fukushima? Doesn't make sense to me :)


(In terms of what one SHOULD care more about, if anything, I'll agree it's the more important events, though)

What does this even have to do with this board... shouldn't this be in the off-topic section?









;)

danny_boy said:

Here is a better close up from another video taken at Comic Con:

 

 

 

...

Space Boobs!!

Lady Di!
Wasn't that an event, if I recall..

Bingowings said:

Two high selling award winning albums and a lot of memorable live performances aside that is a rather mean spirited (not that she can hear you or anything).

It is strange how her death seems to be getting more attention than the massacre in Norway or the famine in Africa but that's none of her doing.

It's like with movies - in order to care-a-lot, people need a connection to a character.
Show them lots of mass atrocities (or cartoon Jedis killed), and they'll be like "oh no this is bad" for a few minutes, then move on. Do something to a well-portrayed character they've built an emotional connection to - and you've got yourself a memorable movie experience.

Same here. A person with a recognizeable face, a distinct personality, mannerisms, statements and output, seems way more "real" and "close" to us than some horror stories of anonymous people we've never heard of.
We feel and realize how horrific it is, but their presence isn't as established in our brains, and it simply seems less "real".


That's at least my take, but that's pretty how it is, I think. Sure, a huge flaw in our psyche, but there it is.

As for me and Winehouse, there's another defense mechanism at work here I'm afraid - compassion is at its highest when it hits the innocent, and as her death is most probably a result of her bad habits, I don't see myself caring all too much.
Rather ironic, seeing as how I'd rather go due to some imposing circumstance I'm not responsible for, rather than by fault and weakness of my own. But maybe that's the relation ;)

___

Just something else I've noticed when reading this kind of news - whenever a victim happens to be "involved" in some way, be it volunteering in a dangerous country, in some kind of police duty, in a dangerous area, or even now at this "political summer camp" (at least it wasn't a normal school!!), there always is this subtle "ah, well, they put themselves out there" reaction inside my head.

A rather dangerous defense mechanism making one want to "stay away from trouble" and look the other way. As long as it only hits the activists and fighters... well props to them.
Pretty sure many others (hopefully not all) can relate to that as well.

We're quite unevolved animals ain't we!


/just something I had to get off my mind

.... TOMMAAHHH!!

TOMMAH!!!

I'd say she attempts that, but her obnoxious fake grin and the make-up overdose kinda nullify it.
But yea, she's all "party party" there, especially in the second half, so there's a bit of that. Nothing outrageous even by moral guardians' standards.


(Yea, I was kinda kidding with the catchphrases; I've seen better things - from Chimaera and all - never catch on :( )

With regard to the swordfighting clips here, can I ask those with some knowledge a question: could it be that, basically, the fights in movies go on for longer without injury because... it's an idealized world and everyone there is simply MILES BETTER than most, or anyone, in real life?

They can actually deflect all the fast moves and tricks without getting injured... the guys in the first clip can't last a second because, ultimately, they couldn't foresee or react to at least one move.

May I just throw in, unless I've missed it:

Nick Gillard was the main choreographer of the prequels. Not sure about Asians, but he seems to have been the number one guy there. He's British.

If even one of these "memes" makes it out of this community, I'll consider myself happy soul.

Anyway...

"Friday" has the advantage of being EXTREMELY banal to the point of parody, and also has Ms. Black singing with a fake, cheesy grin at the camera.
It's annoying to a ridiculous degree.

Also, I don't think that any of the commercial pop stars actally became famous... by people who didn't like their work. People weren't paying money to buy their CDs and tickets so they could bash them, they were fans.
The vast majority of the people who made the video(s) popular... didn't like it. It's received negatively by the vast majority, except for Simon Cowell, who's just lots all respect I might've had for him.

Also she evidently can't sing well (as seen from her live performance in some room), and I think most of the famous pop sing...resses, can at least give off a clean performance while doing some challenging choreography etc. (not sure, though).
It's the same as with Justin Bieber who just SUCKS live (listen to "eneh-meneh-my-lova" or whatever that crap is called... certainly not playback!).

extreme luck, corporate backing, and age-inappropriate sex-appeal

Well, extreme luck she had, as lots of better amateur singers on youtube go unnoticed. She does have some "sex-appeal" in the video, although I don't think it's age-inappropriate.


But hey, you know... instead of contemplating why all the other horrendous pop artists don't get 100 parodies, let's rejoice that at least this one gets its share :D

Thanks!

Seeing as how this isn't a serious socio-political discussion here, allow me to ask:
Where did the name for the "no true Scotsman" fallacy come from? Was it just random, some anectode, or an sense of pride ascribed to or frequent among Scotsmen?

CP3S said:

A Scotsman who isn't a nationalist; not very sexy.

Not a true one, either...

*flees*

xhonzi said:

CP3S said:

Ric Olie said:

The Matrix would have had more of an influence on pop-culture than the prequels, except for one small* thing:

They sucked.

Totally agreed, Olie. Totally agreed.

 Pronoun fail?

And why is everyone getting along with 2/4 so well in this thread?  Actually, I don't care why, JUST STOP IT.

It's weirding me out.

That would happen if everyone on this board were 14.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

It might be because the Vader scene in ROTS is actually a pretty damn good (up until the NOOOO, that is - all drama and impact flushed down the toilet in one moment), imo.

I thought that scene was ridiculous and campy from the start to finish. The guy is practically still smouldering from being burned in lava, and we slap a leather suit and helmet on him and in a matter of minutes he is as good as new and walking around again. Stupid.

Contrast that to much more realistic, far better paced, and less clumsy OT scenes such as Luke in the bacta tank after being rescued on Hoth, or the scene where the medical droid is calibrating Luke's prosthetic hand. But 20 years prior a triple amputee with life threatening burns just has to have a bunch of robots pop a suit on him in an overly campy scene, and he is all better. That scene is an excellent example of everything that is wrong with those horrible films. That said, in all of its ridiculousness, it is one of the better scenes in the entirety of the PT.

 

Oh, oh, I totally agree how little sense it makes logically, but just the execution of it is beautiful.

The only thing that got on my nerves was the parallel birth scene (not so much the idea of it, but just how "sweet" it all looked).
Then maybe it sounds kinda narmy when Vader starts grunting and moaning while destroying everything (that's the cool part).

But I couldn't find any "camp" in any of that.
There's lots of camp in EpIII, imo, especially with Grievous, but not here (not in my perception, that is).


That aside, there does seem to be some mix between parody and affection in that NC parody...

Ziggy Stardust said: