Getting more and more real all the time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Crazy, I wonder when the talk of boycotting will inevitably arise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Crazy, I wonder when the talk of boycotting will inevitably arise.
when you posted!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nooooooo!
Posted by Trimegistus (Member # 12663) on :
quote:Crazy, I wonder when the talk of boycotting will inevitably arise.
Judging from the comments under the article linked above, I would say it won't be long. Some tripe about OSC being a hateful bigot and his politics bleeding into his writings.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
:Casts a wary eye upon the news:
We'll see.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Already sorta happened to that game?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm wary of the fact it's being produced by Summit Entertainment.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trimegistus:
quote:Crazy, I wonder when the talk of boycotting will inevitably arise.
Judging from the comments under the article linked above, I would say it won't be long. Some tripe about OSC being a hateful bigot and his politics bleeding into his writings.
For the record (and I recognize that you were NOT calling him hateful in your post), OSC is one of the very LEAST hateful people I have ever met in my entire life. He's in a photo finish with my own father for being the most sincere, welcoming and kind person one could ever hope to be around.
When i hear/read people admonishing him for being "hateful," I find it to be equal parts laughable and infuriating.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It sounds like you hate it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
People on the internet tend to flip out over a lot of things. While his views are kinda meh, he handles himself so overwhelmingly better than just about every other internet icon I can think of in a similar position that it earns him quite a deal of respect.
Heck, I only noticed stuff in Ender in Exile because I was "aware" and was kinda "looking for it" (although an ear open for it is more accurate).
But compared to say, Stuart Slade, my god (I wouldn't be surprised if his forum was blacked listed by the RCMP for propagating hate speech).
I am cautiously optimistic, I have still yet to see The Last Airbender and I fear that yet another favorite work of mine will not be adapted properly and flail and flump lifelessly before being finished off in the head.
The big thing I think that will cheapen the work, is if they're not keeping it open for sequals in both the remainder of the Ender Quartet and the Shadow Series, without adapting with them in mind as either movies or a mini series (HBO? Whoever is doing Terra Nova maybe otherwise?) I'm gonna be disappointed.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne, don't see Last Airbender. Just... don't. Samp didn't have to eat his hat for a reason. It wasn't even close. He didn't even have to nibble on the bill. Seriously, that movie has no redeeming qualities.
Watch a few clips on youtube if you're really not sure you believe us.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Indeed, the adaptation of The Last Airbender was a sloppy mess.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Trimegistus:
quote:Crazy, I wonder when the talk of boycotting will inevitably arise.
Judging from the comments under the article linked above, I would say it won't be long. Some tripe about OSC being a hateful bigot and his politics bleeding into his writings.
For the record (and I recognize that you were NOT calling him hateful in your post), OSC is one of the very LEAST hateful people I have ever met in my entire life. He's in a photo finish with my own father for being the most sincere, welcoming and kind person one could ever hope to be around.
When i hear/read people admonishing him for being "hateful," I find it to be equal parts laughable and infuriating.
I've never met OSC but everything I know about him and have heard about him from people who have met him supports what you've said. The people who condemn him as a homophobic bigot usually couldn't tell you a single thing about the man other than the coles notes version of his political and religious views. Disagreeing with those views in fine as far as I'm concerned, but I also think it's a shame when people attack the man.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This thread can either be about the movie, or about whether or not Card is the very nicest director of the National Organization for Marriage. Hooray. I would prefer it be about the movie.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
OSC has been my hero since the age of 14, and EG started me reading and changed my life in major ways. I still love his books, but I admit freely that his views on homosexuality and SSM have tarnished my view of him personally quite a bit. I can't honestly call him a personal hero anymore, despite the huge respect I have for his writing.
From all I've heard, he is just a teddy bear of a man, kind and very unassuming as well as generous with this time for fans. I don't see him as a hateful man. Just a man with hateful ideals when it comes to gays. I would bet a large sum that he would go out of his way to make an actual gay person feel welcomed and not judged were he face to face with them, but his stances (as far as I understand them) are prejudicial and bigoted.
Being a married man with children, this intolerance does not affect me, and since I am very much indebted to him and his writings it buys a lot of wiggle room from me, but I can still understand where the other side is coming from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Really, Stone Wolf? Intolerance does not affect you unless it is directed toward you specifically. I don't think you mean that. At least I hope you don't.
Sorry, Samprimary. You can go back to the movie now.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm saying it doesn't directly effect me boots. Clearly it has changed the way I think about OSC...come on now!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't care how you feel about OSC. I just wanted to give you a chance to clarify your last sentence which was a little startling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Why would it be startling that someone who is discriminated against directly is more effected then someone who only recognizes it as unfair but is outside of the group who is receiving the injustice?
I got to marry who I saw fit...it happened to be a member of the opposite gender as myself, so it didn't effect me, as it effects those who are restricted from marrying the person(s) they love.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That clarification did not go as I had hoped.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So much "effect"
kmbboots : Are you going for some sort of "X privilege even hurts people who are a member of group X" sort of argument? It might be worth elaborating on it since I don't think it's an obvious (although true) point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This thread can either be about the movie, or about whether or not Card is the very nicest director of the National Organization for Marriage. Hooray. I would prefer it be about the movie.
I'm certainly with you on that, but who can stand against the drift?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm on record, I believe, as hoping it will not be made. A, I don't believe OSC understands film well enough to have a positive effect on a motion picture of this story, and B, I don't think there is a group of actors, or a director, who know this story well enough, or care enough, to make it a good film.
But I think there are some likely candidates for doing this film right: Joss Whedon or, or Stephan Gaghan (writing and directing).
I'm aghast at the idea of Hood having written this screenplay. Can you remember a single line of dialogue from Wolverine? Do you care?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I actively try to forget.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
... "Bub?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm on record, I believe, as hoping it will not be made. A, I don't believe OSC understands film well enough to have a positive effect on a motion picture of this story, and B, I don't think there is a group of actors, or a director, who know this story well enough, or care enough, to make it a good film.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall watching the people involved 'handling' the limitations of the possible casting.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, and and you know that the attitude is going to be that the story, and main characters, are a liability, not an asset. There's fairly good reason for this never having been made into a film. It just won't make a good one- or rather, the budget and work involved in making a good one is more than anyone is willing to risk or invest. So they'll do it this way, with Gavin Hood- which is what I always expected to happen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Also I continually hope that certain casting decisions are made to at least give this film a chance.
Firstly, Graff, Rackham, and Dap/Dimack (assuming those roles are merged, which is the natural choice), should not be played by character actors (which I suspect at least one of them will be anyway), but by actors who are more subtle in their roles.
For Graff I've often said George Clooney would be my pick. Another good choice would be Jeff Bridges. Clooney would also make a good Anderson, although you could go another way with that role. I actually think Jeremy Piven would be a good fit for Anderson as well. Or, since it's just a cameo role, you could go with somebody kind of odd, like John Malkovich, maybe Brendan Gleeson. William Frakes would also fit that role rather well- although I've often thought he would be a good Graff too, if he were a bit more subtle as an actor.
Dap/Dimack would be a slightly younger character- I imagine somebody small and unassuming. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Neil Patrick Harris, Kevin Connolly, someone like that.
Rackham is a tricky casting decision. I've heard a lot of people say Ben Kingsley- but I think he's too supple and mellow for the role. I'd go with Edward James Olmos, or someone of that type- although Olmos is definitely a character actor, so I'm breaking my rule there. I've sometimes thought Avery Brooks would be good for that role too- he has some of the explosive energy needed to make the scenes with Ender really pop.
Either Brooks or Olmos have the gravitas to deliver such lines as: "From here on Ender, your Enemy is *smarter* than you are... from here on, you are always *almost* about to lose."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Boy, that is some idealistic casting, right there!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can see Edward James Olmos as Rackham. Visually, I've always kind of seen Christopher Plummer in that role.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sir Ben and Chris Plummer are both good...how about Liam Neeson? He is getting old enough, and has the chops.
George Clooney for Graff? Really? Not that it would ever happen, but I just never saw him in that role, more like Philip Seymour Hoffman or Oliver Platt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Boy, that is some idealistic casting, right there!
No, yeah.
But that's why I wish Terence Malick would direct this film. The only director I can think of who can make essentially any casting decision he wants, and even gets offers from many highly payed actors to do his films for nothing.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne, don't see Last Airbender. Just... don't. Samp didn't have to eat his hat for a reason. It wasn't even close. He didn't even have to nibble on the bill. Seriously, that movie has no redeeming qualities.
Watch a few clips on youtube if you're really not sure you believe us.
As a person entirely inexperienced with the actual storyline or anime versions of the movie, and who rented it solely because her 6-year-old picked it for "family movie time", I have to say I didn't think it was all that awful. It was relatively entertaining even if it didn't feel like a "whole" movie since the ending didn't resolve anything. I was actually able to sit through the whole thing.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
If I boycotted it wouldn't be about politics, but because I wish this movie would never, ever be made. I think it'll butcher the story, and I love it too much to want any memory of it mangled.
Of course, reality is that if they make the movie, I'm probably not going to be able to keep myself from seeing it, and will likely do something stupid like staying up for a midnight showing on opening night. *sigh*
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
I think I'm going to have a hard time with encouraging people who haven't read the book to go see the movie; I'll try to insist, "You HAVE to read the book first!" Because I won't want anyone's first impression of the story to be what they get from the movie.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Having the film be someone's first exposure to EG isn't necessarily a bad thing. The SyFy network mini-series was my first exposure to Dune. It's not a perfect adaptation, and hardcore fans of the book of course have a million complaints, but it sparked my interest enough read the entire series. Now it's one of my all-time favourites.
I can guarantee that all of us who love the book are going to have gripes about this movie. There will be changes to the source material that we don't all like, even if we do like the movie overall. But as long as it's not total crap, it will likely generate more new fans than people it scares off.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Yeah, I'm just thinking in these terms: I would rather my friends (potential people I might discuss it with) be comparing the movie to the book, instead of having conversations with people who are comparing the book to the movie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Graff needs to be able to get fat, and he needs to be older-- Alfred Molina would be my first pick. Oo, or that guy who played Julia Child's husband in 'Julia and Juliette.'
Neil Patrick Harris would be perfect for Dap. Man, yes.
I kind of want Guillermo Del Toro to direct EG.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I feel like Robert Downey, Jr., would make a good Mazer Rackham if he could dial down the quirky comedy thing he's been popular for lately.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think he's too young. Mazer has to be older than Graff, and I imagine Graff being cast at around 55-60. RDJ can play between 40-50. He might be good as the head of command school- I forget the name of that character.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
As advanced as make-up effects are these days, I don't think Robert Downey, Jr.'s, age would be much of an issue. I feel like the Mazer character could be played a little younger in appearance as he'd still be in good physical shape. And he does the salt-and-pepper hair very convincingly. I'm just not sure he could pull of the subtlety and intensity of the role.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne, don't see Last Airbender. Just... don't. Samp didn't have to eat his hat for a reason. It wasn't even close. He didn't even have to nibble on the bill. Seriously, that movie has no redeeming qualities.
Watch a few clips on youtube if you're really not sure you believe us.
As a person entirely inexperienced with the actual storyline or anime versions of the movie, and who rented it solely because her 6-year-old picked it for "family movie time", I have to say I didn't think it was all that awful. It was relatively entertaining even if it didn't feel like a "whole" movie since the ending didn't resolve anything. I was actually able to sit through the whole thing.
MovieBob's review of it I feel is the most objective and nuanced and seems comparable to my brothers view of it; the movie is GREAT to look at, as a technical director M Night did great, but the narrative is terrible, it should have been a 2 and a half hour movie and they could have done a much better job in fitting the first season into it; there's no excuse for it to be only 1.3 hours long.
From there it gets worse, the acting was bad or stilted for the most part except for maybe Aang's character (according to my brother) and Soka's character didn't have any of the comedic aspect to it that made his character fun and interesting to contrast with his Arrogant Kungfu Guy tendancies; then there's the casting, I can see where they were going with the creative license in changing what each nation's reflected real worl ethnicity; firenations Tang China/Imperialist Japan to Indian, Earth to Chinese... from... Chinese... Water Tribe to White people from Canadian inuit and I'm not sure what they made the Air Nomads from the Tibetan influence but it is a reasonable divergence.
The problem is that this is hollywood, who aren't known for their progressive casting of minorities, especially when it comes to Asians. They should have stuck to the source material.
Which is what worries me about Ender's Game, it was mostly composed of (Eur)Asian students demographically, a majority Chinese with dissaproportionate Thai presence, will Hollywood stay true to something that was only indirectly alluded to when they couldn't even stay true to it to something that was the heart and soul of the original source material? (Avatar)
All in all MovieBob says Avatar for fans of the show was at LEAST worth seeing even if he couldn't give it a pass as a movie. I'ld settle for something "Better than Last Airbender".
Ultimately I might have to just get good at drawing manga and adapt it myself.
fake edit: I would squee very hard for James Edward Olmos as Mazer. I think patrick stewart could do Graff.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'there's no excuse for it to be only 1.3 hours long' had me twitching.
quote:Ultimately I might have to just get good at drawing manga and adapt it myself.
w...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
There's a perfectly good TV series of Last Airbender to watch.
Heh-- I am to Airbender what kmboots is to Shakespeare. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'there's no excuse for it to be only 1.3 hours long' had me twitching.
quote:Ultimately I might have to just get good at drawing manga and adapt it myself.
w...
I do not think you can kind anything objectively wrong or objectionable that isn't rooted in bias. If as a fan work I wanted to adapt it, and had at that point attained the skills to do so hypothetically why the "w...".
There's plenty of people, like for example Moffat, that dreamed of being able to work with the stuff they loved. The modern comics industry for example is run by fans.
Regarding airbender, the narrative is crushed by the 90% of the movie dedicated to exposition just to EXPLAIN the setting and never get to grow or develop, a 2.5 hour movie would allow for that time.
Calculating it, we figured you could eliminate the filler and recalibrate the plot episodes to incorporate any development from the filler and maybe wind up with 3 hours easily cut down to 2.5 for the first season. With three movies you could have the three seasons adequately adapted at 2.5 hours each.
And then a fourth movie to account for the loose ends in a "fourth" season.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The w... Could be because you do not have the right to adapt it, at least for publication. Even as a "fan work". As a personal project to be enjoyed by you alone, perhaps.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: As advanced as make-up effects are these days, I don't think Robert Downey, Jr.'s, age would be much of an issue. I feel like the Mazer character could be played a little younger in appearance as he'd still be in good physical shape. And he does the salt-and-pepper hair very convincingly. I'm just not sure he could pull of the subtlety and intensity of the role.
Playing an age is more than makeup. Benjamin button is a good example of this- although a complex case.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I feel like that could be debated. There are plenty of actors who have succeeded in roles which require them to play an older character. An example which comes to my mind is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance throughout There Will Be Blood.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne, don't see Last Airbender. Just... don't. Samp didn't have to eat his hat for a reason. It wasn't even close. He didn't even have to nibble on the bill. Seriously, that movie has no redeeming qualities.
Watch a few clips on youtube if you're really not sure you believe us.
As a person entirely inexperienced with the actual storyline or anime versions of the movie, and who rented it solely because her 6-year-old picked it for "family movie time", I have to say I didn't think it was all that awful. It was relatively entertaining even if it didn't feel like a "whole" movie since the ending didn't resolve anything. I was actually able to sit through the whole thing.
MovieBob's review of it I feel is the most objective and nuanced and seems comparable to my brothers view of it; the movie is GREAT to look at, as a technical director M Night did great, but the narrative is terrible, it should have been a 2 and a half hour movie and they could have done a much better job in fitting the first season into it; there's no excuse for it to be only 1.3 hours long.
From there it gets worse, the acting was bad or stilted for the most part except for maybe Aang's character (according to my brother) and Soka's character didn't have any of the comedic aspect to it that made his character fun and interesting to contrast with his Arrogant Kungfu Guy tendancies; then there's the casting, I can see where they were going with the creative license in changing what each nation's reflected real worl ethnicity; firenations Tang China/Imperialist Japan to Indian, Earth to Chinese... from... Chinese... Water Tribe to White people from Canadian inuit and I'm not sure what they made the Air Nomads from the Tibetan influence but it is a reasonable divergence.
The problem is that this is hollywood, who aren't known for their progressive casting of minorities, especially when it comes to Asians. They should have stuck to the source material.
Which is what worries me about Ender's Game, it was mostly composed of (Eur)Asian students demographically, a majority Chinese with dissaproportionate Thai presence, will Hollywood stay true to something that was only indirectly alluded to when they couldn't even stay true to it to something that was the heart and soul of the original source material? (Avatar)
All in all MovieBob says Avatar for fans of the show was at LEAST worth seeing even if he couldn't give it a pass as a movie. I'ld settle for something "Better than Last Airbender".
Ultimately I might have to just get good at drawing manga and adapt it myself.
fake edit: I would squee very hard for James Edward Olmos as Mazer. I think patrick stewart could do Graff.
It's very disconcerting to see you making so many assertions about a film you haven't actually seen.
Seriously, man, it's... terrible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I do not think you can kind anything objectively wrong or objectionable that isn't rooted in bias.
What? Assuming you meant 'find' for 'kind,' what on earth does that have to do with anything? Why do you keep bringing up 'objectivity' in places where it's a completely irrelevant counterpoint?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
*sigh*
I don't want to fall into the trap of arguing this here, but, yes. When it comes to talk about interpreting a movie as good or bad, whinging about "objectivity" is useless. Especially when your own position is notoriously subject to overwhelming bias.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I feel like that could be debated. There are plenty of actors who have succeeded in roles which require them to play an older character. An example which comes to my mind is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance throughout There Will Be Blood.
His character in that film ranges in age between, say, around 40 and around 60. He was 50. That is not an unreasonable age range for many actors. RDJ is 46. The role is 60-65+, that's a bigger leap, particularly for a known actor.
Granted, it would be nice to cast Rackham younger in order to incorporate some footage of him as the commander he had once been. For that reason alone, it might be worth casting a younger actor who could age up to the role. But there is also the matter of audience awareness to consider. Audiences know Downey's age, and unlike with DDL, he is known by audiences as a man in his 40s, so casting him drastically older would be a strain on the suspension of disbelief that wouldn't be necessary, unless you *needed* to cast him in the middle of a broader age range.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I do not think you can kind anything objectively wrong or objectionable that isn't rooted in bias.
What? Assuming you meant 'find' for 'kind,' what on earth does that have to do with anything? Why do you keep bringing up 'objectivity' in places where it's a completely irrelevant counterpoint?
No, see, every single post has to be taken as if it is the first. Prior experience, even A LOT of prior experience, is merely "bias," which is bad. You need to just believe in everything he says, all the time. See?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I feel like that could be debated. There are plenty of actors who have succeeded in roles which require them to play an older character. An example which comes to my mind is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance throughout There Will Be Blood.
I feel like Lewis would make a solid Rackham. Another good actor would be Nick Nolte. He has the "Old man who can kick your ass" look to him, just like Lewis.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne, don't see Last Airbender. Just... don't. Samp didn't have to eat his hat for a reason. It wasn't even close. He didn't even have to nibble on the bill. Seriously, that movie has no redeeming qualities.
Watch a few clips on youtube if you're really not sure you believe us.
As a person entirely inexperienced with the actual storyline or anime versions of the movie, and who rented it solely because her 6-year-old picked it for "family movie time", I have to say I didn't think it was all that awful. It was relatively entertaining even if it didn't feel like a "whole" movie since the ending didn't resolve anything. I was actually able to sit through the whole thing.
MovieBob's review of it I feel is the most objective and nuanced and seems comparable to my brothers view of it; the movie is GREAT to look at, as a technical director M Night did great, but the narrative is terrible, it should have been a 2 and a half hour movie and they could have done a much better job in fitting the first season into it; there's no excuse for it to be only 1.3 hours long.
From there it gets worse, the acting was bad or stilted for the most part except for maybe Aang's character (according to my brother) and Soka's character didn't have any of the comedic aspect to it that made his character fun and interesting to contrast with his Arrogant Kungfu Guy tendancies; then there's the casting, I can see where they were going with the creative license in changing what each nation's reflected real worl ethnicity; firenations Tang China/Imperialist Japan to Indian, Earth to Chinese... from... Chinese... Water Tribe to White people from Canadian inuit and I'm not sure what they made the Air Nomads from the Tibetan influence but it is a reasonable divergence.
The problem is that this is hollywood, who aren't known for their progressive casting of minorities, especially when it comes to Asians. They should have stuck to the source material.h
Which is what worries me about Ender's Game, it was mostly composed of (Eur)Asian students demographically, a majority Chinese with dissaproportionate Thai presence, will Hollywood stay true to something that was only indirectly alluded to when they couldn't even stay true to it to something that was the heart and soul of the original source material? (Avatar)
All in all MovieBob says Avatar for fans of the show was at LEAST worth seeing even if he couldn't give it a pass as a movie. I'ld settle for something "Better than Last Airbender".
Ultimately I might have to just get good at drawing manga and adapt it myself.
fake edit: I would squee very hard for James Edward Olmos as Mazer. I think patrick stewart could do Graff.
It's very disconcerting to see you making so many assertions about a film you haven't actually seen.
Seriously, man, it's... terrible.
Google up moviebob and last airbender and escapist magazine.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: *sigh*
I don't want to fall into the trap of arguing this here, but, yes. When it comes to talk about interpreting a movie as good or bad, whinging about "objectivity" is useless. Especially when your own position is notoriously subject to overwhelming bias.
Dude, I wasn't referring to the movie, I was referring to his mocking incomprehension towards the thought that I might adapt it myself one day be able to adapt Ender's Game myself into my preferred medium.
Its very clear, if he couldn't think of something nice to say, even if he's skeptical/dubious of its possibility, he should keep his mouth shut.
Secondly, there's an entire market called "doujinshi" where people publish fanworks for profit, or at least to reimburse the cost of distribution (usually at Comiket, but there's certainly a north american equivilent). The Touhou Project comes to mind.
But regardless, thats not the point, I keep thinking one day I might want to get into animation from drawing (who knows, maybe I can get an internship at a Studio after my JET contract expires), it could open the way towards making a legal adaption of some kind if I could acquire the rights.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What on earth does "objectivity" have to do with any of that?
Regardless, I am sure you will take time off from your rigorous schedule of being an MP to adapt Enders Game into a self drawn manga, once you get back from JET, and have also flown to the moon.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Its very clear, if he couldn't think of something nice to say, even if he's skeptical/dubious of its possibility, he should keep his mouth shut.
Don't egg them on...it is rather outside the norm to expect people to respond positively to the idea of you "adapting Ender's Game"...after you learn how to draw, that is...into a manga. It is an over the top claim, and unless you want to get into a big fight, about every detail, perhaps you should consider just letting it drop dude.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What on earth does "objectivity" have to do with any of that?
Regardless, I am sure you will take time off from your rigorous schedule of being an MP to adapt Enders Game into a self drawn manga, once you get back from JET, and have also flown to the moon.
Go screw yourself. What acting ability did David Tennant have visible or trained when as a child he wanted to play the Doctor? What writing ability beyond Doctor Who fanfiction did Steven Moffat have when similarly as a kid he wanted to one day direct Doctor Who?
There is relevence to objectivity, no one can objectively claim "this goal of yours is stupid." Saying so is simply spreading shit around. He decided to spread shit around and that was the fullest extent of his contribution, as is yours. Because you have nothing better to do, whereas I do have something better to do, which is to slowly but inevitably work towards those goals.
So stop shitting up the thread if you can't positively contribute.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Google up moviebob and last airbender and escapist magazine.
Strange, I just did that and I've been informed that not does anime suck, but Europa Universalis and Eve have been quantitatively proven to be inferior to Total War.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What, the ****, is wrong with you?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Blayne, I admit I don't understand the drive to work in someone else's world. Why not make your own stuff up, and pursue that?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I feel like that could be debated. There are plenty of actors who have succeeded in roles which require them to play an older character. An example which comes to my mind is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance throughout There Will Be Blood.
I feel like Lewis would make a solid Rackham. Another good actor would be Nick Nolte. He has the "Old man who can kick your ass" look to him, just like Lewis.
I always pictured Rackham as a bit frail looking, the intensity of the man is all about the face while spending decades in space can hardly allow for a... "healthier" physique that Nolte has. No argument here as to wether or not Daniel Day-Lewis can do it (the man can most parts anyway) but he has never truly struck me as 'old' mature yes but little old man sitting quietly enough on the floor of young boys room to be thought mentally vacant, no.
I just checked and I must not have noticed that Peter Boyle (the old man from Everybody Loves Raymond) passed a while back, I checked because I think he would have been perfect for Mazer Rackham. The way his voice had a complete lack of timidity or apprehension, but with a certain kind of weakness of age in the breaths between sentences is how I hear Rackham's voice.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Blayne, I admit I don't understand the drive to work in someone else's world. Why not make your own stuff up, and pursue that?
They are not mutually exclusive. A lot of writers begin with fanfiction, and a lot of artists started with fan art, a lot of the live drawing sessions at sketchpad at justintv are fan art of Black Rock Shooter or Touhou.
Also I have about a half dozen writing projects and at least three manga projects, one is a spinoff doujin for Doctor Who with original characters, one is a blomic, and the last is an original story.
Mucus, seriously, stop dogpiling, they are perfectly capable of throwing up vomit on the thread themselves they don't need the help, and my response (to google up movie bob) was done on my phone and was referring to his assumption that I was making assertions despite not watching the movie, this is incorrect. As I was referencing MovieBob and the opinion of my brother who did see it, and a certain degree of osmossis that more or less seems to be consistently held among everyone I have talked to people who have seen it.
Your bile inducing pathetic attempt at trolling is a complete non sequitor and can abort itself.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Blayne, the issue (besides you being an immature poster with anger management problems who will fly off the handle and can be baited by any provocation) is that you always use things like "objectivity" in irrelevant ways. You keep trying to say things like "you cannot OBJECTIVELY say that" or claim that your position is more objectivelier on the movie/game/anime/china political issue and think this shuts other people down, you just do not seem to understand it is not something that you use right, like "de facto and de jure" so it can only help you to break the habit.
Oh what's the point, you'll just continue to do whatever you want and call me names, I fell into the trap again.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... the opinion of my brother who did see it, and a certain degree of osmossis ...
?
*Google ... I'm feeling lucky*
quote:A baby miraculously conceived through anal intercourse. The sperm, possibly through osmossis, makes its way to the baby-maker, where the fetus develops. The baby, then, travels back into the a**, where it is born through the butthole, presumably covered in s***.
Intriguing relationship.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They are not mutually exclusive. A lot of writers begin with fanfiction, and a lot of artists started with fan art
A lot of authors and a lot of artists get caught in the validation provided by fandom and never move out on their own, as it were.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Except it *is* relevent, your lack of reading comprehension doesn't make it less true that Sam is in no position to judge, or welcome to ridicule my honest intentions. He wasn't constructive, he didn't contribute. He just "whaaaaaaaaat" in a transparently condenscending and mocking fashion. He can be as dubious and skeptical as he likes but he can keep it to himself.
Thus, my point that Sam, lacking in any objectivity in "Blayne matters" shouldn't speak about it, if he's so concerned with the health of the forum then he can not provoke it.
And I do use de jure and de facto correctly. I do not know what the crap you are referring to, but clearly its a ficticious situation.
In fact, in general I don't see at all what you're talking about or what you are referring to, just gridning an ax about a mental image of whatever past conversations of mine you've convinced yourself I've had.
In fact I distinctly recall in a recent conversation a few people defending me and my argument as I had sourced it and had brought forward substantiated points to support my argument. I cannot, at all recall, to what conversation I claimed objectivity towards, unless your simply referring to my authoratative self assured tone, in which case *whoosh* more stuff you are imagining.
Please quote me where I have said "you are not objective about this [China related issue], so I win" or those words, substantiate your accusation or back off.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... the opinion of my brother who did see it, and a certain degree of osmossis ...
?
*Google ... I'm feeling lucky*
quote:A baby miraculously conceived through anal intercourse. The sperm, possibly through osmossis, makes its way to the baby-maker, where the fetus develops. The baby, then, travels back into the a**, where it is born through the butthole, presumably covered in s***.
Seriously, shut up.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:They are not mutually exclusive. A lot of writers begin with fanfiction, and a lot of artists started with fan art
A lot of authors and a lot of artists get caught in the validation provided by fandom and never move out on their own, as it were.
Correlation is not causation, I could just as easily say "a lot of people who want to write never end up writing" and is of about equal validity. Either it happens or it doesn't, there's no russian roullete where by writing fanfiction you can get "trapped" into it, there's no psychological compulsion or addiction that forces you to keep doing it once your comfortable with your level of writing.
Some people are terrible writers who write terrible fanfiction, and since 90% of fanfiction is crude I would say there is a strong link between people who only write fanfiction and their skill being terrible then there is a correlation between writing fanfiction and only possibly writing fanfiction.
There might be a few *good* fanfiction writers, but our sample is limited, maybe what? 5? That anyone might know of? How old are they? Do any of them intend to write? How long we giving them?
The converse is as such equally true, nothing stops a fanfiction writer from eventually writing original fiction.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Thus, my point that Sam, lacking in any objectivity in "Blayne matters" shouldn't speak about it, if he's so concerned with the health of the forum then he can not provoke it.
What is your standard for "objectivity" in blayne matters? Also, why not? Being concerned with the health of the forum means he can't do anything that provokes you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Mucus, seriously, stop dogpiling, they are perfectly capable of throwing up vomit on the thread themselves they don't need the help
What kind of a double standard in demeanor do you have to have where me asking how the "objectivity" of my response is a relevant counterpoint is "throwing up vomit on the thread" and you yet again swearing and going nuts in a thread at the drop of a hat is apparently justifiable in response?
Are you really, really going to be this transparently hypocritical, Blayne?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Could all parties involved dial back the hostility please? This conversation cannot end well because Blayne doesn't really want to absorb this criticism, and many of the critics offering it do not have a relationship of trust with Blayne.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
What does being in a "relationship of trust" with blayne have to do with being able to point out irrelevant accusations blayne makes? Since he doesn't want to absorb criticism, the solution is to ..... what? Never counter his claims?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You keep using the word "irrelevent", if Sam is a person who has not constructively engaged with me in the past, how is it not of relevence for me to point out that there is zero standing in which to criticize one of my possibly goals? The lack of a working relationship is of the utmost importance in pointing out that his post was offensive and of negative contribution. Becuase it was a post of mockery and denigration of an aspiration. Of course by definition there is a lack of objectivity and it is of the utmost importance in this instance.
Also strawmaning, i didn't say he shouldnt do anything; what he shouldnt be doing is deliberately posting in ways designed to be provoking. Assuming that is what you meant, your post could be read as "he should be allowed to provoke you." Which is morally bankrupt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What does being in a "relationship of trust" with blayne have to do with being able to point out irrelevant accusations blayne makes? Since he doesn't want to absorb criticism, the solution is to ..... what? Never counter his claims?
That is the apparent intent. Blayne gets to theorize about his future as a manga artist, after he does The Jet program, after he finishes college after the nth try, after he moves into an apartment again, after he finishes his 10 hours of gaming, after he adapts his old paper to his new assignment, after he learns Japanese, and DON'T YOU DARE DISPARAGE. You have no reason, other than 7 years of experience, to doubt any of that.
Yes, you have to accept it, or there will be NO TRUST! But if you have an opinion about anything, don't share it. You're wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Blayne, you wouldn't be satisfied unless someone disparaged your ridiculous plans, and fed into your complex of persecution being the only reason you haven't accomplished your goals. that way it's not your fault you only like to talk about doing things you will never actually do.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Can we get back to the original topic of this thread: Why the movie is no good?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What does being in a "relationship of trust" with blayne have to do with being able to point out irrelevant accusations blayne makes? Since he doesn't want to absorb criticism, the solution is to ..... what? Never counter his claims?
I didn't speak to whether or not I will permit posters to point out flaws in other poster's comments. I said that it was getting too hostile, and also mentioned that these criticisms will probably not have their intended effect, (assuming your intention is to actually correct behavior) as the person on the receiving end does not trust or put much stock in your motives.
Don't mistake my saying, "This isn't going to work" with "I'm ordering you to stop."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You keep using the word "irrelevent", if Sam is a person who has not constructively engaged with me in the past, how is it not of relevence for me to point out that there is zero standing in which to criticize one of my possibly goals? The lack of a working relationship is of the utmost importance in pointing out that his post was offensive and of negative contribution.
Good lord, so little of that made sense.
The problem with telling people that they 'shouldn't be deliberately posting in ways designed to be provoking' is that you take a wide swath of valid criticisms and judge them to be 'morally bankrupt' — it's never about you taking responsibility for your own unacceptable outbursts, it's always about provocation. What others shouldn't be allowed to do. And when one takes a look at the huge laundry list of mundane things that you respond to with various degrees of juvenile hostility, your demands about what other people have to do for the sake of not setting you off start to look ridiculous.
quote:Also strawmaning, i didn't say he shouldnt do anything
Mm. You've repeatedly said that I should have no grounds to criticize, that I should either be nice or shut up.
quote:Becuase it was a post of mockery and denigration of an aspiration. Of course by definition there is a lack of objectivity and it is of the utmost importance in this instance.
it's become clear that you constantly talk up unrealistic goals that will never happen, to the point where it becomes a bit surreal. Whether or not deadpan humor is taken in these observations (to note: I'm glad to know that you're apparently not too far off from being MP material, be sure to keep us updated on that) doesn't mean that someone criticizing these obviously unrealistic self-appraisals gets to be shunted into your 'by definition lack of objectivity' netherworld (which still doesn't really mean anything) that allows it to be automatically invalidated as .. well, whatever you're invalidating it as that day.
Man, not that I even bothered. It's best to stick with just what I did comment about before being called a threadvomiter who doesn't need help vomiting on threads or whatever, and that's responding to the notion that the way to fix Last Airbender's problems was to make it longer (it is a stupid notion, the end).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The 3rd scumbag of hatrack strikes again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: Can we get back to the original topic of this thread: Why the movie is no good?
Assuming, of course, that 2013 is the Really Real For Real Date for Release this time around, it is a movie wherein gavin hood and summit entertainment are going to try to be able to shoulder the unusually high challenges of a serious movie about ten year old super-mega-genius children having dialogue mostly between themselves or other children in a book for those and multiple other reasons is not particularly easily suited towards a good movie imagining. Therefore, on the part of many, well-founded pessimism.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Are you willing to dip your hat in mustard based on that surmise?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. You're crossing lines you should not cross Blayne. Please stop.)
[ October 28, 2011, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... what he shouldnt be doing is deliberately posting in ways designed to be provoking.
If someone is the forum equivalent of a big red button, the last thing they should probably do is not put the words "do not press" on themselves. (The second last thing is probably to not make pressing the red button really fun*)
* Which of course implies that there's a win-win scenario, someone pressing the button either gets a pay-off, or you choose not to rampage (thus denying the pay-off)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blayne, please realize that while some of the other's comments were borderline (some more then others) offensive, it is you who has been injecting most of the hostility, demands, rudeness, profanity and over the top-ness into this thread.
Just take a break from this thread and let this whole thing blow over, okay?
It is good that you have aspirations, and we will root for you, just keep in mind that sometimes you come off a bit grandiose (I know, as I do too at times.) and that sometimes people just get a bit put off by it. You basically said that everyone else would fail at making EG into a good visual format, but that you would succeed.
Regardless, further pressing the issue here will do nothing but dig the hole deeper. Please bow out gracefully and return when you can overlook this unfortunate side road.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: The 3rd scumbag of hatrack strikes again.
I wasn't aware that we were assigning numbers, whats the deadline to buy our team jerseys? Sounds like a good hockey team "The Hatrack Scumbags"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: You basically said that everyone else would fail at making EG into a good visual format, but that you would succeed.
I never actually said this. And loads significantly more meaning into what I actually said than obviously intended.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Are you willing to dip your hat in mustard based on that surmise?
Unsure, as of yet. I doubt it will be good, but this is different from being sure it will be bad — as was the case once I heard who was directing TLA.
That, and I can be absolutely positive that even if the movie comes out and is decidedly mediocre or poor, the conversation here will be split between people talking about how it could have been better versus people talking about how it was
TOTALLY
AWESOME
OMG
FANGASM
and I don't think that rollicking environment needs a hatbet in the middle of it, so
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote: You basically said that everyone else would fail at making EG into a good visual format, but that you would succeed.
I never actually said this. And loads significantly more meaning into what I actually said than obviously intended.
Yes...you didn't say this...exactly. Sorry. But it was in the same vein...Hollywood struggles...I'll handle it, kinda deal. But that wasn't my main point now was it?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Good call, Samp. I pretty much agree with you that it is unlikely to be good, but may not necessarily be bad. Hatbets are best left for the Last Airbenders and Ultraviolets of the world.
PS: Blayne, I knew who Moviebob is, and have rarely, if ever, been impressed with his assessments of movies. That he was your primary source of info on Last Airbender, I already knew. I was questioning your ability to make such assertions about a film you haven't seen and which every critic who isn't a massive neckbeard has brutally panned... and I stand by my previous state of bafflement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Google up moviebob and last airbender and escapist magazine.
Strange, I just did that and I've been informed that not does anime suck, but Europa Universalis and Eve have been quantitatively proven to be inferior to Total War.
Ruined by lack of the word "only."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Good call, Samp. I pretty much agree with you that it is unlikely to be good, but may not necessarily be bad. Hatbets are best left for the Last Airbenders and Ultraviolets of the world.
PS: Blayne, I knew who Moviebob is, and have rarely, if ever, been impressed with his assessments of movies. That he was your primary source of info on Last Airbender, I already knew. I was questioning your ability to make such assertions about a film you haven't seen and which every critic who isn't a massive neckbeard has brutally upanned... and I stand by my previous state of bafflement.
Dude, what the hell with the slurs?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What slurs?
All I can think of is that I called Moviebob a neckbeard. That's a singular slur, and an arguable one at that. Heck, one of my best friends is a neckbeard. If the shoe fits...
Unless you're objecting to my sullying the good names of such films as Ultraviolet and Last Air... yeah I can't even finish that sentence with a straight face.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Good lord guys, y'all are letting the big screen travesty that was The Last Airbender start this post war?!? Don't we have some topics that are actually worth arguing about?!?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Good lord guys, y'all are letting the big screen travesty that was The Last Airbender start this post war?!? Don't we have some topics that are actually worth arguing about?!?
Lol, this guy has a point.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That he does!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What slurs?
All I can think of is that I called Moviebob a neckbeard. That's a singular slur, and an arguable one at that. Heck, one of my best friends is a neckbeard. If the shoe fits...
Unless you're objecting to my sullying the good names of such films as Ultraviolet and Last Air... yeah I can't even finish that sentence with a straight face.
My incorrect use of 's' aside, neckbeard I consider to be one of those words that is fine if its used in an ironic or self depreciating context if okay, but definatly a slur when used in any other way. If you are not yourself a 'neckbeard' (regardless of whether you possess a beard) or a member of the SA forums which amounts to basically the samething, I can't help but think of the people using it in anything other than a discriminatory fashion; like an Lite N-word.
When you referred to movieBob as a neckbeard I couldn't help but believe that you think of 'neckbeards' in anything other than a denigratory fashion.
"I can't be racist because I had a black friend" excuse doesn't work here either.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
In order for it to carry the weight of insult, there is a certain threshold of understanding and acceptance the word has to cross. You could poll this community, but I'm fairly sure you'd find nobody else with strong feelings about the word, or a clear idea of what group of people identifies with or feels insulted by it.
Also "denigratory" is not the appropriate word. Nor, in fact, a word I have ever seen used in print, though it does exist. "Disparaging," is more appropriate. Neckbeards are not a race- and they are not exclusive to the SA forums, according to the understanding of many people.
And despite however much you may wish it to be so, a subculture of gaming does not garner nor does it deserve sensitivity akin to that of racial awareness. It is acceptable to make disparaging comments about neckbeards, in the way that it is acceptable to make disparaging comments about hipsters. It's a subculture one may or may not find tasteful.
And a subculture is not a culture. There are different rules.
Leave it to a neckbeard to get sensitive about being called a neckbeard.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Discrimination is discrimination, it is a wrong. It is a sign of narrowmindedness and is a form of bigotry. Discrimination doesn't just apply to race, and no, there is no real distinction between being bigoted towards a culture or being bigoted towards a subculture, you're still a bigot at the end of the day.
By your own admission it is disparaging, and last I checked making generalized disparaging comments towards a whole group of people was not only a ToS violation and was intrinsically morally wrong by definition.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
*sigh*
Yes, tell us more about tos violations and how dan is "intrinsically morally wrong by definition".
Wow, though, movie bob really IS a bad reviewer.
(And quite the neckbeard.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
LoL.
Yes, disparaging comments about whole groups of people are now TOS violations.
Blayne, you're no longer allowed to ever say anything bad about conservatives, Republicans, Tea Partiers, people who dislike anime, or any other group, of any kind. Because that's *discrimination* according to you. And that's wrong.
I am a member of the group of people who think Anime sucks. Don't you dare disparage me. That is MORALLY WRONG. That is discrimination.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
So, I hear there's a tentative release date for Ender's Game?
That's pretty sweet.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Nice. I snorted.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Oh my god you guys I am dying of laughter. You've slain me. I am slain.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Stop discriminating against me because I'm funny!
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
You're not.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Yeah. So, pretty stoked about the movie having a release date. But hesitant about Summit Entertainment. Yadda yadda yadda?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh yeah totally an equivalence between people wanting to gut social security and otherwise damage your country and nerds.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Ummmm. . . There can be a huge variety of degrees of discrimination.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Blayne your justification relies on the premise that neckbeards don't want to damage my country. So, if I think they do, then it's okay to be "bigoted" against them the way you're "bigoted" against conservatives like me, right? Following your logic, I mean.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: You're not.
DISCRIMINATION!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Blayne your justification relies on the premise that neckbeards don't want to damage my country. So, if I think they do, then it's okay to be "bigoted" against them the way you're "bigoted" against conservatives like me, right? Following your logic, I mean.
Not liking conservatives is not bigoted because conservatives are *bad*.
Airtight.
Nice one Orin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Following your logic, I mean.
whoa whoa whoa whoa back up
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
You know, I think it would be kind of funny if Haley Joel Osment did something in this movie, if only as a shoutout. Maybe one of the younger officers (Anderson, maybe)? I think he's actually a decent actor, and it might give him a chance to break completely into adult roles.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Oh yeah totally an equivalence between people wanting to gut social security and otherwise damage your country and nerds.
non sequitur, anyone?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Following your logic, I mean.
whoa whoa whoa whoa back up
Yeah, you got me. There was one fatal flaw in my argument.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: You know, I think it would be kind of funny if Haley Joel Osment did something in this movie, if only as a shoutout. Maybe one of the younger officers (Anderson, maybe)? I think he's actually a decent actor, and it might give him a chance to break completely into adult roles.
I like that notion.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
At this rate, HJO might be old enough to be Mazer.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)