Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by R.CAllen

  1. On 10/17/2020 at 12:35 PM, monkeygirl said:

    I'm exploring this right now. I've asked my therapist to help me because I came out of a discussion with a woman I really like, who is smart and who disagrees with everything I hold dear and the same for me to her. I can't 'fix' her (nor does she need fixing) so I decided to fix me. My therapist offered some homework. I'm to watch "the Vow", check out a journalist named Matt Talby, a book called "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deenan and a podcast called "Unspeakable" by Meghan Daum. Anyone know any of these?



    Oh! Me! I do! I'm going to reply privately because I don't want to deliberately post in that specific thread! Sorry! (Oops. Scratch that plan.)



    I have read Patrick J. Deneen's book, did not like it, and don't think it'll help give you particularly concrete answers as to why a smart person you like would disagree with you.



    Matt Taibbi was a good writer, very accessible style, sharp, but I think the last couple of years have sort of ... broken? him. As it has done for us all, certainly. I'm guessing he might be more able to offer up something close to what you're looking for.



    No clue on the documentary or the podcast.

  2. I have been repeatedly and relentlessly pushed out the airlock by groups of what are almost certainly literal children all for nothing more than the crime of 'faking task'. As near as I can tell 'faking task' means :


    • doing a task too fast

    • doing a task too slow

    • doing a task at any speed but the green bar in the upper left corner of the screen doesn't change

    • going into a room and then leaving a room

    • running away from someone I assume is the Impostor

    • looking at the map in the Administration room


    I am not faking task! I would never fake task! I would very much like it if the youth of today would stop turning me into a ghost.


    On 10/16/2020 at 7:27 PM, Fozzie said:

    Being the impostor is totally random. I’ve gone days without being the impostor and also got it 5 games in a row.

    I love it, but being impostor is definitely more fun. But I hate people who cheat, either through hacks or by sharing info or teaming up with the impostor.


    Good to know!

  3. I fell asleep a little over an hour in. Maybe rewatching Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) during a viral pandemic while playing Among Us on my tablet had a certain soporific quality and/or maybe I just didn't feel up to seeing absolutely everything come crashing down on these folks. There's still hope they'll turn things around at this point, they don't know Spock's an alien, they're calling in the authorities, as far as they're concerned normal life could very well be once again right around the corner. But it's not!

  4. I figured I would give it a try and now I can't stop playing this dumb game. I keep going, again and again, hoping to be an Impostor. But I feel like I am never the Impostor! I should have a 1-in-5 chance of being the Impostor but I suspect the system is rigged to incentivize players to ... watch more ads? pay for the deluxe version? I don't know. I know for sure it is possible to cheat/hack because one time someone managed to pull a little ventriloquist trick on me where my account was saying things in chat that I didn't type.


    I guess what I'm saying is I rate the game ★★★★☆ and now everyone around me is 'lowkey sus' and are all about to break my neck or headbutt my body to the floor then shoot me with a gun or crane their whole mouth open and impale me with the sudden snap of an alien proboscis.

  5. My faltering brain registered the phrase 'limited series' in the thread title as an implicit criticism of how the show itself didn't have a great deal of range and struggled after its first few seasons to either expand beyond or deepen its own formulaic structure UNTIL memory of what those words are kicked in and then my brain was like : "Oh, right. A limited series. It's going to come back but only for a few episodes."


    6 hours ago, David said:

     And it’s been 7 years.


    This ALSO made my brain misfire! Could've sworn it'd only been closer to something like five years. Maybe I only caught up on the finale towards the tail end of 2014? I don't know.


  6. I curse via Roger Rabbit rules, generally speaking. (Although, even while I was typing this my ancient laptop froze up for a moment and I let out a 'fuuuuuuuuuuuuu-' followed immediately by me saying 'Excuse my language.' Who am I asking to do that? God, I guess.)


    On 10/3/2020 at 2:34 PM, Fozzie said:



    This word in conjunction with the topic at hand reminded me of my favourite story anyone's ever told here @ Nightly.net. About how their toddler would pronounce the word 'fudgsicle' as '****sickle' and that ever since they started correcting them on it anytime THEY would say the word 'fudgsicle' the kid would reply with 'NO NO. BAD WORD.' I think about this story all the time, any time I have a fudgsicle or popsicle or ice cream of any kind, pretty much any time I use a freezer or a refrigerator, I'm pretty sure this isn't even the first time I've mentioned how much of an impact this story has on my daily life before.

  7. Haven't seen the show yet. I hear it's real good!



    'Lazy' is one of those negative adjectives where half the time I just have to guess what the person means. Others include : 'weird', 'creepy', 'ugly', 'toxic'.



    I don't think a lot of stuff that gets described as 'lazy writing' is really that. Certainly for any kind of collaborative medium involving full-time pay it's almost always an imprecise way to describe what went wrong in the process. Everyone involved worked really hard for an end product that failed to sufficiently entertain, inform, and inspire. No laziness whatsoever!



    I think sometimes stuff gets tagged as 'lazy writing' that's nothing more than the unthinking and automatic acceptance of certain kinds of stock plots or sets of understandable expectations of an assumed audience. That's not laziness. That's narrative conventions. It's no lazier than starting your joke with the words 'Knock, knock'. Like, come on, Shakespeare. Prince Hamlet's dad comes back from the dead as a ghost but no one else does. Where's the explanation for why Polonius, Ophelia, both Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Queen Gertrude, Laertes, King Claudius etcetera don't all become ghosts? Why doesn't everyone who dies in Denmark (or the world in general) come back as a ghost? What's stopping them? Are we to assume King Hamlet had a magic amulet that resurrected his spirit? Why is this magical amulet never mentioned in Hamlet? Pretty lazy writing, Shakespeare!



    And a lot of stuff that gets bonked as 'lazy writing' in serialized mediums is just stuff that's unaddressed as of yet, or even stuff that's entirely orthogonal to the concerns of the work. So sometimes complaints or criticisms about lazy writing are just this :




    Or this :





    Conclusion : It's not laziness for a work of ongoing drama to not deal with some things or to not deal with some things at that precise moment. And it's not laziness for a work of ongoing drama to deal with things in a way that other works of drama already dealt with 'em.



    Addendum : And I kind of think that any good writer or artist in general should eventually get to the point where they need to put less and less of a particular kind of effort into their work. Practice should make perfect, no? So a lot of stuff that's called 'lazy writing' isn't laziness and a lot of stuff that's really good is probably done out of quote unquote laziness. Is it lazy for Clint Eastwood to use a fake doll as a baby for his movie? I don't quite think so. Would it be fair to describe a ninety year old man who is still directing and starring in movies as lazy? Nope! Is it fair to describe Rob Liefeld as lazy because he can't or won't draw feet? No, because he seemed to go through a lot of trouble getting the little ammo pockets on the belts just quite right and crosshatching all those improbable muscles. It's lazier to call these people (or what they do) lazy than it is to find some other way to get at what you're trying to get at.

  8. 16 hours ago, Jedigoat said:

    Jonesing for Shue and you keep watching Boys episodes, hoping she'll pop up?  Go watch Hollow Man or something!

    What? I'm not. I only watched the one episode she's in this year. Haven't seen any of them but that one. Not going to watch any of the upcoming ones neither. Thought that was clear! Sorry!

  9. I've never read the book or the play or seen this before. I was pretty sure the cat was the murderer at one point. Didn't recognize nobody from it, neither, so either my memory's failing me or my moderate-to-severe prosopagnosia is worsening. Maybe both!


    Best bits :


    * First line of dialogue comes, like, five minutes into it w/"What a quiet place.' Classic!


    * "Don't you believe in medicine, Doctor?" "Do you believe in justice, Judge?"


    * Keyhole shots! Binocular shots!


    * Look, a movie where someone says the word 'murder' and then immediately afterwards lightning strikes and thunder rolls is a real movie!


    * "Shove it ... under the door, sir."


    * "No sane person would think of using seaweed as a pattern for a shawl" strikes me as kind of an early ancestor for a gag like "No human being would stack books like this" from Ghostbusters (1984).


    Bad bits :


    * None! I approached the film w/an uncritical eye and was entirely glad that I did. It's a serio-comic masterpiece! And, besides, the presence of a monocle in a film removes and resolves any and all blemishes or flaws.

  10. Haven't seen it! Probably not going to neither. I hate to be that guy but I guess I am that guy — the British original (2013-2014) is incredible, well worth watching, one of the most unsettling pieces of television I've ever seen. It's tough to imagine another adaptation could do anything other than ape it or abandon its particular stylistic choices, either way, not for me.

  11. I enjoyed the movie for children! I hope they do another one, too. Watched it in two halves, lots of great comic turns from Burn Gorman, Fiona Shaw, Susan Wokoma, Adeel Akhtar, it's fun! The idea of a younger version of Holmes innately and automatically possessing the interiority and sense of self he will only gain after long association w/Watson is strong. Mycroft should've been Sherringford or whoever instead. Cavill doesn't much resemble the description of Holmes in the canon or the original Sidney Paget drawings but does look a bit like Paget himself. I'm okay/w/it, as Helena Bonham Carter says in the movie, "Try to be excited, not disappointed, in the possibility of something new."

  12. You know who the 144th President of the United States is going to be? I don't see how that's possible but I believe you! If you say so! But, then again, perhaps you are wrong : as the Holy Texts proclaim, "we se many philosphers say or believe many things no one is sure about anything".

  13. I'm sorry but those two paragraphs are more coherent and far more genuine than the entire collected works of, like, Jacques Lacan. So much of it is so true! There are some many doubts we face in our daily lives! If you are a student you often do have a doubt when you chose your major your career! We dont know who will be the net President of the United States! I don't know about you guys but I certainly do feel like I live in dubdt and uncertainty all the time! Even the claim about the sun 'revlolves' around the sun isn't entirely inaccurate! I am on Team This Guy/Girl!

  14. I saw the episode in which Elisabeth Shue returns to the show.

    I thought it was ... kinda terrible? Over an hour long, bloated, no jokes (I mean, there's the occasional moment of black comedy interspersed throughout the dullness but it's not nearly enough), the plot was like some sort of badly executed Valentine's Day special; I think this might be why I never really got into the show through the first season - it's not good! It's less good than the sincere CW garbage shows and I don't even watch those! There's a kind of arch smugness to the dialogue that I just bounce off of hard, I don't find it funny, I don't find it clever, I just wonder to myself why Meg Ryan's kid is pseudo-playfully insulting his ex's candy choices when it's clear she's in a bad place emotionally (I mean, sure, she seemed to cheer up when they were in the car singing along to Billy Joel but Mother's Milk shut that right down and they've just witnessed a possibly fatal accident - she's texted him for help! Constructive criticism only, Meg Ryan's kid!) and spend my time trying to fathom why the writers decided to include four (4) scenes that revolve around sweets in a single episode. I don't buy that it's a motif! I think they just like candy! I think they just talked about candy all day and stuck it in multiple places in the script and kept it in there because there are four hundred and seventy nine television shows and now each and every television show can be as long as it wants and about anything it wants to be! It is fun to see, say, a couple of distinct Canada Post mailboxes followed by a USA Today newsbox, that's still a level on which I can enjoy the show —  I guess I can look forward to checking in if/when there's a Season 3 flashback episode starring Elisabeth Shue because, hah, they killed her off again!

  15. This guy named Chris Sherman was all like 'Sign up for my website! It's free! You'll have fun!' and now over two decades later I am not free and I am not fun no sir



    I don't know, Iceheart, sounds like you've got a chance to help out this future cryptocurrency millionaire and his super for real wife what kind of monster would say no to an opportunity like



    I constantly get calls on my cell phone from a Chinese woman saying things like "zhè gè shí hòu nǐ zài lù shàng yù dào de suǒ yǒu rén dōu shì xiàng nǐ suǒ mìng de gū hún yě guǐ" - lady, what kind of game are you playing with




    I can't think of any obvious scams anyone has ever tried to pull on me. It's possible I'm just a very gullible person and automatically assume other people are telling me the truth and act accordingly??? When a computer tells me there are Hot Girls In My Area Aching To Meet Me, well, I gather that's what the situation is. I believe computer! Why would computer lie? When a guy comes up to me in the library and hands me a hastily photocopied note on which is written the words 'I Am Deaf And In Need Of Financial Support. Anything You Give Could Help Me' I believe that man is deaf! I believe he needs my help!


    Or maybe it's just that my memory is shot. I guess if anyone tries to scam me in the future, assuming there is one, I'll try and make note of it in this thread.

  16. I gotta confess that when I saw this movie's title in a topic on this here board some years ago I just assumed Cantankerous Jedi was programming a film festival or something like that. But it's a real movie! Real things happening! Was it worth pushing pause on the crime-stopping adventures of Michael Emerson and Jim Caviezel for ninety minutes? Yeah!


    Best bits:


    * The lighting! Who lit this movie - Wario Bava?


    * I guess on some level we're w/the characters because just like them a savvy audience is torn between going w/the flow and being scared AND trying to suss out what's coming next. So it works! The conceit of the movie is solid!


    * The scene on the ride (Night Bumps?) where it breaks down, Tony Todd made his little safety announcement, it got me! I thought we were sufficiently early in the film that the whole thing was going to swerve and be all about the kitty-eared girl from then on! I thought the main girl was a goner! I'm a rube, I'm a mark! It was a well executed piece of business!


    * The guy getting the knife to the eye had the desired effect. I had my hands up over my face, had to pause the movie right after, the whole nine yards. The horror was horrifying! The classics - they work!


    * yes, I liked recognizing the masks at the v. end.


    * Oh, wait! 1/6th of the writing was amazing! Just the best writing ever! Mwah mwah mwah!


    Bad bits:


    * Okay so twenty-five minutes into the movie they're all playing carnie games and the dude running the ringtoss says, 'This is painful, bro.' because the main love interest can't win and the main girl is all like, 'Sometimes you just gotta accept that this is not for you.' Indeed! This is about where I'd shut off the movie under normal circumstances! Nothing interesting is happening! I only know three of the six main characters' names ('Grade School', Gavin, Brooke)! I dislike the nursery rhyme motif! There's just some pretty lights, that's all! That's what the movie has got going for it at this point - lights!


    * I do not buy that that particular kind of guy has seen David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986), sorry! Obliquely referencing better films, good! Ripping off better films wholesale, good! Openly and unambiguously referencing better films in a hamfisted manner just makes me wonder why I'm not rewatching them instead, bad! (Okay, maaaaybe if that guy was the guy who bought the VIP tickets in the first place.)


    * wrong doll at the very end! It's not the doll that the guy made a big deal of choosing out for the main girl! It's just a regular old tiger doll one of the other guys won! Gotta have it be the main doll!


    1 hour ago, Tank said:

    I did not rip off a Goosebumps book.


    Good to know! If you'd have let me known sooner I could've put off watching the flick 'til tomorrow! As it is, I couldn't wait to count up all the resemblances to 1994's One Day At Horrorland and sat down to watch the film tout suite!

  17. No embedded material from YouTube (or what I gather from context is supposed to be YouTube stuff; and when I try to post a YouTube video I don't see it either) shows up. I just see blank space. I assume the problem is w/my browser but I figured I'd mention it here just in case it was happening to anyone else.

  • Create New...