Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by icos211, Feb 10, 2015.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing exactly this lol.
That easily explains Citizen Kane, but a lot of highly praised movies from the 1990's and 2000's that I "didn't get" came out right when I was there at the time. I would say, in conjunction with that, that, often times, a movie comes out that is truly groundbreaking in some way, and no one sees it for whatever reason, then, a year or so later, another movie comes out that "rips off"* the previous groundbreaking movie and takes all of the credit.
*obviously, "rips off" is not fair in most cases, like if the more recent movie was already deep in development when the prior movie was released, or if the same film-maker made both films and simply uses some of the same tricks.
For example, I think I was one of only two or three people out my social group who saw Reservoir Dogs before Pulp Fiction was out. So, when I saw the first, I saw all of the Tarantino film making tricks and I thought it was a great story with great acting and some really neat gimmicks. Then, when I saw Pulp Fiction, the novelty of the unique cinematography and nonlinear story telling wasn't there for me. The acting was good, but it was difficult not to compare it with the previous film, which I simply thought had better acting (as an ensemble cast), and the plot was still interesting, but felt less planned-out, to me.
Another example is how The Matrix, as good as it started out, was really heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant, whom I had studied at the time, cyberpunk culture, which had kind of already run its course in Detroit by then, and films I had already seen, like Dark City, Strange Days, and even The Truman Show. So while a lot of my friends were so blown away by the novelty of the film, I saw it as a cyberpunk take on Dark City with a few elements of everything else woven into it here and there. I enjoyed the film, but I just didn't see it as anything that ground-breaking. The fact is, that The Matrix reached far deeper into popular culture than any of those other things. And honestly, when I watched it again most recently, the film seemed way more dated than I recalled, and the little plot holes and weird story issues seemed to fester a lot more with me, causing me to question whether it was even really a good movie, or if it just got promoted way too much when it was new. Of course, I was in the cinema when the third Matrix film debuted, and I will never forget the audience's reaction once the movie ended: it was a clearly disappointed groan, and I don't even mean that at all figuratively, there was literally a collective groan from the audience as the credit rolled. ...anyway...
It seems silly to complain about movies like this, but I'm not trying to complain so much as to relate that I feel my opinions of those movies are unpopular - I like these movies, I just don't go crazy about them like most of my friends do. I do think that the friends of mine whom I convinced to watch Dark City also hold a lower opinion of The Matrix than the friends of mine who saw The Matrix first. So you're comment about being there at the time hits the nail on the head, but I think that it works both ways - you could love a film more if you were there at the time it was relevant, or, you could not love a film as much if you were exposed to other films/media when those were relevant. And I'll reinforce that point with the conjecture that people who "read the books" tend to not like the film adaptations as much, in general - because they already loved something to which most viewers were not exposed.
Maybe that's another unpopular opinion for me: I liked the Matrix. All three of em.
I find though that I've gotten really good at separating my enjoyment of something from my criticism of it. I can tear something to pieces and see all the flaws in it, but still enjoy it on another level. It's been a handy skill to be able to work on things like video games or music, without ruining my ability to just enjoy other people's works as if I were ignorant of the process that went into them.
Oh, definitely. I like the first film the most, of course, but the second and third weren't the festering piles of shit people say they were. Reloaded had its slow moments, but also its share of awesome bits, and I don't care that the finale of Revolutions took place mostly outside the Matrix, the Zion battle was really well done!
Also, it helps that Hugo Weaving is always awesome.
I will say, though, I kind of preferred the way Path of Neo handled the final battle. Can't help but think the Wachowski's must be kicking themselves for not thinking of a giant Agent Smith made of crushed up skyscrapers when they made the movie.
Shame on you mr. Bostjan, that is an elementary calculation!
Shame on me twice for following you on that and not noticing it!
So went back to Excel (PowerRaisedPower.xlsx file here in the link) and redid the math (somewhere in the middle I play with A=negative number):
1st column is "A",
2nd is "A^A", just for checking things
3rd is "A^A^A"
4th is "A^(A^A)"
5th is "(A^A)^A"
So for A = 3 we have that
3^(3^3)=7.6256E+12 (this value is beyond my understanding)
It looks that the little 3^3 mistake goes a little further for me. After all, Excel works the base first if without parenthesis (brackets?). As for the a^a^a question that works other either way, well besides 2, 1 does it also... obviously.
... now I've got to test the fret calculation formula besides the one I knew... Excel here I go again!
With this whole standing/kneeling during football games thing, it's led me to believe that people as whole worry about irrelevant shit way too much. Who gives a flying fuck if a bunch of spoiled rich kids who know how to throw a ball (and can run faster than me when the Twinkie truck is my street) stands or kneels? Is it affecting your paycheck? Is it affecting your rights? No? Then why worry?
^There's a bar in my area, that seemingly really can't afford to lose the business, that announced that they will be refusing to set any of their TVs to NFL games. People are demanding NFL Sunday Ticket refunds. Ye gods- I waltzed into my living room at 1:05pm with a drink in hand and RedZone channel on and missed the whole damn thing. Were people stomping puppies before kickoff?
It's not like the declining quality of quarterback play, owners dicking-over fanbases by moving teams, the next big suspension controversy, or the specter of concussions/CTE looming over what is sure to be an apocalyptic impasse between players & owners in 2021 aren't already a problem.
I don't have a problem with entitled rich athletes protesting, I would prefer they do it on their own time, and not before a football game. It's highly unprofessional imo, plus their personal politics aren't relevant to football. Not to mention that I think that particular form of protesting is in poor taste along with flag burning.
I'd agree with you, but I'm not in the mood for a conservative circle jerk atm.
Well, if the point of protest is to get a message out there, why wouldn't you do it when the highest number of people are watching?
It’s exactly this. Peaceful protest, and freedom to engage in it is defended by our constitution AND military codes/principles.
The “flag” and “anthem” are not.
Agreeing or disagreeing with athletes doing so is irrelevant as the point boils down to:
1) They are doing nothing “wrong”
2) They “owe” nothing to anyone. Anyone that thinks they should “shut up and play” is free to try out for their job. They got there by being the best, not a handout.
3) They are drawing attention to “police brutality”. Many people would love to change the conversation. But it’s about drawing attention to police brutality. Millionaire athletes aren’t the victim of this event.
4) It draws attention to people being willing to watch people play a dangerous sport, but do not want to be “forced” to think about things outside the sport.
Whether the viewers agree or disagree is irrelevant - because it’s working. It’s forcing attention on a subject that many would like to see ignored. And team owners can see the risk of an upset player base and are supporting their players.
Money talks, and this is forcing eyeballs on an issue. By making it during game time, viewers can’t “choose” to ignore it.
It’s a perfect peaceful protest, and that’s why many are angry - there is no good argument against it, as it hurts no one and does not disrupt the game.
From an economic standpoint it’s very interesting, even more so as you watch various media corners try to change the initial message to fit a viewpoint.
I remember when hiding consussion damage was the NFL’s biggest headache (pun intended, lol).
All I've heard this week is about the athletes protesting and whether or not people will still watch the NFL; the purpose of their protest only gets brought up far too late into the conversation about whether or not they even should be protesting, how disrespectful it is, and
So as much as it sucks, I'd say their cause HAS gotten overshadowed by the very act of them protesting
I agree that the “point” of discussion has been changing - by a combination of the media and “social media activists” the people who would post a worthless “Kony 2012” link to feel good about themselves and do nothing are now posting selfies of themselves taking a knee just to feel included in something.
It’s slowly becoming more about the act of kneeling than the reason behind the act. Because it’s easier to generate media outrage about people kneeling than it is to talk about something difficult that happens in this country.
Now can you imagine how ridiculous that must look to minorities, that minorities (and now white people joining them too) trying to protest something can be swept aside by a new narrative so easily?
I wouldn’t say you’re wrong, as it doesn’t seem that’s where the message has shifted over the last few weeks now that we’re into the season.
By the way, does Puerto Rico have power yet? I’d like to see if my friends and family are ok.
I kept hearing about this kneeling thing without knowing what it was about, and this is the first mention I've seen about what the protests were supposed to be about (granted I never bothered looking it up). I'm usually one to be pretty critical of what activists/protesters do, but I can't see anything wrong with this. It hurts nobody, it gets a point across, it puts it in front of tons of eyes and gets people talking without inconveniencing or taking anything away from anyone. The only sad bit is that we've been navigated away from what the protest was about. Google searches are all about the arguments surrounding whether or not they're being unpatriotic. I really don't care about patriotism, I think it's kinda worthless. I don't care if they're disrespecting their flag or country, if they're doing it for a good enough reason- or if they're doing it specifically in an attempt to improve said country.
IMO it's more patriotic to try to make your country a better place then to observe/"respect" a bunch of meaningless symbolic gestures.
I'm sure it's absolutely maddening, and in some areas, I'm sure tensions will boil over and lead to actual protests and possible violence; which will then be spun into "minorities rioting over ____" and the cycle will continue to repeat as long as we continue to change that narrative to what suits our purpose
Does the kneeling not count as "actual protest"?
Sorry, I meant to go back and change that, but lack of vocabulary failed me at the moment and I forgot to. "Actual protests" meaning marches, and possible confrontations and physical altercations taking place.
To me, it seems like the worst bit is that all it takes is a simple "yes, we knowledge the statement you're making, let's talk about it" from anyone of any authority, and then escalation becomes entirely unnecessary. Of course, I doubt that will happen an any meaningful way.
But they're not really rich kids. They were mostly poor kids growing up who's only way out of poverty was to get really good at playing sports. Now, as successful adults, they may be rich and famous, but they're using the opportunity to remind us of the bad things going on in the communities they originally come from.
Technically, while they are on the field they are on their employer's (the team's) time. So if* they are protesting on private property (the stadium) and on their employer's time without their employer's permission, they are doing something wrong. You and I can't go in to work and say and do whatever we want, and neither can the players.
Keep in mind that the right to free speech and the right to protest only protect us from the government infringing these rights. They don't give us the right to do so on private property without permission or on someone else's time.
* I don't know if they actually have these permissions or not, so I'm not saying that they are, in fact, in the wrong, only that they could be.
No, that would be too adult.