Paj! Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 That's the irony right there. Does anyone see it, or what? (Hint: cliquey references make it seem more like a conversation between two people [than a...forum]) I get it. People feel left out, but I was trying to point out that it's not like a thread where Chair and I make obscure references to each other, and everyone has to watch, not conributing to the thread at all. It's a place where everyone can contribute to a topic, ignoring whatever/whoever they want. Not everything posted is aimed at every single member of N-Europe. My example was a double-edged sword, but I know what I was trying to say. I just don't see how it can be as alienating as you make it out to be. Just ignore me/ban me if you feel you can't function with the few in-references Chair and I have (which is unacceptable, being friends outwith this place...).
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 My original point; he used the word stoic wrong. Contributing to that, now; My example was a double-edged sword, but I know what I was trying to say. ... If I have no idea what you, chair, or anyone is trying to say, your opinion or emotion you're trying to convey, then it defeats the purpose of a forum. That is what I pick up on. Not your clique. (we all have cliques. I'm in this so-called 'sheffield massive' that nobody cares about, remember.)
chairdriver Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 My original point; he used the word stoic wrong. Not necessarily. [Granted, at the time I used it because I it sounds interesting, and it's a stunning lyric, and thought it was appropriate. Under closer examination, it does actually work, because I was more squirming inside, which is what a stoic would do, which was what I did because I was in a sold out screen, with a middle-aged fat man sitting next to me cramping my life.] ANYWAY, ultimately, this comes down to an argument revolving around the meaning of a word, which I have before made clear I hate.
Paj! Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 ... If I have no idea what you, chair, or anyone is trying to say, your opinion or emotion you're trying to convey, then it defeats the purpose of a forum. That is what I pick up on. Fair enough, but I only say "I know what I'm saying :p" when I find it really hard to express my feelings, and that was such a situation. Not your clique. (we all have cliques. I'm in this so-called 'sheffield massive' that nobody cares about, remember.) So now you don't care that we're a "clique"? Or you'd prefer that we were a "clique" but didn't reference things/in-jokes no one else knows about? I'm already over it all, I get that you and others hate the fact chair and I reference things only we know about, when everyone feels they should be in the joke, as though I was talking directly to someone, then chair appeared and I started talking in extinct tongues to him, leaving the sole other person out. I wish we could all just deal. Can't we all just sit, without nitpicking at SHIT things?
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 - Cliques/groups/whatever are natural, and I 'nothing' them. I was pointing out that I could be viewed as being cliquey sometimes, and it's not that that I have a problem with. I have a problem with simply not understanding the point of a post. As a mod I'm supposed to mop up threads to make sure they're accessable to all, so it's often confounding when affronted with reams of stuff that could be relayed on the 'public' message page thing that we have on our profiles now. Yes, it's hilarious that so many words are wasted on such a base and trivial element of the virtual world, but we all have our dents and scars. I still believe that it's better to point the SHIT out. I prefer it when people correct my spelling or call me out on something I've said because it improves me. You're not stellar yet. We do deal, that's why it's typically me who outbursts about this once a month and not anyone else. I dig at a lot of people about a lot of things. Yes, this all came from one word, but that's my glitchy twitch fix and you and others have to sit and deal with that, too. I understand that. There's just no point trying to be poignant or succinct if you then have to explain what you meant. I just figured that in a forum you want to have your voice heard by the largest number of people, which typically means you have to adapt and utilise a register that reaches out beyond just the people you know in real life. Really, though, I just like to write long posts and use fun words. You guys are my yong.
Beast Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 G.I Joe- The Rise of Cobra Diabolical. Definitely the worst movie of 2009. 0.5/10
Paj! Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 There's just no point trying to be poignant or succinct if you then have to explain what you meant. I just figured that in a forum you want to have your voice heard by the largest number of people, which typically means you have to adapt and utilise a register that reaches out beyond just the people you know in real life. Mm, but should I have to do so exclusively?
jayseven Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Dude - I really don't have that large an issue with it. You're practically steering me into conflict with this. Just consider including.
Paj! Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Ok. You came across as as being upset by it, as others have on here.
chairdriver Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 G.I Joe- The Rise of Cobra Diabolical. Definitely the worst movie of 2009. 0.5/10 Yeah, it was pretty crap. Although I loved how Sienna Miller's character was really bad at fighting, yet was one of the main villains. Made no sense, but was fun nontheless.
Beast Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Yeah, it was pretty crap. Although I loved how Sienna Miller's character was really bad at fighting, yet was one of the main villains. Made no sense, but was fun nontheless. I KNOW! That made me laugh most, aha. She was hot in it which is why it got a half added on the score, otherwise my score would have been the big goose egg, lol.
Slaggis Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It was one of the worst films I've ever had the "joy" of paying for.
mcj metroid Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 I actually thought it was better than tranformers 2 at least you KNEW what was going on..
Paj! Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 I enjoyed seeing G.I Joe, just cause my friends and I (even you Chair) found it so funny. It's bad though.
ReZourceman Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Surrogates I thought it was surprisingly good. I like high concept films (is this a high concept film? I don't really know the definition) but it bought up some reasonably interesting visions of a fictional future, and moral grounds tremble aplenty. 7.9/10
Molly Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 ^^ It was quite icky, to use a technical term. (bring it on Jayseven). Kind of like a mishmash of other robot films, resulting in a mess. Yes, the concept of ''how far is too far iro technology'' is interesting, but it's been done to death. I can't help but love Bruce though. There was also one bit I loved at the end and I was inappropriately vocal about it, but I shant spoil it.
ReZourceman Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Kind of like a mishmash of other robot films, resulting in a mess. Yes, the concept of ''how far is too far iro technology'' is interesting, but it's been done to death. Outrageous claims I am personally offended by. No I feel it was executed well, I've certainly not seen anything quite like it.
Molly Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Outrageous claims I am personally offended by. No I feel it was executed well, I've certainly not seen anything quite like it. I didn't like the visual effects and some of the camerawork was seriously questionable. Wooden, forced acting alot of the time. Plot was good, but actually quite predictable really. For me, not that well executed. I didn't hate it, it was icky. :wink:
chairdriver Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Creation I'm in no mood. I've seen this film before, in The Duchess, that other film that was out recently (forget the name/plot, but remember hating it), and every other historical film I've ever seen. I know he wrote the book in the end, so effectively the whole film felt pointless. It effectively had no story* - apart from the fact it was really ambiguous whether he was crazy or not at the start of the film, but then it was established that he was crazy, so it felt *shrugsshoulders* (*obviously it had a story - but it felt more like it was a series of events) Jennifer Connelly is so stunning though, so I can deal with it. The most interesting and compelling thing about this film were the bits that told of his travels to the southern hemisphere in the stories he told to his kids, and the bit with Jenny the Orangutang. This aspect of the film was really under-exploited, for some reason. The film was technically fine. Some of the shots were really nice (there was one bit near the end where I said to myself "Wow this/she looks so lovely", and the bits with cascading water was a treat for the eyes, and the bit with the sped-up camera shot of the decaying bird (SO SO SO STUNNING!), and the bit with the fox and the rabbit.). And there was one good scene where it was emotional. But then most films are fine. I was left wanting way more and I'd have preferred to watch Atonement. Or just watch Julie & Julia again, which was far more charming and stunning to watch. 3.8/10 (8.6/10 if I were to only select and watch the few stunning scenes, and to disengage myself from the context, which shouldn't have been boring, but was)
jayseven Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 You'll have to do better than that if you want to fuck with me, molly!
ReZourceman Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 I didn't like the visual effects and some of the camerawork was seriously questionable. Wooden, forced acting alot of the time. Plot was good, but actually quite predictable really. For me, not that well executed. I didn't hate it, it was icky. :wink: See I believe it was intentional for the acting (unless you're referring to the non surrogates) they were immaculately skinned, and almost strange in their delivery, and gaze which I think was actually amazing. I don't think the non-surrogates performances were bad at all.
Molly Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 See I believe it was intentional for the acting (unless you're referring to the non surrogates) they were immaculately skinned, and almost strange in their delivery, and gaze which I think was actually amazing. I don't think the non-surrogates performances were bad at all. Yes, I meant the non surrogates.
Jimbob Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Moonraker Roger Moore's 4th outing as 007, and Richard Kiel's second appearance as the "Metal Teeth Assassin" Jaws. I don't know what it is with Jaws, but i just crack-up with his facial expressions and the way he "acts" immortal with getting up after something that could kill a normal person and tidying himself up before walking away. Anyway, this is a good movie which isn't based 100% on a book (except for the movie name and the bad-guy). A bit far-fetched with the whole new life situation in Space and all that. I rate this an 8/10
ReZourceman Posted October 1, 2009 Posted October 1, 2009 Yes, I meant the non surrogates. Oh well your opinion is wrong then. (Is that how it works? I'm not sure how this opinion is fact thing works?)
Recommended Posts