Lurker > _RETS_

DirkDiggles posted...

_RETS_ posted...

You're knowingly dishonest and only hurt your side when you push bullshit narratives.

And you are making excuses for the Idiot in Chief. A five year old even knows that there wasn't one good person on the other side, but go ahead and keep making excuses for your Orange Overlord.

I already said he's an idiot. That doesn't make every leftist narrative about him true. Many are. This one isn't. Saying what's true doesn't make me a Trump worshipper, but suggesting I am because you're easily manipulated by the media does make you a partisan dipshit.

A ton of people didn't know the event was neo nazis as most people didn't see the flyer or know anything about it until after it all happened. It was Trump being Trump, stupid and speaking without facts. Not Trump being a Nazi sympathizer.

Edit because you're probably already misrepresenting what I said in your reply. A ton of people nationally, not at the event itself.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

No I'm saying another than an apprentice killing the master literally the entire context was different

This is just nonsense.

They took the base scene in Return of the Jedi and reconstructed it for repurpose. The contextual characters are the same, the set-up is the same, the setting is the same, the climax is the same.

I'm not saying it has the same meaning in the new movie as it did in Return of the Jedi or that "teh sikniphikanse 4 teh tynelime" is the same. That's weirdly specifik and not a criteria I've ever heard used before in determining whether something is unoriginal (it's totally different because it has a unique significance for the timeline!").

My point was simply that taking a scene and repurposing it from the next movie rather than the one everyone was expecting you to to copy from is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally not that impressive or bold or whatever people like to claim it is.

Hey you know what would be cool? Original scenes that has the same symbolic meaning as just taking old scenes and giving them new significance for the timeline.

It took the basic premise of the scene and changed literally everything about it to completely subvert the expectation of where things were headed. That is original enough considering no one anticipated it.

A_Good_Boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Watch the speech in which he said it. The source is his own words and the context of his history if saying stupid bullshit without having all his info straight.

Oh OK so you're just making stuff up then. You'd have a lot more room to stand on if Trump hadn't doubled down on his earlier rhetoric and even patted them on the back for having a permit while the counter protestors didn't.

Not making anything up, you're just easily manipulated. And they did have a permit, he wasn't wrong, and when he said that he still didn't have the info that it was a through and through neo Nazi rally.

DirkDiggles posted...

posted...

No he didn't. He specifically singled them put for condemnation. His "both sides" comment was liberals purposely misrepresenting the context in which he was saying it.

You're attributing the statement to malice when stupidity makes the most sense. He (wrongly) thought the neo-nazis hijacked the event and that many protesters in attendance were simply there to protest the statue removal.

He was stupidly (and characteristically) speaking before he had the facts straight. He was not saying the neo-nazis were fine people. He was wrongly saying there were innocent people there for the protest because he is dumb and didn't know better.

Continuing to push this "both sides" narrative makes you look very stupid.

You're knowingly dishonest and only hurt your side when you push bullshit narratives.

hockeybub89 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

DirkDiggles posted...

But President Trump said that they were good people!

No he didn't. He specifically singled them put for condemnation. His "both sides" comment was liberals purposely misrepresenting the context in which he was saying it.

You're attributing the statement to malice when stupidity makes the most sense. He (wrongly) thought the neo-nazis hijacked the event and that many protesters in attendance were simply there to protest the statue removal.

He was stupidly (and characteristically) speaking before he had the facts straight. He was not saying the neo-nazis were fine people. He was wrongly saying there were innocent people there for the protest because he is dumb and didn't know better.

Continuing to push this "both sides" narrative makes you look very stupid.

In other words, he called Nazis good people because he didn't fact check. So still extremely stupid and worthy of derision.

He did not knowingly call nazis good people, and you're being a dishonest partisan hack. You're right he should be derided for stupidly speaking without the right info, but saying he called neo-nazis good people is complete horse shit.

There's plenty to shit on him for, you don't have to make stuff up

Watch the speech in which he said it. The source is his own words and the context of his history if saying stupid bullshit without having all his info straight.

DirkDiggles posted...

But President Trump said that they were good people!

No he didn't. He specifically singled them put for condemnation. His "both sides" comment was liberals purposely misrepresenting the context in which he was saying it.

You're attributing the statement to malice when stupidity makes the most sense. He (wrongly) thought the neo-nazis hijacked the event and that many protesters in attendance were simply there to protest the statue removal.

He was stupidly (and characteristically) speaking before he had the facts straight. He was not saying the neo-nazis were fine people. He was wrongly saying there were innocent people there for the protest because he is dumb and didn't know better.

Continuing to push this "both sides" narrative makes you look very stupid.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

No it didn't copy ROTJ. The circumstances were completely different. Vader killed Palp as a fulfilment of his redemptive arc, not to usurp him. This was also in the climax of the final movie of the trilogy. Kylo killed Snoke midway through the trilogy to assume his command and to use it as leverage to get Rey to the dark side. It was the same only in that the master wanted the apprentice to kill someone and the apprentice killed the master instead. The dynamic and the reason were totally different

So what you're saying is that it copied RotJ but did something different with the scene. Which is not something I was denying.

No I'm saying another than an apprentice killing the master literally the entire context was different, the significance on the timeline was different, every other aspect was different. And it was done in a way that specifically didn't give us a repeat of ROTJ come episode 9.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

No it didn't copy ROTJ. The circumstances were completely different. Vader killed Palp as a fulfilment of his redemptive arc, not to usurp him. This was also in the climax of the final movie of the trilogy. Kylo killed Snoke midway through the trilogy to assume his command and to use it as leverage to get Rey to the dark side. It was the same only in that the master wanted the apprentice to kill someone and the apprentice killed the master instead. The dynamic and the reason were totally different

Zikten posted...

Snoke was the main one, but I still think that they can fix it in the next movie. Say that it was a clone or something. he didn't really die. and move on.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT, it's just too bad the squandered it by having the conflict remain literally exactly the same after that scene.

TheVipaGTS posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Yeah I'm wondering when we switch from "hate crime" to "terrorism"

Or both. its both.

Terrorism has a specific definition. This may fit that definition or not, it is unclear if it is.

It is also unclear if he is specifically targeting minorities since east Austin is majority black/hispanic and could be just random targets.

It is likely one or both definitions will fit one he is caught and a motive becomes apparent, but until then it is dumb to say definitively what it is or isn't.

Zikten posted...

it was made by a different director who did not respect what Force Awakens did. the Force Awakens director left him notes for the story and he ripped them up and did his own thing. entire plot threads are abandoned or destroyed and the story does a 180 and goes in a direction the first director didn't intend.

Which threads did you think were abandoned?

A few improvements I would have made:

Cut the entire subplot on the casino planet. It was goofy, pace killing, and disrupted the tone too much. If you still need the subplot, then have them infiltrate an imperial base or ship. Also, make Benicio Del Toro the codebreaker they were going after and not the other asshole who was mentioned for no reason.

Make the rebels' escape from the FO have more urgency. Them lazily floating through space was lame.

Obviously no way to foresee Carrie Fischer dying, but her sacrificing herself by ramming the ship would have been much better, and make it a situation in which there was no other way for the rebels to escape Downside would be her not "reuniting" with Luke via projection.

Killing Smoke and the throne room scene were both brilliant. But they completely squandered the opportunity to do something narratively powerful to set up for episode 9. They should have had Rey agree to join Kylo after his compelling case for going to the dark side, and episode 9 would be her going so far into the dark side that Kylo becomes wary of the monster he created and must then defeat her or save her. This would be redemption for them both and a lot better than Rey ultimately winning Kylo to the light side. It was even perfectly set up from when Luke tells her she went immediately to the Dark Side on the island. And RJ fucked it up. I would have forgiven all else if this plot point was allowed to materialize the way it should have, then episode 9 would be compelling as shit. Kylo staying Kylo and Rey staying Rey completely negated the incredible throne room scene as nothing changed for either characters' situation other than Kylo taking over the First Order. That scene should have been cataclysmic for the narrative but the conflict is literally the same as it was before. God damn it I am frustrated just talking about it.

Karen Weaver can tell you where they don't get it

"Full stop"

Annoys me every time I see it

frozenshock posted...

Imagine if Obama slept with Melania

I am now.

Obama could BE a porn star. Barry O-gasm. Right or left, the mother fucker is handsome and suave

Ammonitida posted...

_RETS_ posted...

A third bomb went off a couple hours after the one earlier today, this time injuring a hispanic woman.

Doesn't change that it might still be a hate crime targeting minorities, but just correcting the topi title.

East Austin is majority Hispanic and black, FTR.

And has it been confirmed as a bomb for the third blast?

Yeah I know, I live in SE Austin right off the highway. I think they did indicate that it was an explosion for the third one.

They could be randomly targeting houses that just happen to have blacks/hispanics since they are the majority in this area, but who knows. Hopefully they find him soon so we can set up a SXSW booth where the entire city lines up and kicks him in the taint

A third bomb went off a couple hours after the one earlier today, this time injuring a hispanic woman.

Doesn't change that it might still be a hate crime targeting minorities, but just correcting the topi title.

I live in Austin and didn't even know about the first one until I heard about this one this morning. Shits crazy but hopefully with such an MO it isn't too long before they get the dude