# Things you don't connect with



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

Y'know, those things, tv shows, movies, fads that other people rave about, that you don't see the sense in, don't get excited about...what doesn't float _your_ boat?

For me...it's Doctor Who and steampunk. The weird thing about both of those is that I am a confirmed science fiction fanatic. But Who leaves me scratching my head, and The Difference Engine, by two of my favorite writers, was sleep-inducing. I don't have any sort of fascination with the Victorian Age anyway, so maybe that's the hook I spat out. I dunno.
Doctor Who is just silly. I like Tom Baker though. Met him at ChiCon a couple of times. Cool guy. Good actor.
Oh, and _zombies_. Though I'm fascinated by the real thing, the powder, the serpent, and the rainbow, I don't get the Romero-inspired trendoid version. I think they're sparkly (and don't get me started about THAT.) I differentiate by spelling the stuff I'm interested in "zombi", like I call the stuff I like to read SF and not Sci-Fi.
How about you?


----------



## Ariel (Dec 16, 2012)

See I like the Victorian Era and I see a lot of similarities in our own time period but I don't like the punk aspect--it's like people forget that "beauty follows function" and just glue random crap to things.  I like the look of brass and gears but I think it's useless if the gears are decorative and not functional.

I don't get sparkly vampires and sexy vampires.  I just don't.  I much prefer terrifying vampires and werewolves.  

Also, Will Ferrell is not funny.  I keep trying to meet him halfway but he just comes across as stupid.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 16, 2012)

Justin Beiber and the hate thereof. Some people really need to get a life and coming from me, that's quite an insult.


----------



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

Most "comedians" should be billed as "alleged comedians" in my eyes.


----------



## Potty (Dec 16, 2012)

Marriage.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 16, 2012)

High voltage AC current...


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 16, 2012)

I don't get most things people rant and rave and fawn over nowadays. I'm so far out of the loop I can't even see the shoelace...


----------



## benluby (Dec 16, 2012)

Hyphenated people.


----------



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't get most things people rant and rave and fawn over nowadays. I'm so far out of the loop I can't even see the shoelace...


Nicely said. I know the feeling. I left out hundreds of other things for brevity's sake. Media things, public figures, sports...I'm alienated enough to need SETI to contact me.


benluby said:


> Hyphenated people.


Do you mean people with hyphenated names? Or people who possess and use hyphens? I'm curious?


----------



## benluby (Dec 16, 2012)

moderan said:


> Nicely said. I know the feeling. I left out hundreds of other things for brevity's sake. Media things, public figures, sports...I'm alienated enough to need SETI to contact me.
> 
> Do you mean people with hyphenated names? Or people who possess and use hyphens? I'm curious?



 Either one.


----------



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

Interesting-and quite odd.


----------



## benluby (Dec 16, 2012)

moderan said:


> Interesting-and quite odd.




As Teddy Roosevelt himself said, when Americans' start hyphenating,  One of the quotes he mad that I like and believe in?



> The one absolutely certain way of bringing  this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to  be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of  squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans,  Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-  Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate  nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that  nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.




I apply the same to married names.  Either become a X or stay a Y.  Don't become an X-Y hybrid.  People that refuse to align one way or another are incapable of making significant decisions in my opinion.


----------



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

*shrug* I think in both cases you're over-generalizing but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 16, 2012)

Haha. We've had the _Doctor Who_ conversation before, so no real point in going there, but -- to anyone interested -- moderan and I are both massive fans of speculative fiction in most mediums and have ridiculously detailed encyclopedic knowledge of the field.

He thinks _Who_ is silly, I think it's one of the greatest things crafted by the hand of man. In the revived series especially, I can think of no other television show that tackles speculative concepts as deep as the show, or that illustrates them through character, emotion and how those concepts effect actual human lives. It's a show aimed at both children and adults that isn't afraid to be complex, nor is it afraid to target difficult topics.

Just one of those agree to disagree things.

And I don't care for zombies or steampunk either.


----------



## benluby (Dec 16, 2012)

moderan said:


> *shrug* I think in both cases you're over-generalizing but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.




Just pointing out something I don't care for, much like Dr. Who or Austin Powers movies.  None of which keep me up at night.  ROFL.


----------



## moderan (Dec 16, 2012)

"Who is no sillier than James Bond revivals and superhero reboots, or even than the original superhero movies (excepting of course the original Roger Corman version of the FF, which is sillier). It is quite as silly as The Hole On the Corner, though less deep, and of course zombies were done well by Henry S. Whitehead and Dick Lupoff of the Bentfin Boomer Boys of Lil Ol N'Alabama," he says, breathlessly (literally so in my case) exhibiting a nerdiness awesome to avoid...oops, I mean behold and becherish and the afore-mentioned ridiculously detailed knowledge of the body of previous speculative fiction and an extreme tendency to write run-on sentences when the Bears are losing to the Packers and 4:20 was a little while ago in some parts of the world.


benluby said:


> Just pointing out something I don't care for,  much like Dr. Who or Austin Powers movies.  None of which keep me up at  night.  ROFL.


I was not then and am not now assuming that such is or was the case. Boredom is more likely. I am pleased that you're able to sleep well.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 17, 2012)

Idiot Comedy.

You know, the kind of comedy that has been so popular in movies, adult cartoons, and TV, where the main character or all of the characters are just the most imbecilic people you never want to have the displeasure of meeting. It actually really gets my goat, the jokes are just so immature and often really disgusting. The frustrating thing is when I'm talking to somebody and they think it fun to act like and idiot and I'm trying to discourage them and they think it's hilarious. It's like trying to negotiate with a seven year old.

Don't get me wrong, I have a good sense of humor, I'll take dry wit and clever word play any day. It's just that type of comedy that gets my dander in a tizzy.


----------



## Cran (Dec 18, 2012)

Reality TV - an oxymoron if there ever was one.


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 18, 2012)

Most music today.  It seems like everything is either lame pop music, or boring, overly pretentious Inde crap.  I'm glad its Christmas time so I can listen to carols.


----------



## tepelus (Dec 18, 2012)

Children, and people who talk nothing but about their children. And people who insist I need to have children or else my life just isn't complete without them. I'm perfectly fine without kids, thank you very much.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 18, 2012)

tepelus said:


> Children, and people who talk nothing but about their children. And people who insist I need to have children or else my life just isn't complete without them. I'm perfectly fine without kids, thank you very much.



My friend feels that same way. Her and her husband, were never very good with children and never planned on having any. When she mentions this to people, she is taken aback by the rude comments she gets. Like, "A woman who doesn't want children has to have something wrong with her." or "People who don't like children, aren't Christian." (That is important to her since she is, in fact, Christian. It's like saying "God loves everybody, but you're not good enough."--whole new topic, sorry.)

I'm actually pretty good with kids. I'm just unable to have any. The thing that gets me are parents who let their kids run around willy-nilly with little to no attempt at discipline.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 18, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> The thing that gets me are parents who let their kids run around willy-nilly with little to no attempt at discipline.



I am in a tenuous situation involving a child at the moment.  My live-in boyfriend has a three-year old daughter.  I have no legal rights concerning her and my boyfriend and his ex haven't sorted out custody.

I am terrified to spank her and yelling does not work.  (Also, I would never spank her more than a swat or two on the bottom--it's to get her attention when she isn't listening) because I feel like if she says to her mom "A--- spanked me" that all of a sudden I'll have child abuse charges and P--- will lose custody.

 So Miss gets away with a lot that normally I wouldn't put up with.  The thing is that normally she is taken for my daughter when we're out and I think that she and I have a good relationship other than the aforementioned disciplinary problem.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 18, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> So Miss gets away with a lot that normally I wouldn't put up with.



Where's dad in all this? Sounds like something that needs ironing out regardless...


----------



## erusson (Dec 18, 2012)

At the risk of being virtually punched in the face - I really don't get why people love the Beatles so much. (Don't shoot.) I like some of their songs but not so much that I think it's the greatest music ever. Most of their music I just can't make myself interested in. I'm really sorry, guys.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 18, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Where's dad in all this? Sounds like something that needs ironing out regardless...



It is.  He will step in when she really is being terrible but she'll do things pretty discreetly too and usually aimed at me.


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

erusson said:


> At the risk of being virtually punched in the face - I really don't get why people love the Beatles so much. (Don't shoot.) I like some of their songs but not so much that I think it's the greatest music ever. Most of their music I just can't make myself interested in. I'm really sorry, guys.


I once actually punched a kid in the nose cuz he said the Beatles were over-rated. If anything, they were under-rated (as musicians, they've never been given much credit). It isn't simply a matter of their material but of their influence. They changed the way music was made, marketed, consumed, the whole ball of wax.
Would like to think I'm a touch more mature now...but their influence in popular music is undeniable and by now so pervasive that it's almost unnoticeable. Once they got past recycling older material (roughly in the middle of recording Rubber Soul), the Beatles routinely put out music that confounded expectations and was relatively influence-free.
No need to be sorry for your likes or dislikes-that's all relative. But there's a partial explanation. Time of birth matters some as well. If you were old enough to see them on the Ed Sullivan show, you're probably better equipped to grok what the Fab Four were.


----------



## IanMGSmith (Dec 18, 2012)

Must admit, it gets harder and harder to keep the under 50s in line. LOL

As human population swells into billions it seems to take on characteristics of a parasitic blight. Ever increasing degrees of social introspect and self-interest are manifest. Probably necessary on such a crowded planet yet to some it seems also to be a sad homogenization of natural diversity and human spirit, directed by the megalomanic internet Gods who, like the news moguls, exercise an ever tightening grip over what we should like and see.   

I don't condemn "Dr Who", soap operas, reality tv or the intellectually stifled sensationalism they call news, as long as I don't have to watch. 

Give me an open field, a 5 K run and a few good lungfuls of sweet fresh air.  Oh, and WF of course. (smile)

...now re-read my opening sentence and have a laugh at me. My treat. LOL


----------



## erusson (Dec 18, 2012)

moderan said:


> If anything, they were under-rated (as musicians, they've never been given much credit).



Not sure I agree with you on that since I have to hide under tables when their fans are around! When you say it's not a matter of material but influence, do you mean you think people say they love them so much because they feel like they should?

My mum is old enough to remember the Beatles and she's never been keen either - maybe we're just not a Beatles type of family. xx


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I am in a tenuous situation involving a child at the moment.  My live-in boyfriend has a three-year old daughter.  I have no legal rights concerning her and my boyfriend and his ex haven't sorted out custody.
> 
> I am terrified to spank her and yelling does not work.  (Also, I would never spank her more than a swat or two on the bottom--it's to get her attention when she isn't listening) because I feel like if she says to her mom "A--- spanked me" that all of a sudden I'll have child abuse charges and P--- will lose custody.
> 
> So Miss gets away with a lot that normally I wouldn't put up with.  The thing is that normally she is taken for my daughter when we're out and I think that she and I have a good relationship other than the aforementioned disciplinary problem.


 Whew! That's a tough-ee.  I don't see anything wrong with a little smack on the behind.  You know...it's possible to train dogs without hitting. Kids are so much smarter (it's the same argument I gave a friend about about wife-beating. He insisted it was appropriate, given 'Her actions') Wifey and I have spent many minutes sitting in the car, waiting for three-year-old jr. to decide when/if he would like to finish our grocery shopping, or continue his tantrum. Patience always won out. The partially filled cart was there when we re-entered. We only had to do that twice. The hardest part was keeping our cool. It gets easier. We used to joke that everything would be all right, _as long as he grew out of it by 12... 18...  21...     30.... _*Sorry for the preach*, it's not my business.... but it might lessen the danger of any...allegations, given your...disadvantage (not bein' her ma and all) Good luck.


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

erusson said:


> Not sure I agree with you on that since I have to hide under tables when their fans are around! When you say it's not a matter of material but influence, do you mean you think people say they love them so much because they feel like they should?
> 
> My mum is old enough to remember the Beatles and she's never been keen either - maybe we're just not a Beatles type of family. xx


Possibly you aren't. But no, I don't mean that. I mean that the Beatles so revolutionized rock music that every single thing that has been done since then in the field of popular music has some Beatle in it.
And by under-rated as musicians, I mean that other, flashier players always were at the top of the musicians' polls (your Jimmy Pages, Claptons, Hendrix), and that Ringo especially was regarded as not especially good at his craft. At that time, and since.
Nowadays people think that guys Like Synyster Gates are exemplary players, or that Korn or Skrillex are revolutionary.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 18, 2012)

It isn't usually a tantrum.  She's fairly well behaved.  It's more of a "let's pinch/hit/bite A---" sort of thing.  No matter how many times I tell her to stop or try to wait it out it doesn't end.  I don't want to hurt her but that doesn't mean I should be abused too.


----------



## Freakconformist (Dec 18, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I am in a tenuous situation involving a child at the moment. My live-in boyfriend has a three-year old daughter. I have no legal rights concerning her and my boyfriend and his ex haven't sorted out custody....



I don't have children, as I said, but I volunteered at a home for single mothers. There is a big problem now that parents think if they ignore the child, eventually they'll stop. Well, that's as good of a way as any to create a spoiled child who thinks they can do anything, but it also creates a child who feels ignored and insecure. All they see is mommy and daddy don't pay attention and there are no boundaries. They may even develop unreasonable phobias (like fear of cats) because they feel that nobody is watching out for them.

I would highly recommend reaching out to the mother, even if the relationship is a bit strained, and asking what she does for discipline. A very reasonable excuse is that you want to reinforce her authority by being consistent with her. There's a big likelihood that when she gets the child back she is frustrated because little miss has had free reign all weekend and won't calm down for her. Open up the lines of communication with her, the more communication you have the better control you will have. Say Little Miss has been sassing off to her mom lately, she should feel free to say "Miss, has been sassy lately and I told her she can't watch any television tonight." You follow through by shutting off the TV for the night. It should be clear that she is transferring her authority over to you, temporarily. She would do the same thing with a baby-sitter or a day care worker. She should consider you very similarly.

If all else fails, when Miss is acting up. Firmly pull her to the side, sit her down, and stare her down. Wait until she has completely stopped and is giving you her attention before saying anything. Then calmly explain why you want her to stop/calm down/listen. If she whines or argues, don't argue back. Your word is law, she doesn't have to like it. It is a long boring process for you, but worth it. The child will have more respect for you, and will likely become more affectionate because she knows that you're secure.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

Okay ... the Beatles.  I used to like them, I still like them, but I've heard them so many times, over and over and over, I don't/can't anymore. Maybe in twenty more years. Why does the radio have to play things to death?


----------



## Ariel (Dec 18, 2012)

Miss's mother rarely bans her from anything and will usually stand over her and lecture for an hour or so.  Asking the mother to be consistent is laughable as she isn't consistent.  Also, the majority of the time the mother "has" Miss, Miss spends with her grandmother.  The majority of acting out occurs when we first get her and right before she goes to her mother.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 18, 2012)

amsawtell said:


> I am in a tenuous situation involving a child at the moment.  My live-in boyfriend has a three-year old daughter.  I have no legal rights concerning her and my boyfriend and his ex haven't sorted out custody.
> 
> I am terrified to spank her and yelling does not work.  (Also, I would never spank her more than a swat or two on the bottom--it's to get her attention when she isn't listening) because I feel like if she says to her mom "A--- spanked me" that all of a sudden I'll have child abuse charges and P--- will lose custody.
> 
> So Miss gets away with a lot that normally I wouldn't put up with.  The thing is that normally she is taken for my daughter when we're out and I think that she and I have a good relationship other than the aforementioned disciplinary problem.


Sounds like the relationships all across the board are kind of strained. Is it possible to go over ground rules with the ex? I mean, her daughter is in your custody, surely she doesn't want her to get away with things (I hope not) so maybe she needs to let you know exactly what she expects you to do discipline-wise. It's a lot like being a daycare, I think, there should be some conversation as to what the expectations are. After all, the little girl is the one who needs consistency and it would protect you and your boyfriend from misunderstandings to a greater extent than no communication at all.

As for what drives me a little crazy? I'm with Shadowwalker on this one, quite a bit of popular culture is percolating quite happily without me.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 18, 2012)

Kevin said:


> Okay ... the Beatles.  I used to like them, I still like them, but I've heard them so many times, over and over and over, I don't/can't anymore. Maybe in twenty more years. Why does the radio have to play things to death?



Radio?


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> Radio?


I know, right? I haven't connected with radio since I was in my teens.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't connect with any modern technology, despite being a software engineer.  I don't have a smart phone, I don't have a Facebook, I don't play Angry Birds or Words with Friends, I don't use GPS, I don't play modern games, and I'm not up to speed on any of the latest memes or viral videos.

I think at some point in college (2-4 years ago), I just decided I was sick of the pace of everything and stopped caring.  I've been locked in that time ever since.


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

Way back in 1966, there was a hugely popular play called Stop the World, I Want to Get Off. It inspired Alvin Toffler's mighty Future Shock. That in turn helped to inspire John Brunner's the Shockwave Rider.
We live now in a world remarkably similar to the one Brunner depicted in that and the two previous books in an informal trilogy.
Many people live in bubbles similar to yours. I suspect there's a connection.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> Radio?


 LittleOrphan annie?, The Shadow?...Ri Tin Tin....oh come on you guys


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

dblpost (sorry)


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 18, 2012)

moderan said:


> I know, right? I haven't connected with radio since I was in my teens.



I suppose if one likes listening to twenty seven minutes of commercials every half hour, who am I to judge?


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 18, 2012)

Kevin said:


> LittleOrphan annie?, The Shadow?...Ri Tin Tin....oh come on you guys



No Bob and Ray?


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

CBS Radio Mystery Theatre. Dr. Demento.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

We had a show a couple of years ago...it was called 'Jonesy's Jukebox'. Did you know they had a thing called 'ziffle' or 'ziffer' music, from England, before rock'n'roll. I couldn't understand what he was saying most of the time, but I really liked his show, until they cancelled it. They cancelled the whole da... radio station. I think now they play 'Banda'. One time he had the 'Stone Roses' on there, you know, in the studio. They started talking. It went on for like an hour. He played stuff from his youth, and they talked. I've seen all the H.P. movies, but I couldn't understand a word. Maybe they was speakin' some form of Welsh or Gaelic. I still loved the show. It was 'educational'. Cancelled.


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

'twas "Skiffle". Lonnie Donegan was probably the best-known practitioner. In the States, between the Beatles and Elvis (when Elvis was in the Army), doo-wop music came to the fore.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2012)

"Skiffle"! That's it. I got three stations I mostly listen to...no commercials. They're free. You can stream on-line. I don't. I'm in the car, a lot.


----------



## moderan (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't own a car. A buddy of mine runs Social Distractions Radio, which I like because sometimes my music is on it, and that of other friends. I used to listen to WXRT, out of Chicago, but they started playing too much stuff I didn't like and I sorta drifted away. At the time I drove a cab and was in the car 16 hours a day.
It's strange. I don't listen to much music, despite having been a practicing musician most of my life.


----------



## tepelus (Dec 18, 2012)

Freakconformist said:


> My friend feels that same way. Her and her husband, were never very good with children and never planned on having any. When she mentions this to people, she is taken aback by the rude comments she gets. Like, "A woman who doesn't want children has to have something wrong with her." or "People who don't like children, aren't Christian." (That is important to her since she is, in fact, Christian. It's like saying "God loves everybody, but you're not good enough."--whole new topic, sorry.)
> 
> I'm actually pretty good with kids. I'm just unable to have any. The thing that gets me are parents who let their kids run around willy-nilly with little to no attempt at discipline.



I'm not good with kids. They get under my skin. I can't handle babysitting for a few hours let alone having one full time. Weird to say so, but I have a bit of a phobia with kids. I get nervous around them. Babies not so much, but when they get to the age of walking and talking, that's when I can't tolerate them. And kids see my weakness and use it to their advantage. layful:


----------



## FleshEater (Dec 19, 2012)

The list of things I don't connect with is vast...

Facebook
Twitter
iPhone/Apple craze
This wave of new, terrible Hollywood film
Video games
Glittery and sissy vampires and werewolves
Radio
Reality TV

I'm sure I could think of more.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Dec 19, 2012)

I've always been good with most children; we just seem to think and behave very similarly: completely honest, candid, free thinking (at certain ages), difficult to embarrass or offend, and unafraid to behave like an ill-mannered baboon to get a reaction from a sour puss. Perfect match. Some kids are incredibly serious, though -- I don't get on that well with them. 

Things I don't connect with:

David Lynch movies, True Blood, conspiracy theories, religion, talent shows, The Walking Dead (dislike the TV series, love the games), Supernatural, Big Brother, Lost, Dr. Who, World of Warcraft, alcohol, spiders, Dave Chappelle, Billy Connolly, Scrubs, Indiana Jones, Bastion, Micheal Bay movies, Nolan's Batman trilogy (I needed a Strepsil just watching it), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (worst movie in the series IMO), Brian Cox (a prettier, smugger Carl Sagan), Lady Gaga (an amalgamation of all the other "controversial" artists I feel kind of sorry for), Terry Pratchett (I always struggle with his work, don't know why. Loved The Hogfather, though), Red Dead Redemption (forgets it's a videogame far too often), weddings, How I Met your Mother (I just cringe, can't help it), Modern Family (doesn't seem to know what it is from the three episodes I watched), Misfits (the acting makes me cry with laughter at times; I find it bizarre more than bad, to be fair), Jimmy Carr, Arctic Monkeys, Being Human, most TV soaps (Coronation Street can be funny, and Brookside was quite funny).

That'll do. I could name a hundred more but I'm afraid my cerebellum would explode.


----------



## JimJanuary (Dec 19, 2012)

Jersey shore and pretty much all reality TV shows

Super hero movies. I've had a lot of negative feedback from friends about this one. While I was really excited about the Spiderman and X-men movies when I was a teenager, I just got over it all really quickly. Yet it seems with the release of The Avengers that interest in this movie genre has peaked. I kind of don't get it, though I can't really admit to seeing a superhero movie in a theater for a few years. Aside from Batman maybe


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 19, 2012)

JimJanuary said:


> Super hero movies. I've had a lot of negative feedback from friends about this one. While I was really excited about the Spiderman and X-men movies when I was a teenager, I just got over it all really quickly. Yet it seems with the release of The Avengers that interest in this movie genre has peaked. I kind of don't get it, though I can't really admit to seeing a superhero movie in a theater for a few years. Aside from Batman maybe



Well, the movies are coming out because comics are pretty much dead. They won't admit it, of course, and fanboys will argue the point as if they can warp the fabric of reality through incessant whining, but the industry is not as health as it once was, so they are converting their properties into other media. Movies television shows, etc. As to why people keep watching them, they're summer action movies. If people can watch those transformers movies, they can watch guys in colorful underpants punching each other. Just think of them as just another action movie because that's all they are. Although I can understand not liking them very much. Superheroes are meant to be drawn. There's just something unreal about them when they're a dude in a costume that is just not right or doesn't capture the drawn version. That said, I did like Avengers, but I didn't like those Batman movies because that guy ain't Batman. Hey, that's another thing I didn't connect with.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 19, 2012)

Bruno Spatola said:


> ... spiders, ...



If you do not connect with spiders, you need to improve your aim or else they will escape and come for revenge later.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> Well, the movies are coming out because comics are pretty much dead. They won't admit it, of course, and fanboys will argue the point as if they can warp the fabric of reality through incessant whining, but the industry is not as health as it once was, so they are converting their properties into other media. Movies television shows, etc. As to why people keep watching them, they're summer action movies. If people can watch those transformers movies, they can watch guys in colorful underpants punching each other. Just think of them as just another action movie because that's all they are. Although I can understand not liking them very much. Superheroes are meant to be drawn. There's just something unreal about them when they're a dude in a costume that is just not right or doesn't capture the drawn version. That said, I did like Avengers, but I didn't like those Batman movies because that guy ain't Batman. Hey, that's another thing I didn't connect with.


Well-said. Though I disagree that the longjohn types and Transformer peeps are the same audience;they just overlap some. I agree about the "Nolan Batman". But then I was a teenage Marvel zombie.
I stopped reading comics regularly by the late 70s, though I still read Metal Hurlant, and completely left in the 90s, right after that "Amalgam" fiasco...disappointed by the quality of the art and the scripting and the endless reboots. I hold no love for Rob Liefeld-I'm a Kirby/Buscema guy.
The Avengers was just ok. The first FF was good. The second did Galactus a disservice, and I hope he eats this place in retaliation.



the antithesis said:


> If you do not connect with spiders, you need to improve your aim or else they will escape and come for revenge later.


You owe me a cup of coffee and a new towel. What if a Vogon suddenly came by? I'd be toast.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 19, 2012)

The majority of the one-dimensional protagonists you get in young adult fiction. For reasons already made clear.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 19, 2012)

As someone else mentioned, Twitter. I signed up once and they keep sending me emails that I need to read stuff. I don't.

I also don't connect with commercials that tell me that if I buy their product the fat will just "Fall right off!" I'm familiar with fat, it doesn't do this.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Dec 19, 2012)

I used to enjoy Dr Who as a child. However, now I just don't find it appeals to me any more as an adult, I really do think it is still a childrens' drama, a good one, but for children. 
Same thing with Harry Potter, I just don't feel it is for adults.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

Lilly Davidson said:


> I used to enjoy Dr Who as a child. However, now I just don't find it appeals to me any more as an adult, I really do think it is still a childrens' drama, a good one, but for children.
> Same thing with Harry Potter, I just don't feel it is for adults.



I find it amusing that you say this while sporting a Disney av.


----------



## Tiamat (Dec 19, 2012)

Will Ferrell.  It astounds me that he has such a huge fan base, since I find his humor to be stupid at best.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Dec 19, 2012)

Anchorman is a guilty pleasure of mine. Everything else Will Ferrell has done is abysmal in my eyes, but a few of the blooper reels are cute, and I like the subtle humour he slips in some of his character's lines -- little nuggets that hint at some bizarre behaviour but don't actually reveal it. That's quite clever I think. He has a blisteringly quick comedic mind from what I see, I just don't laugh. 

Stupid's okay now and then, but it's gotta be the right kind of stupid. Genuine stupidity isn't funny to me, it has to be ironic to tickle my funny bone.


----------



## FleshEater (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm glad I'm not the only one that can't stand Ferrell. I did like Stranger Than Fiction though.


----------



## Tiamat (Dec 19, 2012)

My ex made me watch Anchorman once.  When I finally stopped grimacing at the screen, I fell asleep.  I will admit, however, that Steve Carell got a few laughs out of me in that movie.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Dec 19, 2012)

Yeah, I can understand why, even though I like it a lot -- that's my usual response to Ben Stiller's films. General grimacing with the occasional half-smile. My mate was peeing herself laughing watching Dodgeball and I was just sitting there feeling awkward.

Weeeeeeeell, we're all different. Jim Carrey is the only comedian with a loud, broad style who I consistently laugh at.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> My ex made me watch Anchorman once.  When I finally stopped grimacing at the screen, I fell asleep.  I will admit, however, that Steve Carell got a few laughs out of me in that movie.




I love lamp.


I'm not very connected to electricity.  I tried once, but it hurt so, I had to break up, quickly.  I thought electricity flirted with me once when I was younger and after putting my hands on a giant metal ball I could feel the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, along with the rest of the hairs of my semi-pubic body.  I guess I just got my wires crossed when I had this amped up notion in my head that once I got older the Mrs' Robinson of Tesla's world would be waiting for me with open arms?


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> My ex made me watch Anchorman once.  When I finally stopped grimacing at the screen, I fell asleep.  I will admit, however, that Steve Carell got a few laughs out of me in that movie.



As bad as _Anchorman_ is, it's better than the odious _Stepbrothers_. That movie is too ugly to live.

I will second FleshEater's opinion of _Stranger Than Fiction_: a lovely, charming, intelligent, and enjoyable movie. And Ferrell is fantastic in it. A beautifully underplayed and sympathetic performance. That's one of the things that annoys me about the guy -- he does have talent, and chooses to mostly make garbage anyway.


----------



## benluby (Dec 19, 2012)

I see Ferrell?  I change channels.  Can't stand him.  Carrey is great when he is doing comedy.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

Most comedians should be billed as alleged comedians. Alumni of SNL post, say 1982 qualify. Jim Carrey makes me want to scream and throw things at the screen. He (to me) is as bad at his job as Chris Berman or John Madden are at theirs, and for the same reasons.
There's a whole other class I don't connect with-professional broadcasters who are inarticulate, who are not able to speak a reasonable facsimile of English and who don't know when to shut the f**k up. They're as bad as unfunny comedians.
Seriously-in what universe is Ray Romano funny? Louis Anderson? Conan O'Brien? TruTV is funnier because they have the ironic content (as Bruno Spatola noted previously) that makes their brand of stupid palatable.
Jim Carrey hasn't been funny since before he was fire marshal Bill. I kept wanting him to become Frank Gorshin, and though he eventually played a Gorshin role, he never matured. Robin Williams needs to start shoveling the stuff again. Ack!
But then, I always found Norm Crosby funny, he and his wife who couldn't bear a child because she was impregnable.
Gad. I'm old.
Never mind, Emily.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> Most comedians should be billed as alleged comedians. Alumni of SNL post, say 1982 qualify. Jim Carrey makes me want to scream and throw things at the screen. He (to me) is as bad at his job as Chris Berman or John Madden are at theirs, and for the same reasons.
> There's a whole other class I don't connect with-professional broadcasters who are inarticulate, who are not able to speak a reasonable facsimile of English and who don't know when to shut the f**k up. They're as bad as unfunny comedians.
> Seriously-in what universe is Ray Romano funny? Louis Anderson? Conan O'Brien? TruTV is funnier because they have the ironic content (as Bruno Spatola noted previously) that makes their brand of stupid palatable.
> Jim Carrey hasn't been funny since before he was fire marshal Bill. I kept wanting him to become Frank Gorshin, and though he eventually played a Gorshin role, he never matured. Robin Williams needs to start shoveling the stuff again. Ack!
> ...




Louis Anderson is funny, as is Jon Pinochet.  Fat guys are just funny, and when they have a high pitched voice it helps.  Ray Romano, eh.  Richard Lewis, not in a million years.  I think I am a bag full of laughs waiting to break upon a world that isn't ready for me yet.  Kind of like an Andy Kaufman without the fame, money, or ability to make a Western European accent.

Argue with me about this if you like, but by the time we are done you will have laughed a little, on the inside, probably the same spot where you used to laugh at fart jokes...


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

They are not. Gabriel Iglesias isn't fluffy, he's stupid. John Candy made me cringe, likewise Chris Farley.
John Cleese-he's funny. George Carlin supersedes funny. I like word comedy. And Andy did a faux-Eastern European accent. I know-I have zee relatifs frum zee old contry.
*laughs* I haven't even gotten started on people who are really not funny. I don't want to get into a rant here...but I once thought Dennis Miller was funny. maybe he was. Now he's a joke.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> They are not. Gabriel Iglesias isn't fluffy, he's stupid. John Candy made me cringe, likewise Chris Farley.
> John Cleese-he's funny. George Carlin supersedes funny. I like word comedy. And Andy did a faux-Eastern European accent. I know-I have zee relatifs frum zee old contry.
> *laughs* I haven't even gotten started on people who are really not funny. I don't want to get into a rant here...but I once thought Dennis Miller was funny. maybe he was. Now he's a joke.



Norm MacDonald is not funny at all, the Cookie Monster, hilarious.  Have you seen the Cookie Monster spoof of "call me maybe?"

I just don't get your dislike of fat guys.


----------



## JimJanuary (Dec 19, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> I didn't like those Batman movies because that guy ain't Batman. Hey, that's another thing I didn't connect with.



I acutally liked the Dark Knight (maybe it's hype related), but I found Batman begins and Dark Knight Rises to be fairly crap. And Christian Bale's Batman voice is really annoying


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

It isn't about fat guys-it's about unfunny. I'm fattish myself. And I'm funny, but funny strange, like Louis CK's tv show, not funny ha-ha, like his standup. I don't connect with most things popcultural because I can't abide stupid that is so stoopid that it's unaware that it's stupid.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> It isn't about fat guys-it's about unfunny. I'm fattish myself. And I'm funny, but funny strange, like Louis CK's tv show, not funny ha-ha, like his standup. I don't connect with most things popcultural because I can't abide stupid that is so stoopid that it's unaware that it's stupid.



Louis CK is funny because he talks about stuff we could be talking about right now.  He might throw in an occasional masturbation joke, or something about hooking up with a neurotic mom of one of his kids classmates.


----------



## moderan (Dec 19, 2012)

That's not his funny stuff. If the best you have is d*ck jokes, you might as well take your Daliesque watch limp a** home and watch Seinfeld reruns. Louis CK is doing his level best to further Lenny Bruce's work, pushing the boundaries of what you can do and say comedically. You ever seen him live? Or seen him deal with a heckler? Now, that's funny.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> That's not his funny stuff. If the best you have is d*ck jokes, you might as well take your Daliesque watch limp a** home and watch Seinfeld reruns. Louis CK is doing his level best to further Lenny Bruce's work, pushing the boundaries of what you can do and say comedically. You ever seen him live? Or seen him deal with a heckler? Now, that's funny.



 As I told Kath (who's pretty much a squee-filled Louis CK fan girl) I'd never even heard of him until she recommended him. And she was smart about it: she stressed his show and how he writes, directs and edits most of it, because those are the things that interest me. I find his show more sad than funny, though there have been several laugh out loud moments in almost every episode. What I find brilliant is his almost surreal filmic style and his obsession with death and degradation expressed through comedy. Even those laugh out loud moments don't actually seem quite so funny on reflection. 

And yeah, he's murder on hecklers.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

moderan said:


> That's not his funny stuff. If the best you have is d*ck jokes, you might as well take your Daliesque watch limp a** home and watch Seinfeld reruns. Louis CK is doing his level best to further Lenny Bruce's work, pushing the boundaries of what you can do and say comedically. You ever seen him live? Or seen him deal with a heckler? Now, that's funny.




Shame on you for snowballing a moment of mine and throwing it in my face!  Louis CK has many funny moments and I wasn't going to list them all for your enjoyment at the behest my wasted time typing them out.  If you want all the work done for you, go to an Asian massage parlor.  

Lenny Bruce, He's really only known by aged comics and those who can find vinyl records still with his work.  He was too much of a rebel to be forced into the box the FCC made for him.  If people thought George Carlin and Richard Pryor were foul mouths in the late 70's and early 80's, Bruce made them look like Teletubbies, yes I went there.  I picture Carlin being the Teletubbie with the purse.  Even Bill Cosby used to be a dirty comedian back in the day.  My father had his album and I listened to it a lot.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 19, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> Will Ferrell.  It astounds me that he has such a huge fan base, since I find his humor to be stupid at best.



I feel the same way. That said, you might want to give Stranger Than Fiction a try. I was surprised how much I enjoyed his performance when usually I find him as enjoyable as swimming in a pool full of thumbtacks wearing a bathing suit made of angry tarantulas. I think it's because he wasn't trying to be funny. His character isn't all that funny, but the performance comes across as sincere which I found fitting and enjoyable.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 19, 2012)

All the Will Ferrel hate in here makes me want to go streaking.


----------



## Tiamat (Dec 20, 2012)

See, I like Louis CK's standup.  And Robin Williams.  (And Jim Carrey is one of my guilty pleasures.)  I never managed to get into George Carlin as much though.  I can appreciate the wit, but Carlin rarely gives me any actual laugh-out-loud moments.  My real pet peeve with standup comedians are the chicks.  I have never seen a chick comedian who could successfully make me do more than crack a smile, and only a half-hearted one at that.

Billy Connolly was and will remain my favorite comedian--except when he's in movies.  It's always a little sad to see him "act."


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 20, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> See, I like Louis CK's standup.  And Robin Williams.  (And Jim Carrey is one of my guilty pleasures.)  I never managed to get into George Carlin as much though.  I can appreciate the wit, but Carlin rarely gives me any actual laugh-out-loud moments.  My real pet peeve with standup comedians are the chicks.  I have never seen a chick comedian who could successfully make me do more than crack a smile, and only a half-hearted one at that.
> 
> Billy Connolly was and will remain my favorite comedian--except when he's in movies.  It's always a little sad to see him "act."



The "Queen of Mean" Lisa Lampanelli seems to make me laugh, and that new girl from 'Last Comic Standing' is funny, and kind of hot honestly.  Amy Schumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The crop of new female comics is kind of thin though.

The most famous comic I ever saw live was George Wallace.  I saw him at Joker's Comedy Club in Dayton, Ohio.  The place isn't there anymore.  I also saw a guy named John Valby.  He is famous for making some really raunchy songs that the audience participates in.  Youtube his name and you will absolutely love some of his stuff.  He was funny as hell in person.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 20, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> All the Will Ferrel hate in here makes me want to go streaking.



"I'm in a glass case of emotion!"

"Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise use your witchcraft to get the fire off me! Help me Oprah Winfrey!"



Will Ferrell may employ slapstick too often for some to enjoy, but I like his silliness. It makes me laugh whenever I begin taking myself, or life, too seriously.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> "I'm in a glass case of emotion!"
> 
> "Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise use your witchcraft to get the fire off me! Help me Oprah Winfrey!"
> 
> ...



"Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina."  - Ron Burgundy


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Dec 20, 2012)

There aren't that many female comedians that make me laugh either. Not because they're women or anything, it's just because there aren't a great deal to choose from in the first place. From a purely mathematical angle, the likelihood of them making me laugh is simply smaller . . . right? Makes sense to me.  

Sarah Silverman and Joan Rivers are always highly recommended, but I dislike their styles; it always seems spiteful in some way. That's merely my interpretation of it, which could be wrong -- I don't connect with either of them, that's a fact. I doubt their humour truly comes out of spite, because I've seen both in non-comedy related interviews and they seem smart and mostly polite. It's more accurate to say I don't like the personas they evoke on stage, and it's always harder to laugh with people you dislike in some way, genuine or not.

Sue Perkins, Jennifer Saunders, and to a lesser extent, maybe, Sandy Togsvig, make me laugh more than most comedians _period_. My favourite female comedians hardly mention the fact they're women, and my favourite black comedians hardly mention the fact they're black, just how I like it. I'm not saying you shouldn't, you should if it's funny enough, but it's not mandatory in my opinion. I don't care if you're black or have breasts, make me laugh! 

Not ranting. :redface2:


----------



## moderan (Dec 20, 2012)

LIzz Winstead. Elayne Boosler. That's the list of female comedians who've made me laugh more than once.



Lewdog said:


> Shame on you for snowballing a moment of mine and throwing it in my face!  Louis CK has many funny moments and I wasn't going to list them all for your enjoyment at the behest my wasted time typing them out.  If you want all the work done for you, go to an Asian massage parlor.
> 
> Lenny Bruce, He's really only known by aged comics and those who can find vinyl records still with his work.  He was too much of a rebel to be forced into the box the FCC made for him.  If people thought George Carlin and Richard Pryor were foul mouths in the late 70's and early 80's, Bruce made them look like Teletubbies, yes I went there.  I picture Carlin being the Teletubbie with the purse.  Even Bill Cosby used to be a dirty comedian back in the day.  My father had his album and I listened to it a lot.


Yeah? Tom Lehrer. Shelly Berman. Bob Newhart as the Button-down Mind. Victor Borge with ghoti. Clean, all of em. Funnier than anyone comtemporary.
My guilty pleasure-Charles Fleischer, aka Carvelli from Kotter. Hilarious in person. Plenty of his schtick on Youtube.
Know whose standup isn't funny? Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher.
And don't tell me Kanye West isn't a comedian. I laugh like crazy when he appears.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Dec 20, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> See, I like Louis CK's standup.  And Robin Williams.  (And Jim Carrey is one of my guilty pleasures.)  I never managed to get into George Carlin as much though.  I can appreciate the wit, but Carlin rarely gives me any actual laugh-out-loud moments.  My real pet peeve with standup comedians are the chicks.  I have never seen a chick comedian who could successfully make me do more than crack a smile, and only a half-hearted one at that.
> 
> Billy Connolly was and will remain my favorite comedian--except when he's in movies.  It's always a little sad to see him "act."



Hi 

Oh now I think Billy Connolly, like many comedians, actually makes an excellent serious actor. I have seen him in 'Mrs Brown' with Judi Dench and thought he was very good. Then I saw him in an 'X Files' movie and he did very well in that too.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 20, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> "Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina."  - Ron Burgundy



Lol.

"Don't act like you're not impressed!"


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Lilly Davidson said:


> Hi
> 
> Oh now I think Billy Connolly, like many comedians, actually makes an excellent serious actor. I have seen him in 'Mrs Brown' with Judi Dench and thought he was very good. Then I saw him in an 'X Files' movie and he did very well in that too.


I agree. His comedy, I don't like so much. He's clever, though. But then Judi Dench is nonpareil.


----------



## Trilby (Dec 21, 2012)

All the sentimental pappy sayings people post and repost (just in case you missed it a dozen or so posts ago :-({|=) on facebook.


----------



## Trilby (Dec 21, 2012)

moderan said:


> I agree. His comedy, I don't like so much. He's clever, though. But then Judi Dench is nonpareil.



Billy Connolly aka The Big Yin - his comedy is a Scottish thing an' it's brae and deed gallis ya jist ha' t' unerstand the he's frae Glasga an all that! Ye ken!


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 21, 2012)

Facebook.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

I like Facebook. It's evolved into a very interesting amalgam of viewer's choice and commercial consideration. My strange friends entertain me endlessly, and people from grade school, high school, old jobs, are always finding me and friending me and I can get a glimpse into what their lives are like and share their interests.
Plus, it's a fabulous advertising medium. More people visit my music pages and my book pages than enter from my webspace.
Sorry you don't like it.
I don't connect with Grumpy Cat.


----------



## Kyella (Dec 21, 2012)

I don't connect with the big deal over knowing every detail about celebrities. Nor do I connect with the idea of only one style of music being the best and thus not listening to anything else. My sisters are currently fighting over Classical and K-Pop music since both of them hate the others music


----------



## StoneFrog (Dec 21, 2012)

I have a huge dislike of facebook, i guess i'm a desperate introvert even on the internet :lone:


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Dec 21, 2012)

Hi StoneFrog, 
That is a real shame because Facebook is a wonderful way to keep in touch with *trusted* friends and family. There are good security features, only your very trusted contacts need see anything about you. As long as you post sensibly, never put anything on there that could harm anyone, you can have the greatest fun. If anyone ever gives you trouble you can make them into an 'Acquaintance' so that they only see a limited amount, you can select your audience for every post anyway - or you can 'defriend' them at the touch of a button. 
 Don't put anything very personal on there ever anyway e.g. your telephone number or address, keep security conscious. You can then create your very own page just as you want it. 

I share information about my interests on Facebook and it gives me such a lot of joy. I can discuss about books, gardening, cooking or whatever i like and it is now part of my life. I keep in touch with my children and family who are spread far and wide around the world! In an instant you can message them in real time as long as they happen to be on-line. You can exchange photos and videos of favourite music or tv clips etc. No end of fun! 

It is a shame to miss out on all this really. I too am basically an introvert, i am shy. Yet the internet and Facebook gives me such a golden chance to connect to lots of people. I have made new wonderful friends around the world, I can see their travel photos and lifestyles, exchange views with them BUT I keep it all to just general stuff, never anything personal or potentially damaging. You do have to be extremely careful for sure, but use this wonderful world of information for your benefit.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 21, 2012)

moderan said:


> I agree. His comedy, I don't like so much. He's clever, though. But then Judi Dench is nonpareil.



What in the hell is wrong with you people?  You mention Bill Connolly but don't mention the "Boondock Saints?"  I thought this was a serious writer's forum.  Good Grief.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

We were leaving you room to join in. 
Serious writers, according to an infamous habitue of these boards (and where is Bruce anyway?), don't inhabit forums. They're busy writing. Not sure I agree, but there it is. And there it lies. Try not to step in it.
I'm not entirely people. The flesh-strips are few, and played down. Perhaps that's what wrong with me. I may need to consult the pulse-beams about that.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 21, 2012)

I simply refuse to sign up for facebook. I had a livejournal, and did nothing with it. I had a blogger, and did nothing with it. I had a MySpace, and did nothing but receive porn spam. Now there's facebook and twitter, and I do not care to sign up for another service I will never use. I have no use for such things, so they can go exist in their own little bubble elsewhere.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

I understand. If I didn't have music to promote, and stories and poems and art and other whatnot to try to sell, I wouldn't have done MySpace or Facebook either. Twitter is as completely useless an application as I've ever seen, and I flat refuse to use it. Or Pinterest, or StumbleUpon, or Tumblr, or any of the other options for the terminally self-interested and celebrity-obsessed.
If you don't wish to participate, that's your prerogative.


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

I like Facebook as well. The newsfeed is a simple way to keep up with friends and family scattered all over the world. It's a pretty easily customizable experience and my policy of 'add anyone who asks, boot 'em if they annoy me' has allowed me to meet quite a few interesting new people with very little bother. It can be bothersome at moments, but x'ing and coming back later is easy, and the feed has moved on, like all things in life.

I don't find grumpy cat amusing, either. Read Fritz Leiber's _Space Time For Springers_. You'll never look at a grumpy cat the same.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 21, 2012)

Leyline said:


> I don't find grumpy cat amusing, either.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Disapproving bunny says whatever.
My wife doesn't understand it when I call her "Tansy". She doesn't connect with my inner Fritz, despite being born on Walpurgisnacht and being red-haired.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 21, 2012)

Look, a bunny! I've been waiting for those pics.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Foxee said:


> Look, a bunny! I've been waiting for those pics.


http://www.writingforums.com/writers-lounge/135193-not-so-empty-nest.html


----------



## Leyline (Dec 21, 2012)

Leyline said:


> And The Feed Has Moved On, Like All Things In Life




Bam. Some people have asked me how I come up with story titles. 

Like that.

Accidentally.


----------



## moderan (Dec 21, 2012)

Are you planning a story about chickens, then, G.?
Like the battery hen crossing the road to get fresh cells?


----------



## erusson (Dec 23, 2012)

I just remembered another somewhat controversial answer to what I don't connect with - Dark Knight Rises. I thought Dark Knight was a great film but to me the sequel didn't live up to the hype at all. Anyone agree? x


----------



## moderan (Dec 23, 2012)

erusson said:


> I just remembered another somewhat controversial answer to what I don't connect with - Dark Knight Rises. I thought Dark Knight was a great film but to me the sequel didn't live up to the hype at all. Anyone agree? x


Some others upthread would agree. I thought Dark Knight was a good film but with plot holes you could drive a regiment through. The whole Nolan trilogy leaves me kinda cold. When it was introduced, I thought they were trying to meld the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil Bats with the Frank Miller Bats but they forgot about the essential nobility of the character, the Chandleresque bit:
*“...down these mean streets a man must go who is  not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero;  he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an  unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of  honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and  certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a  good enough man for any world.

“He will take no man’s money  dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate  revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a  proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him.”*


That man doesn't allow a roomful of people to fend for themselves while trying to rescue the falling girlfriend.
I thought that Heath Ledger played a terrible Joker. He had the character's essential immorality, but not the over-the-top humor or the underlying mancrush on Batty-boy, whihc is essential to the push-and-pull interplay that has made that storied conflict so lasting and notable.
Nolan and crew apparently never read the Killing Joke and didn't understand what Bane really was. I found it all obscurely sad, and definitely didn't connect.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

moderan said:


> Some others upthread would agree. I thought Dark Knight was a good film but with plot holes you could drive a regiment through. The whole Nolan trilogy leaves me kinda cold. When it was introduced, I thought they were trying to meld the Neal Adams/Denny O'Neil Bats with the Frank Miller Bats but they forgot about the essential nobility of the character, the Chandleresque bit:
> *“...down these mean streets a man must go who is  not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. He is the hero;  he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an  unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of  honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and  certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a  good enough man for any world.
> 
> “He will take no man’s money  dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate  revenge. He is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a  proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him.”*
> ...



Yes, a person who would play the Joker correctly would never really want to "end" Batman, because then the game would be over.  Yet Batman as the rogue caped crusader he is, could care less whether he kills, or arrests the Joker.  Killing the Joker did essentially end the idea of a possible Arkum Asylum movie.


----------



## erusson (Dec 23, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> Yes, a person who would play the Joker correctly would never really want to "end" Batman, because then the game would be over.  Yet Batman as the rogue caped crusader he is, could care less whether he kills, or arrests the Joker.  Killing the Joker did essentially end the idea of a possible Arkum Asylum movie.



I didn't think they killed him, though? I think that bit's open to interpretation, but from what I remember you never actually see him die.

Also, an Arkham Asylum movie could still happen! It just wouldn't be part of the Dark Knight trilogy (I assume the Nolan brothers don't own all the rights to Batman now, because that would be terrible).

I have to disagree with @moderan though - I thought Heath Ledger was a fantastic Joker! If it weren't for him I probably wouldn't like that movie much x


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 23, 2012)

I didn't connect with the Nolan Batman movies because that guy isn't Batman. I later realized that this was intentional. Christian Bale demonstrated he can do a more reasonable batman voice in the trailer for that terminator movie. So why was he doing such a terrible one throughout three films? Because he was told to. This is also why the bat suit he wears is even worse than the one George Clooney wore. Say what you will about the Clooney bat, nipples and all, at least he didn't look like he had Downs syndrome. The reason why batman looked and sounded stupid is because Nolan wanted to make sure the audience got that Batman wasn't real. He was a put on. An act. A rubber suit Bruce Wayne put on. A person he pretended to be. That was the angle he was approaching this material. To examine the man Bruce Wayne and part of his means to that was to go overboard making sure that the audience understood, couldn't ignore, that Batman was just an act and not real. So the Batman voice sounds like someone trying too hard to effect a gruff voice. It sounds stupid and because subtlety is a foreign concept to Christopher "hamhands" Nolan, it's constant. If he wasn't such a horrible storyteller, there would be little moments wear the voice sounds shaky or maybe he sighs in his real voice to remind the audience that this guy isn't real. It's a grown adult playing pretend. But, he's not that good. Or maybe he wanted to make sure he got that point across and just went overboard. That seems more likely. He did tend to over-explain things, like that scene in the hospital where the Joker explains that he's a dog biting tires or something. That scene, that speech was completely out of character for the Joker he'd spend the whole movie up to that point establishing. He wanted the audience to "get" what the joker was and he didn't have enough respect for the audience that they would understand without being directly told.

So I didn't like those movies because I have no respect for a filmmaker that has no respect for me. I didn't even watch the last one, but Bane was never an interesting character. The only reason that character exists is as a marketing stunt, and it shows. I really don't care if this writer or that writer in the comic tried to make something out of that bad idea. Bane remains a bad idea and along with Venom and Doomsday, they can be forgotten villains who aren't very interesting like Kite-Man


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 23, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> I didn't connect with the Nolan Batman movies because that guy isn't Batman. I later realized that this was intentional. Christian Bale demonstrated he can do a more reasonable batman voice in the trailer for that terminator movie. So why was he doing such a terrible one throughout three films? Because he was told to. This is also why the bat suit he wears is even worse than the one George Clooney wore. Say what you will about the Clooney bat, nipples and all, at least he didn't look like he had Downs syndrome. The reason why batman looked and sounded stupid is because Nolan wanted to make sure the audience got that Batman wasn't real. He was a put on. An act. A rubber suit Bruce Wayne put on. A person he pretended to be. That was the angle he was approaching this material. To examine the man Bruce Wayne and part of his means to that was to go overboard making sure that the audience understood, couldn't ignore, that Batman was just an act and not real. So the Batman voice sounds like someone trying too hard to effect a gruff voice. It sounds stupid and because subtlety is a foreign concept to Christopher "hamhands" Nolan, it's constant. If he wasn't such a horrible storyteller, there would be little moments wear the voice sounds shaky or maybe he sighs in his real voice to remind the audience that this guy isn't real. It's a grown adult playing pretend. But, he's not that good. Or maybe he wanted to make sure he got that point across and just went overboard. That seems more likely. He did tend to over-explain things, like that scene in the hospital where the Joker explains that he's a dog biting tires or something. That scene, that speech was completely out of character for the Joker he'd spend the whole movie up to that point establishing. He wanted the audience to "get" what the joker was and he didn't have enough respect for the audience that they would understand without being directly told.
> 
> So I didn't like those movies because I have no respect for a filmmaker that has no respect for me. I didn't even watch the last one, but Bane was never an interesting character. The only reason that character exists is as a marketing stunt, and it shows. I really don't care if this writer or that writer in the comic tried to make something out of that bad idea. Bane remains a bad idea and along with Venom and Doomsday, they can be forgotten villains who aren't very interesting like Kite-Man



Bane wasn't even close to the villain he was created as.  Bane in comics was created when a fierce killer was infused with some green goo that made him into a literal dumb monster.  The more green goo he got, the stronger he got.  He was actually Poison Ivy's minion in one of the original Batman movies.  The new Bane...not really any of that, of course he wasn't supposed to be a main stream villain anyway, except for the fact in comic books Bane broke Batman's back.  

I'm absolutely positive eventually there will be some movie made involving Arkum Asylum.  The video game is just way to popular for there not to be.  I'm guessing though, that it might be tied in with Justice League of America movie instead of it's own thing.  I believe DC has already signed on Josh Whedon for it.


----------



## moderan (Dec 28, 2012)

I dunno about positive, if you mean a feature film. It might take a while, too. Watchmen took two decades. There is already a movie:
[video=youtube;O7LmQQcYYMg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7LmQQcYYMg[/video]

Whedon is signed for two more Avengers flicks. He approached Warner Brothers before Nolan won the job:whedon talks about bats
He's also working on a S.H.I.E.L.D. movie
Will Leitch at Deadspin doesn't seem to have a grip on this one. That's the source for both rumors.


erusson said:


> I have to disagree with @moderan though - I thought Heath Ledger was a  fantastic Joker! If it weren't for him I probably wouldn't like that  movie much x


You're entitled to your opinion. I suggest you read The Killing Joke.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 28, 2012)

Well I think everything will depend on how the Justice League movie does.  From what I heard, there is not going to be an Aquaman.  What will the fish do?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm struggling to connect with Stephen King's writing in "It". It started okay, with the killer clown/monster, but now he's sunken into a seemingly never-ending infodump about one character's backstory, and it's bored me to the point where I've given up reading after several (over a dozen) attempts.

It makes me wonder if there comes a point where an author (not necessarily King, but any author) gets so successful that he or she no longer feels the necessity to edit their own work--believing everything they write to be worth its weight in gold.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 28, 2012)

> It makes me wonder if there comes a point where an author (not necessarily King, but any author) gets so successful that he or she no longer feels the necessity to edit their own work--believing everything they write to be worth its weight in gold.


I once started in on one of the later Walter Scott novels, it was awful. I mentioned it to my mother who was an English Lit teacher (Among other subjects) and she said "Oh yes, by the time he wrote that he was so famous anything he wrote sold and his publisher paid him by the word". He was simply spinning it out with lots of extra words for extra cash.

As to dislikes, television. I used to watch it, but now I generally see it as a waste of my life, the missus calls me 'antisocial' because I have no interest in sitting with her to watch it. The one exception is stand up comedians. That one person, without props, can hold an audience on their own seems magical to me.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 28, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> It makes me wonder if there comes a point where an author (not necessarily King, but any author) gets so successful that he or she no longer feels the necessity to edit their own work--believing everything they write to be worth its weight in gold.



We unfortunately get a stream of newbs who think they have already reached that point before they've even published. I'm sure there's something that happens when someone becomes successful that their work suffers because they just plain lose whatever they had that made it good in the first place. (see: George Lucas) 

I'm reminded of a section in Catcher In the Rye when Caulfield goes to a nightclub owned by a pianist who used to be a star of sorts but now he owns a nightclub where people come to hear him play. Caulfield like his playing, but he tended to show off, playing extra notes that sounded corny and he didn't like that.

“If you do something too good, then, after a while, if you don't watch  it, you start showing off. And then you're not as good any more.”   
  ―     J.D. Salinger,     _       The Catcher in the Rye     

_But the crowd clapped anyway. Caulfield blamed the crowd for clapping even when he wasn't any good because he didn't know how poorly he was playing anymore since people always clapped.

Interestingly, King had one of these moments with his short story "Man in the Black Suit." He judged it to be a poor effort, but others told him it was really good and it won an award, so now he doesn't trust his own judgement. Personally, I agree with him. That story was terrible. It started promising, but then the devil just turned into a monster and tried to eat the kid and, well, that was lame. It just seemed like he'd run out of gas trying to have the devil mentally torment the kid, so he went for the easy monster moment. Which would have been fine, except it's more tacked on than a love scene in an 80's action movie. It doesn't build toward that. It just kind of happens. If I somehow manage to win that same award, Wikipedia says the 1995 "World Fantasy Award and the O. Henry Award for Best Short Fiction," I'll be embarrassed. They shouldn't have clapped for that. Guess I didn't connect with that story. I have an idea for a better version of that story. I never wrote it because I can't seem to get myself out of idea mode and I didn't want to look like I was just showing up King. That never works. Just ask Jackie Chan.

Speaking of King, I had tried to read his entire library in order of publication once. After reading Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, and his Night Shift collection, I was stopped dead by the Stand. I was stopped for several reasons. First of all, it's a big, fat book. Reading it seemed more like a chore. Second, it's actually two books. I'm the kind of idiot who would insist on reading the abridged version and then the uncut version to be able to compare and contrast the two versions. This made it into twice of a chore. But ultimately, I was stopped dead by an uninteresting situation with uninteresting characters not doing anything I care about. 

I really don't care for apocalyptic stories. The current zombie trend also leaves me cold. My answer to what I would do in a zombie apocalypse is kill myself because reality would have become too lame for me. (apparently I should skip _Cell_ as well) I'm not sure what it is about this sort of thing that I dislike. It's not disturbing. I dislike stories of cannibalism because I find that idea disturbing. So apocalypses are not disturbing. The emotion I feel is closer to the annoyed contempt Holden Caufield displayed, well, during most of the novel but particularly toward the pianist and his audience as mentioned above. I really haven't examined this, so I'm not entirely sure where my contempt is directed nor the source of my annoyance. I guess I just don't see the death of most of the people on the planet as that much of a big deal. Or I just find the idea so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously. Probably a side effect of growing up during the Cold War. The imminent threat of destruction has left me desensitized.


----------



## Cran (Dec 28, 2012)

moderan said:


> Some others upthread would agree. I thought Dark Knight was a good film but with plot holes you could drive a regiment through...
> 
> That man doesn't allow a roomful of people to fend for themselves while trying to rescue the falling girlfriend.
> I thought that Heath Ledger played a terrible Joker. He had the character's essential immorality, but not the over-the-top humor or the underlying mancrush on Batty-boy, whihc is essential to the push-and-pull interplay that has made that storied conflict so lasting and notable...


I thought Heath brought all of that and more - a truly dangerous and insanely humorous Joker - and nothing says mancrush like:

"You complete me." (Joker to Batman; police interrogation room).

In the scaffold scene, the Joker makes reference to why each could not kill the other - reinforcing the chicken scene where the Joker showed he could shoot anything except Batman, and Batman would rather drop his bike than hit the Joker.

Saving the girl in the penthouse fundraising scene - yeah, personal interests probably added weight to what was otherwise a judgment call of definite imminent danger to one vs potential danger to many. 

Plot holes are endemic in Hollywood movies - but who watches comic book hero movies for the plot?


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 28, 2012)

erusson said:


> I just remembered another somewhat controversial answer to what I don't connect with - Dark Knight Rises. I thought Dark Knight was a great film but to me the sequel didn't live up to the hype at all. Anyone agree? x



Neither of them were as good as Batman Begins....

And frankly I thought The Dark Knight was the weakest of the three films(although still good).  There was WAY too much meandering through pointless subplots(copycat vigalanties?  Batman going to China?), almost all of which were dropped halfway through, never to be mentioned again.  And after all the setup to turn Harvey Dent into Two-Face, he didnt get nearly the screen time he deserved.


----------



## Ariel (Dec 28, 2012)

I don't connect with having a phone at all times.  I resisted getting a cellphone for a very long time and now that I have a smartphone I keep it close because it's so darned expensive to replace the darn thing.  I like being able to get lost inside my head and for me having communication lines to the outside world is grating.  I like to think that someday I'll just pick up and disappear off the map--I won't, I like my life as it is--but I like to _think_ I will.  For some reason the cell phone keeps me from thinking that and it gets on my nerves because of that.


----------



## moderan (Dec 28, 2012)

Cran said:


> I thought Heath brought all of that and more - a truly dangerous and insanely humorous Joker - and nothing says mancrush like:
> 
> "You complete me." (Joker to Batman; police interrogation room).
> 
> ...


I do. I'm a writer-I look at the writing. Storyboarding is essential to both comics and screenwriting-they're quite similar in my experience.
To me those things are just allusions-the Joker/Batman thing is CENTRAL to the whole story. Much more attention needed to be paid to that, imo. I wonder how much of it got lost on the cutting-room floor.
The awful Joker makeup had a lot to do with my disliking Ledger's performance. I found his "take" to be sloppy. I found Nolan's whole take to be sloppy compared to Denny O'Neill or Frank Miller, either of whom could have been available for the right price, and both of whom have experience writing for the screen.
Nolan violated another central tenet of the Batman earlier-after the first five issues, Bob Kane changed his policy. _The Batman doesn't kill people_.
That's important.



SirThinkALot said:


> Neither of them were as good as Batman Begins....
> 
> And frankly I thought The Dark Knight was the weakest of the three films(although still good).  There was WAY too much meandering through pointless subplots(copycat vigalanties?  Batman going to China?), almost all of which were dropped halfway through, never to be mentioned again.  And after all the setup to turn Harvey Dent into Two-Face, he didnt get nearly the screen time he deserved.



The "going to China" thing was actually ripping off The Shadow's origin story-they then conflated that with the Ras al Ghul storyline from early 70s Detective Comics and the much later Bane stuff. I can't stand Bane as a villain. He's weak.


----------



## MisterZhifei (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of the Eragon series, I have got the books (mostly because they were cheap, haha) but I can't get into them! I've heard from friends that the series is a good read, even from some people who I wouldn't have thought would read often, but I just really don't find it interesting. Having said that, though, I didn't like Harry Potter the first time I read it (I was about 8, though) or The Big Bang Theory, both of which I now love!


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 28, 2012)

moderan said:


> I do. I'm a writer-I look at the writing. Storyboarding is essential to both comics and screenwriting-they're quite similar in my experience.
> To me those things are just allusions-the Joker/Batman thing is CENTRAL to the whole story. Much more attention needed to be paid to that, imo. I wonder how much of it got lost on the cutting-room floor.
> The awful Joker makeup had a lot to do with my disliking Ledger's performance. I found his "take" to be sloppy. I found Nolan's whole take to be sloppy compared to Denny O'Neill or Frank Miller, either of whom could have been available for the right price, and both of whom have experience writing for the screen.
> Nolan violated another central tenet of the Batman earlier-after the first five issues, Bob Kane changed his policy. _The Batman doesn't kill people_.
> ...



That's just it, as far as super heroes go, Batman has some of the weakest villains as a whole.  Besides Joker, two-face was pretty much the only other interesting one.  The Penguin is ok, scarecrow is boring, Poison Ivy is only as good as the sexy actor playing her, Mr. Freeze is corny, the Riddler can't fight Batman, Catwoman, Bane (although he broke Batman's back in the comic) isn't necessarily unique, and there is the Joker's little minion girl (Trixie?).  

There's just not a lot to work with.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 28, 2012)

I don't really connect with television anymore. The formula nature of sitcoms and the predictable nature of the bad jokes leaves me cold. My parents tried to get me into Big Bang Theory. I think I'd rather play an RPG again that watch that show.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 28, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> I don't really connect with television anymore. The formula nature of sitcoms and the predictable nature of the bad jokes leaves me cold. My parents tried to get me into Big Bang Theory. I think I'd rather play an RPG again that watch that show.



I agree, you shouldn't watch "The Big Bang Theory," because Sheldon is a theoretical physicist and you would just end up arguing with the television screen saying that he is absolutely wrong and ruining the experience for everyone else.


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 28, 2012)

MisterZhifei said:


> I'm not a big fan of the Eragon series, I have got the books (mostly because they were cheap, haha) but I can't get into them! I've heard from friends that the series is a good read, even from some people who I wouldn't have thought would read often, but I just really don't find it interesting. Having said that, though, I didn't like Harry Potter the first time I read it (I was about 8, though) or The Big Bang Theory, both of which I now love!



I hated Eragon, the plot was ripped directly from Star Wars, just with dragons thrown in.  Harry Potter was...ok-ish.  A lot of it was pretty formulaic.  Although I did enjoy the last few books more than the earlier ones.  And while Big Bang Theory can be funny on occasion, on the whole I feel like it exists primarily to perpetuate negative stereotypes of scientists, gamers, or pretty much anybody with 'nerdy' interests.


----------



## the antithesis (Dec 28, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> I agree, you shouldn't watch "The Big Bang Theory," because Sheldon is a theoretical physicist and you would just end up arguing with the television screen saying that he is absolutely wrong and ruining the experience for everyone else.



More importantly is that the characters is less funny that a root canal.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 28, 2012)

the antithesis said:


> More importantly is that the characters is less funny that a root canal.



It all depends on how much laughing gas you get.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2012)

Beaver..Justin Beaver, and uh.....Beaniebabies! I don't what they were, but I don't like them...never did. That's all I can think of.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 28, 2012)

I don't get Facebook at all.
Or Harry Potter. Of course, of I've never read Harry Potter, but I can't for a moment believe the amount of hype it received and in some of the circles I see is still receiving.
Also: Nicki Minaj.
Also: One Direction.
Also: Adele (good but not great; I don't know why she's gotten along as well as she has; the production on 21 was geared too much towards old-school R&B for my taste).
Also: James Joyce.
Also: The Great Gatsby.
Also: New Girl. I just don't find it funny.
Also: The Beatles.


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 28, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> That's just it, as far as super heroes go, Batman has some of the weakest villains as a whole.  Besides Joker, two-face was pretty much the only other interesting one.  The Penguin is ok, scarecrow is boring, Poison Ivy is only as good as the sexy actor playing her, Mr. Freeze is corny, the Riddler can't fight Batman, Catwoman, Bane (although he broke Batman's back in the comic) isn't necessarily unique, and there is the Joker's little minion girl (Trixie?).
> 
> There's just not a lot to work with.



I have to disagree.  The only one of those villains who isnt potentially interesting is the Riddler, and to be honest thats mostly because writers havent quite understood how to handle him properly.  The Riddler sidquests in Arkham City show how he should be handled.  

Scarcrow makes a great bat villian because he's the one villian who can get 'into his head' and best him psychologically.  The last few issues of Dark Knight have shown this beautifully. 

Ivy can go either way depending on whether the story emphasizes her role as an eco-terrorist or a sexy seductress.   For the former she's great.  The latter...not so much.  

Mr. Freeze is only corny in that horrible movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger played him.  His character in the comics(and the cartoon, where iirc, his background was first fully established), is much darker and more interesting.  

And I assume the last one was referring to Harley.  While I didnt care for her at first, she's been allowed to grow and develop as a character a lot in recent years.  And she's become fairly interesting I think.  Ultimately she is a VERY troubled girl who doesnt really want to be evil, but also doesnt want to lose the Joker, it makes for a somewhat sad and interesting characterization.  

Actually I find the Joker to be one of the least interesting bat-villians.  Then again I like bad guys who have actual motivations for what they do beyond 'oooooo...he's crazy.'


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 28, 2012)

SirThinkALot said:


> I have to disagree.  The only one of those villains who isnt potentially interesting is the Riddler, and to be honest thats mostly because writers havent quite understood how to handle him properly.  The Riddler sidquests in Arkham City show how he should be handled.
> 
> Scarcrow makes a great bat villian because he's the one villian who can get 'into his head' and best him psychologically.  The last few issues of Dark Knight have shown this beautifully.
> 
> ...



The Riddler is only interesting when you pair him up with someone else that can actually 'fight' with Batman.

No one wants to go watch a movie where Batman is knocked out with some gas that makes him lose his mind most of the movie.  They want to see action and fighting.  The Scarecrow doesn't give that.

Ivy can't fight Batman either, she is another villain that has to be paired up with someone else, that's why she had Bane in the first version that was played by Uma Thurman.

Mr. Freeze is super corny, he has a gun that freezes stuff and his DNA has been changed by his own experiments that unfortunately killed his wife...eh.

Harley is once again a leeching villain that isn't good enough alone.

When it comes down to it, The Joker was the only villain good enough to be a solo villain.  You have to remember the Joker was a merciless gangster before he became the monster he was.


----------



## moderan (Dec 28, 2012)

That's mostly right...Under the Red Hood is the Joker's origin story, and he was a gang member to pay for baby's arrival. He cracked when his accident happened, making his face the way it was depicted originally.
It looks like a few of the posters are commenting on the Batman as he is in the cartoon series, which isn't the real stuff.
Batman has a few villains who have something...Clayface was a decent foil. Harvey Dent was interesting, Edward Nigma somewhat less. Oswald T. Cobblepot was a lackluster creation-and Mr. Freeze leaves me cold. Ras al Ghul was very good as originally depicted.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 28, 2012)

SirThinkALot said:


> I hated Eragon, the plot was ripped directly from Star Wars, just with dragons thrown in.



Eragon was written by a fifteen-year-old. Seriously (google it). One of the youngest best-selling authors ever.

That's not to say that fifteen-year-olds can't write well, (I believe children are getting better and better at everything at a younger age) but it's an interesting factoid that not everyone knows. :encouragement:


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 28, 2012)

Lewdog said:


> The Riddler is only interesting when you pair him up with someone else that can actually 'fight' with Batman.
> 
> No one wants to go watch a movie where Batman is knocked out with some gas that makes him lose his mind most of the movie.  They want to see action and fighting.  The Scarecrow doesn't give that.
> 
> ...



I dont think a good villian necessarily needs to be able to actually fight Batman(at least physically).  In fact I think the best bat-stories(Long Halloween, Court of the Owls, Hush) are the ones that arent so much about him fighting villains and more about his role as a detective, trying to solve a case and track down the bad guy(Knightfall might be an exception, but honestly I like it less than I like Long Halloween or Hush).   

In fact, I find stories that focus on fighting bad guys, tend to make Batman so ridiculously overpowered that it looks ridiculous even by comic book standards.  This is especially true when he gets involved in team-ups, and is one of a number of reasons I dont care for the Justice League.


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 28, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Eragon was written by a fifteen-year-old. Seriously (google it). One of the youngest best-selling authors ever.
> 
> That's not to say that fifteen-year-olds can't write well, (I believe children are getting better and better at everything at a younger age) but it's an interesting factoid that not everyone knows. :encouragement:



That would explain why he thought Star Wars needed dragons in the mix....


----------



## Cran (Dec 28, 2012)

moderan said:


> I do. I'm a writer-I look at the writing. Storyboarding is essential to both comics and screenwriting-they're quite similar in my experience.
> To me those things are just allusions-the Joker/Batman thing is CENTRAL to the whole story. Much more attention needed to be paid to that, imo.* I wonder how much of it got lost on the cutting-room floor.*
> The awful Joker makeup had a lot to do with my disliking Ledger's performance. I found his "take" to be sloppy. I found Nolan's whole take to be sloppy compared to Denny O'Neill or Frank Miller, either of whom could have been available for the right price, and both of whom have experience writing for the screen.
> Nolan violated another central tenet of the Batman earlier-after the first five issues, Bob Kane changed his policy. _The Batman doesn't kill people_.
> ...



*I wonder how much of it got lost on the cutting-room floor.*
Yes! 

And agree with the rest, except that I give Heath credit that his performance worked in spite of the appalling make-up. 

Yes, the no guns and no kill philosophy was/is/should be paramount to what makes Batman; even the "I won't kill you, but I won't save you." moment was cringe-worthy as out of character, although not as bad as Burton's extended High Noon (at night) scene with Keaton's Batplane pouring out 50mm rounds - what was he shooting at anyway? - and Nicholson's over the top Dirty Harry pistol downing said plane with one shot. 

Would love to see Frank Miller take on a Batman project.


----------



## moderan (Dec 28, 2012)

Cran said:


> *I wonder how much of it got lost on the cutting-room floor.*
> Yes!
> 
> And agree with the rest, except that I give Heath credit that his performance worked in spite of the appalling make-up.
> ...


As would I. It ain't likely but it'd be awesome.I suppose we'll have to disagree on Ledger's performance. It seems to be very much an "eye of the beholder" sort of issue. I always thought James Woods would have been the best Joker but he was never cast when he was young enough to do the thing.
Batman and Captain America are both coming up on their 75th birthdays. Pretty good for "costumed athletes" that refuse to kill anyone and use guns as seldom as possible. The "Cap" movie was better than any of the Bats movies, for me, cuz they didn't mess with the essential character (though one guy did fall out of a plane after Cap pushed him).
There's a rumor that Miller has gotten involved with a group that wants to bring the original superhero, one Clark Savage, Jr., to the screen in the proper fashion. That'd worry me some-first, Savage didn't have the dark motives that are de rigueur in today's market, and the casting would be tough.
I'm seeing all of the posts here by younger posters and wonder if they know how much of the stuff they watch was just ripped off from the pulps.


----------



## alixer (Dec 29, 2012)

People who name their kids the names of places (Egypt), completely demolish what it originally was (Mathyew), or just straight up make it up (la-a (ladasha)).  Why do you do this to your kids?


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 29, 2012)

moderan said:


> That's mostly right...Under the Red Hood is the Joker's origin story, and he was a gang member to pay for baby's arrival. He cracked when his accident happened, making his face the way it was depicted originally.
> It looks like a few of the posters are commenting on the Batman as he is in the cartoon series, which isn't the real stuff.
> Batman has a few villains who have something...Clayface was a decent foil. Harvey Dent was interesting, Edward Nigma somewhat less. Oswald T. Cobblepot was a lackluster creation-and Mr. Freeze leaves me cold. Ras al Ghul was very good as originally depicted.



Eh Ras really depends on the writer and story.  Too often he's depicted as a generic megalomaniac.  I like him when he is depicted like how he was in Batman Begins:  As somebody who shares much of the same ideology and even ulitmate goals as Batman, he just wants to use harsher means of achieving those goals.  I think that offers a dynamic to the bat-mythos that none of his other villains can really give.  

I'm also gonna go on to say that I cannot stand Tallia Al Ghul.  The only good thing about her is her relationship to Damien.  I especially hated how she was shoehorned into the last movie.  Particularly since it was done in typical Hollywood 'lets throw in a plot twist even if its completely unnecessary and makes absolutely no sense' fashion


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2012)

Talia was Ras daughter in the original DC series "The Lazarus Pit". Al Ghul in those early depictions was actually fairly close to what bin Laden was characterized as by the American media, but with the Bond-villain weapons and a way to resurrect himself.
Ras used Talia to try to break down Batman. It almost worked, except that Talia got feelings for old Bats and developed cold feet.
I agree that the similarities between Ras and Bats is what gives their interchanges that flavor. Likewise the Joker. I keep mentioning the Killing Joke because it goes right there and stays right there, and consequently gets deeper than anything else has.
The movies are very disappointing to me. Most of them seem just piled together higgledy-piggledy and don't take as much advantage of the vast Batlore as they should. I'd much rather see something like Arkham Asylum done-it'd survive the assembly-line approach because of it's different tactics.


----------



## Lewdog (Dec 29, 2012)

moderan said:


> As would I. It ain't likely but it'd be awesome.I suppose we'll have to disagree on Ledger's performance. It seems to be very much an "eye of the beholder" sort of issue. I always thought James Woods would have been the best Joker but he was never cast when he was young enough to do the thing.
> Batman and Captain America are both coming up on their 75th birthdays. Pretty good for "costumed athletes" that refuse to kill anyone and use guns as seldom as possible. The "Cap" movie was better than any of the Bats movies, for me, cuz they didn't mess with the essential character (though one guy did fall out of a plane after Cap pushed him).
> There's a rumor that Miller has gotten involved with a group that wants to bring the original superhero, one Clark Savage, Jr., to the screen in the proper fashion. That'd worry me some-first, Savage didn't have the dark motives that are de rigueur in today's market, and the casting would be tough.
> I'm seeing all of the posts here by younger posters and wonder if they know how much of the stuff they watch was just ripped off from the pulps.



There is a Thor 2 coming out, an Iron man 3, a Captain America 2, a S.H.I.E.L.D. movie, and an Avengers 2.  I thought there was supposed to be a Deadpool movie.  There is supposed to be a darker version of the Fantastic Four with all new actors.  There is supposed to be a new X-men movie with new characters including Longshot.  There is supposed to be a Wonderwoman movie too.  That's not counting the Justice League of America that Joss Whedon is supposed to be doing as well.  So Doc Savage?  I used to read his comics back in the day too.  He was kind of like an Indiana Jones.

Comic books are going to be all over the silver screen in the coming years.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2012)

They sell. Even when done badly. Indiana Jones was kind of a Doc Savage, if Doc were an antihero. All superheroes descend from the Savage line. Just ask Philip Jose Farmer.


----------



## SirThinkALot (Dec 29, 2012)

moderan said:


> Talia was Ras daughter in the original DC series "The Lazarus Pit". Al Ghul in those early depictions was actually fairly close to what bin Laden was characterized as by the American media, but with the Bond-villain weapons and a way to resurrect himself.
> Ras used Talia to try to break down Batman. It almost worked, except that Talia got feelings for old Bats and developed cold feet.
> I agree that the similarities between Ras and Bats is what gives their interchanges that flavor. Likewise the Joker. I keep mentioning the Killing Joke because it goes right there and stays right there, and consequently gets deeper than anything else has.
> The movies are very disappointing to me. Most of them seem just piled together higgledy-piggledy and don't take as much advantage of the vast Batlore as they should. I'd much rather see something like Arkham Asylum done-it'd survive the assembly-line approach because of it's different tactics.



I dont think you'll ever get a movie that takes full advantage of the lore.  For one you have time constraints with a movie, which arent as much of an issue with an ongoing comic series.  More importantly, movies(at least the large blockbuster kind) are aimed at a wide audience, which includes people who are not familiar with much of the background.  Thats said I think Burton did a respectable job with both both his films, and Nolan did an excellent job with Batman Begins, and a decent job with TDK/TDKR.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2012)

Probably not, but you can allude to the body of it, get the rest right in a way that's both emotionally satisfying to an audience and hews closely enough to the mythopoeia to please the core fans. Burton had the advantage of Jack Nicholson's scenery-chewing and his Minneapolis-funk pacing didn't do him any disservice. I didn't like the staging much, though I can see where it was thought to be effectively camp. Not my favorite attitude in terms of viewing the material. The campiness was no doubt an homage to the sheer silliness of the jagged sound fx balloons in the sixties tv series...and that's just me, possibly, but I thought it all very arch.
The later movies gave a complete back of the hand to anyone with an ounce of sense and a couple of copies of Detective Comics in their closet. Well, and maybe a Brave and Bold or two.
The thing that Hollywood folks do is inject their own egos into the mythmaking.
The operating principle isn't where can I go with this? It's how can I do this and put my stamp on it. Style-first.
Content later.
Fix the makeup on the Joker, have Bats save the roomful of citizens and his girl (cuz that's what's expected there), have Bale stop mumbling so much. Then, don't kill the Joker just when he's getting to be fun.
And the lore. It really is, you know, just as arcane a stew of superstitions and bits of business as any grimoire, the tangled history of the Batman. Most of it agrees, because that's what people have settled on over the years. They like those parts.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2012)

SirThinkALot said:


> That would explain why he thought Star Wars needed dragons in the mix....


Lucas thought Bonanza needed starships.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Dec 29, 2012)

moderan said:


> They sell. Even when done badly. Indiana Jones was kind of a Doc Savage, if Doc were an antihero. All superheroes descend from the Savage line. Just ask Philip Jose Farmer.



I wanna live in the Wold Newton Universe!


----------



## Kevin (Dec 29, 2012)

moderan said:


> Lucas thought Bonanza needed starships.


 I think he really misses those 'wobbly rockets on a string' of the old movie series _.                                                                             The Original 1936 FLASH GORDON Trailer - YouTube

_


----------



## Cran (Dec 29, 2012)

Comic books into movies = Baby Boomers Rule!

I thought Indy was Allan Quartermaine (H. Rider Haggard, 1885) reborn - James Woods would have made a great Joker.

I'm hanging out to see Doc Smith's _Lensman_ series done properly - purge that woeful cartoon from my mind like Jackson did to that similarly awful attempt at LoTR many moons before.


----------



## moderan (Dec 29, 2012)

Arcopitcairn said:


> I wanna live in the Wold Newton Universe!


Ah, someone got one of my jokes.



Kevin said:


> I think he really misses those 'wobbly rockets on a string' of the old movie series _.                                                                             The Original 1936 FLASH GORDON Trailer - YouTube
> 
> _


Someone else did too.



Cran said:


> Comic books into movies = Baby Boomers Rule!
> 
> I thought Indy was Allan Quartermaine (H. Rider Haggard, 1885) reborn - James Woods would have made a great Joker.
> 
> I'm hanging out to see Doc Smith's _Lensman_ series done properly - purge that woeful cartoon from my mind like Jackson did to that similarly awful attempt at LoTR many moons before.



Maybe he was Quatermass?
Someone else gets it. I'm starting to feel like I make sense.
This needs to stop. It's like all "connected".
The Grey Lensmen on film would be excellent indeed.
This is the most shapeless thread in quite some time.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 1, 2013)

I don't connect with "your wedding day is the happiest day of your life." 

Apart from the fact that it would mean everything afterwards goes downhill, I find the hype about weddings ridiculous.

For me the happiest day of your life could be the day your child is born alive; the day your husband survives the car crash; the day you get the news that your father unexpectedly survived the operation or even (when it happens) the day your book is accepted for publication.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 1, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> I don't connect with "your wedding day is the happiest day of your life."
> 
> Apart from the fact that it would mean everything afterwards goes downhill, I find the hype about weddings ridiculous.
> 
> For me the happiest day of your life could be the day your child is born alive; the day your husband survives the car crash; the day you get the news that your father unexpectedly survived the operation or even (when it happens) the day your book is accepted for publication.



Well said, Dolphin.  I remember going to lunch with my mom once and at the adjacent table this woman was telling her daughter (who was about my age at the time) that she would like high school and that it's "the best years of your life." 

I was in high school at the time and I remember looking at my mother (with horror on my face) and saying loudly and clearly, "I hope these aren't the best years of my life.  That means my life would suck.  I want _every_ year of my life to be the best years of my life."

The woman gave me a nasty look and her daughter, who had been frowning at the dismal future her mother painted for her, beamed at me.

So, at 28, I can say that this last year was the best year of my life and I hope to have better ones ahead.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 1, 2013)

Hi 

Hear hear. It is probably just a remark people make without really thinking it through. There probably is not a single happiest or saddest time of your life. No one moment or day in itself. I have found life to be many many moments of both. My wedding day was certainly a happy day, as indeed it should be, but since then have been so many highs and lows. If there is one moment however that I would pick as the biggest turning point of my life, it has to be when I met my husband for the first time. It was he that gave me a life, a good life after the lonely desperate wilderness I had been living in until then. Long story, but that was how it was.

I don't know if everyone else is feeling similarly, but I always find January 1st to be a strange and pivotal day. It feels like things are going to change, exciting possibilities for the fresh new year. The reality is though that things just carry on as they always have I expect. Change in one's life comes slowly usually, through work and diligence, that is how I have found ways to improve myself. Only through experience and thought can we grow to be better - I don't believe in new year resolutions as such. Few things happen overnight.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 1, 2013)

amsaw- that was very funny. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## moderan (Jan 1, 2013)

I don't connect with holidays.
Really. The older I get, the less sense I see in them. To me, holidays are an excuse to eat better food than usual. That means I have to cook it. So holidays are extra work for me.
Where's the justice in that? I'm old, man, and I'm tired, and I wanna lie in the sun with an umbrella drink.
My next life, I'm not offering to cook, ever. I'll learn how to do small talk instead, and sit around gabbing while someone else prepares me gourmet meals from scratch.
Yeah. I don't connect with small talk either. Never did. I'll just stand there looking vaguely uncomfortable.
Next time someone says, "How's it goin'?" Tell them the truth. Watch them run away.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 1, 2013)

moderan said:


> Next time someone says, "How's it goin'?" Tell them the truth. Watch them run away.



Oh if only we had the guts to tell the truth.


----------



## moderan (Jan 1, 2013)

I do. When I'm told to "have a nice day", I say "Thanks, but I had other plans," and watch the speaker squirm.
Don't cave to the stupid!


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 1, 2013)

Point and click adventure games. I'm from the days of text adventures, so the graphical ones leave me a bit cold. Although, to be honest, text adventures, or interactive fiction as it's called these days, leave me a bit cold as well. Just arbitrary and frustrating but not much fun. More fun to watch a let's play video of someone play using a walkthrough.


----------



## Cran (Jan 1, 2013)

To the question, "How are you?", I've been known to reply: 

"Not a good time to ask that."
"Trust me, you don't want to know."
"Pass."
"Not as good as some days; better than others."
"It's a long story, very sad, and I wouldn't want to spoil your day."
"You want the truth, or an answer that will make you feel good?"

They are the ones I recall.


----------



## moderan (Jan 1, 2013)

Yeah, I don't connect with those, or with video games in general. Shooters are stupid. Sim games bore me quickly, and I don't have the patience to learn all of the rules of the more complex games. Sometimes I play sports games if my friend who likes those comes by.
I used to _make _text games and interactive novels. Making them was more fun than playing.
I like those answers, Cran. Hey, how come I can't "like" your comments?


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2013)

Reality television. Way too many good shows, especially American ones, are cancelled because people are obsessed with rich folk buying things they don't need, or ordinary people airing sob stories to the entire world in the hopes of securing a contract which won't be renewed two years down the line.


----------



## Cran (Jan 1, 2013)

moderan said:


> I like those answers, Cran. Hey, how come I can't "like" your comments?


Good question. I can't like any of my posts, but I figure that's natural. 

Maybe the old Debates forum convinced the system that I'm now unlikeable?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 1, 2013)

And I thought I was cynical. I don’t have a problem with “how's it going?” or “have a good one” etc. They’re just signals that you’re open to communication or that you’ve had a positive interaction. They’re not to be taken literally -- and not much different than hello or goodbye. I guess the alternative is to walk around in silence with a blank expression on your face.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm more likely to say "how are you" in Spanish anyway.  Considering that my mastery of the language is incredibly limited I can't really give any of Cran's answers when I'm asked the same.  I really need to find a Spanish course that I can afford.  I'm afraid I just need it to communicate with a vast majority of my co-workers and customers.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 1, 2013)

My response to 'How are you?' or 'How's it going?' is usually 'Same old.' Mainly because it usually is.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jan 1, 2013)

Saying "hello, how are you" and like questions really isn't a thing you do for information, though. It's just to establish the social connection, show that you're friendly. Like saying please and thank you-- it's performative language.


----------



## Trilby (Jan 1, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> Oh if only we had the guts to tell the truth.



I lost my husband in June '95; to cope with his loss I threw myself into my work and kept myself busy so that I wouldn't have time to think. At that time I worked for a large department store (M&S) at the Christmas time I must have been showing signs of the strain I was under, for a customer said to me 'Cheer up, it might never happen' I wanted to answer that 'it' already had happened, but I didn't answer.


----------



## moderan (Jan 1, 2013)

lasm said:


> Saying "hello, how are you" and like questions really isn't a thing you do for information, though. It's just to establish the social connection, show that you're friendly. Like saying please and thank you-- it's performative language.


Please and thank you are politeness. The rest is subscribing to social refinements, and my subscription ran out when I decided to admit to myself that I'm a misanthrope.
I don't say "How are you?" Unless I'm prepared to listen to the answer. 
Y'see? I'm not _friendly_-I am polite.


----------



## Sam (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm much the same as Mod. I never ask real-life people how they're doing for fear it might burden me with a long and pointless conversation.

PS: That's a polite way of saying I don't care.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 2, 2013)

I don't like online abbreviations.  They're constantly evolving and it takes me forever to figure out what a person means by the abbreviation.  Normally I ignore them and won't reply to online abbreviations.  Or, like on Facebook, if a person uses them too much I'll ignore the person.

I also hate it when those abbreviations make it offline to the real world.  I have a friend that says "brb" when he leaves a room and then smiles as of he's been clever.  Drives me nuts.


----------



## moderan (Jan 2, 2013)

wdym?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 2, 2013)

Blokish blokes who try to talk to me about women as if they are an alien species or object. I have met women who do it about men as well, but it is not as common.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 2, 2013)

Trilby said:


> I lost my husband in June '95; to cope with his loss I threw myself into my work and kept myself busy so that I wouldn't have time to think. At that time I worked for a large department store (M&S) at the Christmas time I must have been showing signs of the strain I was under, for a customer said to me 'Cheer up, it might never happen' I wanted to answer that 'it' already had happened, but I didn't answer.



Honesty may not be the best policy.

I heard a phrase on the radio that struck me as honest.  I didn't think that I would ever use it. 

Anyway I bumped into a friend's wife in the supermarket.  She asked me how my mother was and with out thinking I turned to her and used the phrase, "Still dead."

She was absolutely mortified and it took a long time and several pots of tea to make her start to feel better. I think what mortified her most was the fact that I was so 'unaffected' by my mother's death that I could use that phrase. I still regret being so thoughtless.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 2, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> Blokish blokes who try to talk to me about women as if they are an alien species or object. I have met women who do it about men as well, but it is not as common.



Ollie, this is not as uncommon as you think. I was in the pub last week.  There was a group of about fifteen young woman, all in their early 20s, who spent several hours bitching about men and how their men didn't respect them. They talked about the negative things. They frequently used the words useless, thick, idiot. Not once did I hear any praise of their partners.  Phrase I heard repeatedly was that they are all the same.

This is so sad.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 2, 2013)

lasm said:


> Saying "hello, how are you" and like questions really isn't a thing you do for information, though. It's just to establish the social connection, show that you're friendly. Like saying please and thank you-- it's performative language.



That's basically what I was saying only not as succinctly. I bet if you're out and about you could it ask it hundreds of times and get nothing more, than, "fine," "pretty good," etc. And if you get something more -- maybe they're really troubled and just need a friendly word or a little encouragement. I really don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 2, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> Anyway I bumped into a friend's wife in the supermarket.  She asked me how my mother was and with out thinking I turned to her and used the phrase, "Still dead."



Haha, that's hilarious. I would have definitely laughed if you'd said it to me, but there are some sensitive people out there, you gotta be careful. I'm like that most of the time (thoughtless, I mean, but I do it on purpose). Never gotten me into trouble or offended anyone, they usually pick up on the joke and that it's just my odd way of reciprocating civility . . . or maybe it's because I'm young?

About how some men/women speak about the opposite sex: it is sad. I know a lot of girls who think there'd be no war without men and that because they give birth they're the bringers of life on Earth and this and that; I think it's because a lot of women still think they're a minority, and so behave in such a way as to prove -- overly -- that they're _not,  _and saying, " all men are rubbish" or whatever is like protecting yourself . . . maybe, I'm not that insightful about it. If you do have that world-view about men or women, though, you're certainly not happy or contented inside, are you? It can only come out of a dark and painful place.

It makes me just as sick when guys talk about girls like they're meat, too. I don't see how a solid upbringing could shape your opinions like that, so that might play a substantial part in it.


----------



## moderan (Jan 2, 2013)

JosephB said:


> That's basically what I was saying only not as succinctly. I bet if you're out and about you could it ask it hundreds of times and get nothing more, than, "fine," "pretty good," etc. And if you get something more -- maybe they're really troubled and just need a friendly word or a little encouragement. I really don't have a problem with it.


It's silly. It's an awful misuse of the language. "How are you?" said while keepin' on steppin', as if there wasn't an actual question asked, is just plain dumb. I don't care how many people think that it's a social convention to reply in passing also-the point is that it's silly. It makes for really dumb conversations.
"Hi."
"Hi."
"How are you?"
"Fine, and you?"
"Fine also."
"Nice weather we're having."
"Yes."
"Have a nice day."
You,too."
ACK! Really? You want to spend time doing that? Seriously, this is modern life. If you're not really troubled by about 27 things, you're not paying attention. That doesn't mean you need to drag your collection of soapboxes around in a little red wagon, but really. Conversation should have some minimum informational content, I think.
That isn't even foreplay for social intercourse.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jan 2, 2013)

You know what else is silly? Forks. I mean, I have fingers, right?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 2, 2013)

I can't eat with my hands, it's weird. Chips and stuff, that's fine, but I couldn't tuck into some spaghetti with my bare hands . . . even though that's how it's meant to be eaten.

Clothing and personal hygiene, however, are for wimps.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 2, 2013)

lasm said:


> You know what else is silly? Forks. I mean, I have fingers, right?



I heat up my microwave dinners, so forks are kind of nice to have.


----------



## moderan (Jan 2, 2013)

Also silly are the people who insist on having the kind of pseudoconversations depicted above, while standing in front of the entrance/exit to the store. Being willfully obtuse is silly too, now that I think about it. Eating spaghetti with your fingers is a good time. I taught all of my kids and grandkids to do it and to be unashamed. There are plenty of napkins.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm only willfully obtuse with people I don't like, so they'll never bother me again. 100% record :chuncky:.

People who speak objectively about subjective things annoy me a lot.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 2, 2013)

Flat non-imagery based poetry that wants to work in ideals.  Seriously, there's nothing to ground those poems and there's nothing to make me want to read them.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 2, 2013)

moderan said:


> It's silly. It's an awful misuse of the language. "How are you?" said while keepin' on steppin', as if there wasn't an actual question asked, is just plain dumb. I don't care how many people think that it's a social convention to reply in passing also-the point is that it's silly. It makes for really dumb conversations.
> "Hi."
> "Hi."
> "How are you?"
> ...



I'm sorry, did you just say something?


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 2, 2013)

How about people that leave their shopping cart in the middle of the aisle then walk off to get something?  You don't want to touch their cart making them freak out, but at the same time you get tired of standing there and them ignoring your presence.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Jan 2, 2013)

Never could connect with body modification. Tattoos or piercings. Don't get it at all.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 2, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Never could connect with body modification. Tattoos or piercings. Don't get it at all.



I had my tongue pierced at one time, I don't think it really made that much of a difference in me as a person, or any other part of my life.


----------



## moderan (Jan 2, 2013)

Arcopitcairn said:


> Never could connect with body modification. Tattoos or piercings. Don't get it at all.


Likewise.


JosephB said:


> I'm sorry, did you just say something?


How are you?


----------



## Capulet (Jan 3, 2013)

I've never connected with office politics. Some people love to get all emotionally tangled up and busybody at the office! I just don't get it. Why pee in the pool you hope to swim in for a long time? I think some have determined it's their best path to advancement, but you create your own ceiling when you do that. The people you stepped on eventually outnumber those you've allied with and you could eventually find yourself the captain of a very mutinous crew.


They changed my senior manager a couple weeks ago, and in my first meeting with her I let her know I only play office politics sufficiently to keep myself out of it. Whether you want in "the game" or not you're in it. Better to play just enough to not be a victim and manage your own professional brand. (read: reputation)


Oh, as a subset of above sleeping with coworkers has always been a mystery to me too. I've dipped my pen in the company ink a couple times with women from other departments and it's never gone well post-hook up. I can only imagine how crazy it gets with direct colleagues you can throw staplers at on a moment's notice.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

Capulet said:


> Oh, as a subset of above sleeping with coworkers has always been a mystery to me too. I've dipped my pen in the company ink a couple times with women from other departments and it's never gone well post-hook up. I can only imagine how crazy it gets with direct colleagues you can throw staplers at on a moment's notice.



Very funny, Cap.

I don't get needing the biggest most expensive new technology.  I have what I have and it works--why replace it?  I don't need the biggest TV.  Then again, I don't even allow a TV in the bedroom.  Call me a bore but the bedroom is for sleeping not watching TV.


----------



## Sam (Jan 3, 2013)

I don't connect with the fascination of revealing your every move and thought on Facebook and Twitter. 

_On the toilet. LOL. _

Really? You were sitting on the toilet when you were suddenly overwhelmed by a paroxysm of laughter? Perhaps you were looking in the mirror and saw your own private parts, thought they were someone else's, and had a chuckle to yourself before realising your own stupidity.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 3, 2013)

I don't connect with sports cars, especially Porches or Corvettes. Usually by the time you can afford one, you're too old to drive it and not look like a doofus.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 3, 2013)

Vaguely defined "spiritual" crap in fiction. Movies like Star Trek: the Motion Picture and Prometheus had this. It used some poorly defined... I don't even know what to call it. Spirituality seems to be the closest term but I'm unconvinced it's accurate... thing to give the movie artificial emotional weight. I really don't like it and I especially hate it when people say these movies are deep because it means the person I'm talking to is an idiot who is easily fooled.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

That reminds me of when Terminator 4 came out.  My ex and I had been planning to see it (mainly because I'm a huge fan of the Terminator series).  I know it's got plot holes you can drive a truck through.  I know it's corny and silly.  I still like them and I was excited about seeing it.

Well, the day we were going to go he turned to me and said, "I don't think I want to see it.  I heard the plot is pretty bad and that it's pretty stupid."

I said, "you don't go see a Terminator movie for the plot.  You go to watch robots hunting down people."

Point is, I don't go see Alien (which is what Prometheus really was) movies to see a moral story or speculation on god. I go to see scary aliens attack humans.


----------



## moderan (Jan 3, 2013)

Then you're playing into the degradation of the industry. There's no reason whatsoever why those films can't have real character development, streamlined plots, etc., other than sheer laziness.
It isn't OK to dumb down.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I go to see scary aliens attack humans.



You can see that at Wallmart on any given day.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I said, "you don't go see a Terminator movie for the plot.  You go to watch robots hunting down people.



Really? Then I must've been doing it wrong, then.

Prometheus was a special case, which I won't go into here as it's a tad off-topic. I guess if anyone wants to hear my screed against an old movie I can go post it in the movie thread. Suffice to say that the aliens killing people had been played out after six movies and Prometheus promised taking things in a new direction. Only problem, it didn't. It's too bad because if it had worked, it would have probably been my favorite movie in the franchise, above Alien and Aliens combined. But as it turns out, it was probably the worst movie in the franchise. The Alien vs Predator movies may have been dumb, but they really didn't have any aspirations beyond being dumb. Prometheus has no such excuse.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

There is plot and character development--what I'm saying is that there are movies and books and music that doesn't have or need to be classic or revolutionary or to have a great spiritual subtext.  They work because they have an expectation that is already built into them.  

The original Terminator movie is a sci-fi classic because it played with preconceived notions of love stories, time travel, horror, and fate.  We watch Sarah Connor move from a ditzy 80s era early 20-something to a woman who is determined and rather fierce.  She loves passionately and she has a cause.  Did the follow up movies expand upon that?  Yes and no.

The Alien movies played with the notion of aliens.  They represent the visceral and sexual horror of rape.  They are a physical manifestation of dread and the loneliness of space.

Did the sequels--especially the third movies of each franchise--live up to the orignals?  No.  Sequels rarely do.  But contribute to the dumbing down of movies?  Hardly.  I go to see them for the things I mentioned.  I come away from them with other questions.

Terminator 4 further questions fate and adds the question "what does it mean to be human?"

Prometheus asks us to question our search for youth, spirituality, etc.

So, no.  I don't think I'm contributing to the dumbing down of anything.  It's ok to want to see a movie for the special effects.  It's ok to just want to relax and watch a story.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 3, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> Suffice to say that the aliens killing people had been played out after six movies and Prometheus promised taking things in a new direction. Only problem, it didn't. It's too bad because if it had worked, it would have probably been my favorite movie in the franchise, above Alien and Aliens combined. But as it turns out, it was probably the worst movie in the franchise. The Alien vs Predator movies may have been dumb, but they really didn't have any aspirations beyond being dumb. Prometheus has no such excuse.



Ridley Scott makes me sooo mad. I just don't connect with him either (to keep it in thread.) He makes a _beautiful_ movie in Bladerunner, then spends the next decades stripping away the magic and mystery, particularly spelling out Deckard's true nature. He has no sense of sci-fi mystery. He's like a magician that just can't wait to explain the trick to the audience.

I agree Prometheus didn't live up to its hype. It wasn't a bug hunt movie, it wasn't meant to be gore porn, it was meant to answer questions for fans and, if Scott lived up to other true SciFi greats, he'd replace the questions he answered with even more intriguing and frustrating questions!

The first Terminator and Alien movies were as much social commentary as they were action movies; they're a reflection of a different time in movie making when fans expected both. As the years went on the sequels succumbed to the trends of their day and stripped away plot and character to make room for CGI and spectacular visuals. It was a compromise that didn't have to be made and I just don't understand why flagship franchises and directors would cave to studios on it.

My fear coming out of Prometheus is that Scott has proven he can't connect with a deeper SciFi base anymore, and if he follows through with the idea of a Bladerunner sequel it will poison the well on a beautiful piece of SciFi history. This is further deepened by all the talk of joining the Bladerunner and Alien universes together; why???????????????


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 3, 2013)

It all comes down to the screenwriters.

I haven't checked, but I bet I would find that with those less impressive sequels, the original screenwriters were not involved. The quality of a movie comes first from the quality of the writing.


----------



## moderan (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> There is plot and character development--what I'm saying is that there are movies and books and music that doesn't have or need to be classic or revolutionary or to have a great spiritual subtext.  They work because they have an expectation that is already built into them.
> 
> The original Terminator movie is a sci-fi classic because it played with preconceived notions of love stories, time travel, horror, and fate.  We watch Sarah Connor move from a ditzy 80s era early 20-something to a woman who is determined and rather fierce.  She loves passionately and she has a cause.  Did the follow up movies expand upon that?  Yes and no.
> 
> ...



Sure it's ok. But your explanations come from the shallow end of the pool. And don't tell me that wanting a passive entertainment isn't trying to dumb down. If it weren't, it would be an _interactive_ entertainment.
The original Terminator movie is classic because it spawned a new archetype from the ashes of others. It played with tropes that have been long-known is sf circles and brought them to a new audience. Sarah Connor's character develops in almost exactly the same manner as the earlier Ellen Ripley.
The Alien movies...especially the first one, brought the concept of "alien" aliens home, and kept them there.
The effect of making things palatable to the mass audience _dumbs them down_. It's pandering. Those films may bring up those questions but they don't answer them very well.
Freaking Demolition Man, as stupid as it was, was a far better extrapolation in futurist terms of a possible future than any of those movies you mention. So was Idiocracy.
If you want to speculate about what it is to be human, read Phil Dick or Phil Farmer. Tv and movie sf is dumbed-down versions of tried and true tropes. That's such a truism that an entire very voluminous website was predicated on that principle (it's no accident that the bulk of tvtropes concerns this set of parameters).
If you don't understand that watching a movie just for the special fx is an uncerebral enterprise, then we shouldn't be having this conversation. It's like reading Metal Hurlant instead of Heavy Metal because all of those words and concepts get in the way.
To say that something works because there is built-in expectation is a bit wonky. But it certainly fits the definition of mass-audience pandering that I set forth already.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 3, 2013)

moderan said:


> If you don't understand that watching a movie just for the special fx is an uncerebral enterprise, then we shouldn't be having this conversation. It's like reading Metal Hurlant instead of Heavy Metal because all of those words and concepts get in the way.



The words in Heavy Metal only bothered me when they covered the boobies.


----------



## Sam (Jan 3, 2013)

I don't connect with vampire novels, especially ones in which characters sparkle. 

Sorry, had to be said.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 3, 2013)

Capulet said:


> I agree Prometheus didn't live up to its hype. It wasn't a bug hunt movie, it wasn't meant to be gore porn, it was meant to answer questions for fans



This is another thing I'll never understand. Who actually wanted to know what the space jockey was? Who wanted to see the first meeting between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker? Who wanted to see Kirk taking the Kobashi Maru test? Who are these idiots and please tell me they do not vote?

There's something at work here that I genuinely don't like but can't quite put my finger on.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

So when is the movie going to come out showing what Lara Croft looked like when she was 18?


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

moderan said:


> Sure it's ok. But your explanations come from the shallow end of the pool. And don't tell me that wanting a passive entertainment isn't trying to dumb down. If it weren't, it would be an _interactive_ entertainment.
> The original Terminator movie is classic because it spawned a new archetype from the ashes of others. It played with tropes that have been long-known is sf circles and brought them to a new audience. Sarah Connor's character develops in almost exactly the same manner as the earlier Ellen Ripley.
> The Alien movies...especially the first one, brought the concept of "alien" aliens home, and kept them there.
> The effect of making things palatable to the mass audience _dumbs them down_. It's pandering. Those films may bring up those questions but they don't answer them very well.
> ...



If you're looking for interactive entertainment then movies are not the medium you're looking for--they are passive and they are always passive.  There is a reason you go to a movie and it isn't to be _involved_.  And yes, things work because there are built in preconceptions.  Everyone has them.  We have them for a reason.  Writers and movie-makers play with those preconceptions because it is a shorthand.  I could write a story about a modern Jonah and the Whale but what good would it do to an audience that has never read the original bible version?  

Movies are rarely the medium for answering questions well.  Why?  Because they are restrained.  Movies have to make money and deliver their concepts in a package that is entertaining. Perhaps instead of trying to give us answers the _point_ of the medium is to raise questions.  Working in a time restraint and through a visual medium that needs to make money _does_ mean that the masses will be pandered to, that is a given.  If I leave a movie with new questions to think about then that's great--and I almost always leave with new questions--if I don't then that's too bad.  So, fine, call me shallow. :roll:

There is a reason why trailers show all the best action sequences--that's what people want to see.  If the viewer goes into the theater expecting to see those scenes that's what the viewer is there for.  If they walk away with questions that makes them _think_ then how is that contributing to a degredation of the genre?  Maybe (and because there's a Barnes & Noble next to the local AMC I've seen this happen) those questions will help the viewer move on to pick up those books.  I would never have read Jurassic Park if it weren't for the movie--but I watched the movie to see dinosaurs eat people. 

So yes, as a medium movies cannot compare with books--the discourse cannot be as in-depth and still make money. And while, as a writer I write because I enjoy it and want to think and explore topics that does not mean that I will ever make money at it.  Screen-writers write to make money, movies are made to make money.  So fine, they use tropes.  They pander.  But you can't say that they don't raise questions and raising questions is an important part of the human intellect--why do movies have to answer those questions?  If a movie can make a person ponder the questions that movie raises then how is that degrading or _dumbing down?_  Movies _have_ to draw an audience or no one ever sees it.

Anyone else ever watch Pandorum?  It raises some pretty interesting questions about morality, insanity, power, and the role of society when that society has been destroyed all wrapped in a shiny sci-fi/horror/action movie package.  But Pandorum didn't last a week at the theater.  It was beaten out by Paranormal Activity.  Pandorum didn't pander to the masses like Paranormal Activity.  And who has seen it that didn't actively search it out?

Anyone ever read Titus Andronicus because even Shakespeare wrote about cannabalism and revenge and that was him pandering to the masses.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 3, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> This is another thing I'll never understand. Who actually wanted to know what the space jockey was? Who wanted to see the first meeting between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker? Who wanted to see Kirk taking the Kobashi Maru test? Who are these idiots and please tell me they do not vote?
> 
> There's something at work here that I genuinely don't like but can't quite put my finger on.



The Hollywood producers who want to make money by leeching off a proven-success.

In a few of the screenwriting books I've read, this is discussed at length: how Hollywood will always be more willing to fund a known franchise rather than risk a new venture.

This is why you'll always see more Spiderman and Batman movies, because they've been proven to succeed in the Box Office.

It's the, "This movie did well. How can we make more money off it?" Sequels, or prequels, or reboots.

It's all about the money, and knowing that audiences respond to familiarity. It's also why best-selling books are made into movies, because the booksales show that there's an audience for it.

"It's all about the benjamins, baby~"


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

That's just it, how can you judge a movie's success by how much money it makes, when so many people only see it because of other movies in the past?  They aren't actually seeing the movie because of THAT movie.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

Yeah, but that trickles down into movie rentals.  I worked at a local video store for three years and it was always interesting on Tuesdays to see what movies ended up being big renters and which didn't.  It almost never was the ones that were huge block-busters but rather the smaller ones that were just interesting enough but not big enough to gather the original audience.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 3, 2013)

I watch a lot of independent and foreign films. Not because  I'm a snob, but because I get tired of all the Hollywood formula stuff. But yeah, I see most of them long after they were initially released. I find out about them by word of mouth and my wife does a lot of poking around online, looking for things we might like.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> Yeah, but that trickles down into movie rentals.  I worked at a local video store for three years and it was always interesting on Tuesdays to see what movies ended up being big renters and which didn't.  It almost never was the ones that were huge block-busters but rather the smaller ones that were just interesting enough but not big enough to gather the original audience.



That's because some movies are good enough to pay $3.99 for the whole family to watch at home, and not $50 for the whole family to see with a couple of buckets of popcorn and pops.


----------



## moderan (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> If you're looking for interactive entertainment then movies are not the medium you're looking for--they are passive and they are always passive.  There is a reason you go to a movie and it isn't to be _involved_.  And yes, things work because there are built in preconceptions.  Everyone has them.  We have them for a reason.  Writers and movie-makers play with those preconceptions because it is a shorthand.  I could write a story about a modern Jonah and the Whale but what good would it do to an audience that has never read the original bible version?
> 
> Movies are rarely the medium for answering questions well.  Why?  Because they are restrained.  Movies have to make money and deliver their concepts in a package that is entertaining. Perhaps instead of trying to give us answers the _point_ of the medium is to raise questions.  Working in a time restraint and through a visual medium that needs to make money _does_ mean that the masses will be pandered to, that is a given.  If I leave a movie with new questions to think about then that's great--and I almost always leave with new questions--if I don't then that's too bad.  So, fine, call me shallow. :roll:
> 
> ...



Way to be purposely obtuse.
The defining bit is about the money...and as long as it is about bigger and bigger money, as it has been since George Lucas changed the paradigm back in 1977, then the questions it raises, at least in my head, are more about why I'm wasting my time on such twaddle than about what the moviemaker wants to ask.
Next question.
Yeah, I watched Pandorum. I liked it.
Shorthand tropes? They're there to be turned upside down, twisted up, recognized and jeered at.
And you could easily write (or at least I could) a story about Jonah and the Whale that would work without referring to the biblical version. You don't need Jonah or a whale to relate the Aesop-level lesson in that tale.
_TV and movies dumb down the audience_. There's no two ways about it. You explained why in your screed above.
If a film raises the question "what is it to be human?" in a reasonably intelligent manner (Let's posit Blade Runner here)...but the audience is ill-equipped to respond to that question appropriately, then which has failed?
And in my house, tv and movies are interactive. I listen to them, watch them, and yell back. Sometimes I make gestures. It is so in most theaters also.


----------



## moderan (Jan 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's because some movies are good enough to pay $3.99 for the whole family to watch at home, and not $50 for the whole family to see with a couple of buckets of popcorn and pops.


There hasn't been one that good since Chinatown.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

This thread has pointed out to me exactly what a bunch of cantakerous fools we all are.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

moderan said:


> There hasn't been one that good since Chinatown.



The new "Avengers" movie was, but it still left me wanting.  The last movie I saw in a movie theater prior to that?  "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King."  It takes an absolutely superb, no miss movie for me to pay the big bucks to see it at the theater.  I don't like not being able to pause the movie if compelled to go to the restroom.  I also don't like the high cost of refreshments and not being able to eat a regular dinner with my movie.  The comfort to watch the movie on my couch with a blanket, cat, and wearing comfortable clothes.  Then lastly, my ability to not have to put up with crying kids, talking rude movie goers, and having to change seats everytime someone sits down directly in front of me, invading my personal 'bubble.'


----------



## JosephB (Jan 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's because some movies are good enough to pay $3.99 for the whole family to watch at home, and not $50 for the whole family to see with a couple of buckets of popcorn and pops.



I refuse to buy food or drinks at movie theaters. Gives me a chance to channel my old man -- "Get something to eat and drink before we leave, because I'm not spending a dime on that crap at the theater." Or the ever-popular, "There's a water fountain right over there."


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I refuse to buy food or drinks at movie theaters. Gives me a chance to channel my old man -- "Get something to eat and drink before we leave, because I'm not spending a dime on that crap at the theater." Or the ever-popular, "There's a water fountain right over there."



I prefer not to eat before a movie.  It tends to make me 'need' to go to the bathroom during it.  If I decide not to eat at the movie theater, I like going to eat afterwards, where we can discuss the movie.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

Well, Mod, since I'm younger than the Star Wars franchise then I suppose I must be one of the people dumbed down by mainstream movies considering that's what I was raised going to the theater to see.  Sorry, but if that's the case then I can't help but be "purposely obtuse."

If I'm seeing a movie for shallow reasons that's because movies are marketed by their very shallowness.  I'd rather see a movie that is entertaining that I can walk away thinking about and have had an enjoyable time.  I don't want every movie to be Pandorum.  I don't want to have to sit through a movie because it's another one of those critically acclaimed and absolutely boring movies.  Movies are meant to be entertaining.

And yes, tropes are a shorthand.  If they are played with and turned upside down enough in the same sorts of ways then those become tropes, right?  Everyone knows about Chekhov's gun.  It's now a trope.  It's still used to teach writing to students.  Should we just go ahead and ignore the gun?  Should we fire it off just after scene 4?  There's only so much you can do in a limited medium, Mod.  I can break the form for any poetry I'm trying to write but once I do that it's no longer the form I was trying to write.  The same goes for tropes and for movies, especially sequels.

I get what you are saying.  Going to the movies for the special effects and the shiny stuff is shallow.  But degenerating?  I don't think it has to be.  I think that it's possible to view a movie and to come up with questions and to think about those questions--I can't help but think (going back to Terminator 4) what it means to be a person doesn't have anything to do with any organs in the human body--my answer is different than the answer given by the movie.  That's _thinking.  _In so far as movies raise dialogue the viewer must be able to see the questions for themselves.  If the viewer can't see those questions or try to answer them that's when a movie is degenerative.  

I disagree with you fundamentally because I have always walked away from movies with questions as to how they could have been better, how the movie could have changed this or tweaked that.  I have always walked away from movies thinking about how a character should have acted or shouldn't have acted.  So, I posit that the only true answer I have for you is that to _you_ movies are degenerative.  If it makes a viewer think and have a dialogue--even to themselves--then that movie didn't degenerate that viewer.  That viewer took something away from it.

As for TV?  I don't normally watch TV.

I'm the first to admit that I'm a movie fiend.  I like watching movies.  I like thinking about movies.  I liked working with movies.


----------



## moderan (Jan 3, 2013)

Sure. Ever been to tvtropes?
You have to master the form first, before you break it...at least that's how I was always taught.
Hollywood folks don't master the form. They don't break the mold either. They decorate and sell the mold and forget about the content. Yes, they market the shallow to the shallow. You have a brain in your head. That makes you different. Most folks don't think that way.
Y'know who makes good, multi-leveled movies. Pixar. Seriously. They entertain me greatly.
But the dumbing-down of (especially) the American public is a trope too. It's been taking place since the powers-that-be in tinseltown embraced the glass teat and applied Barnum's famous maxim.
Now, I grant you, I'm a curmudgeonly old fella. But I'd rather read a book than watch a movie or tv show. It isn't just the shiny stuff and so on...it's recycling of what is essentially waste, feeding it to new groups as if it was new. It's the whole damn culture.
There was a time when people read, when we had a common language, when words would have more or less the same emotional weight to different people, and carry the same intrinsic definitions.
The symbology is perverted. It isn't just movies-they're just the tip of that iceberg. Modern culture is degenerative. Are you going to argue now against the essential decadence of our navel-gazing, overfed masses?


----------



## Ariel (Jan 3, 2013)

Nope.  I'm not going to argue.

(And I love that site.  I don't always have the ability or time to read through it).

I don't connect with not learning something from what you do.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 3, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> If you're looking for interactive entertainment then movies are not the medium you're looking for--they are passive and they are always passive.



Are they? Been to a Rocky Horror Picture Show screening? Hardly passive. I also refer you to your future self's comment:



amsawtell said:


> So, I posit that the only true answer I have for you is that to _you_ movies are degenerative. If it makes a viewer think and have a dialogue--even to themselves--then that movie didn't degenerate that viewer.



That doesn't sound very passive; it doesn't jibe with your next comment either:



amsawtell said:


> There is a reason you go to a movie and it isn't to be _involved_.  And yes, things work because there are built in preconceptions.  Everyone has them.  We have them for a reason.  Writers and movie-makers play with those preconceptions because it is a shorthand.  I could write a story about a modern Jonah and the Whale but what good would it do to an audience that has never read the original bible version?



What good would it do someone to read the Bible version if they haven't read your story? Order isn't important, and if your story was good it would stand on its own merits, as does Jonah and the whale.




amsawtell said:


> Movies are rarely the medium for answering questions well.  Why?  Because they are restrained.  Movies have to make money and deliver their concepts in a package that is entertaining. Perhaps instead of trying to give us answers the _point_ of the medium is to raise questions.  Working in a time restraint and through a visual medium that needs to make money _does_ mean that the masses will be pandered to, that is a given.  If I leave a movie with new questions to think about then that's great--and I almost always leave with new questions--if I don't then that's too bad.  So, fine, call me shallow.



I have to disagree with you here, but I won't _debate_ your point.  Let me say I've enjoyed having questions posed and answered by a number of movies, including the original Sparticus, the Power of One, Glory, Alien, Bladerunner, A Handmaiden's Tale, Castaway, Platoon, Cocoon, The Unforgiven and any number of other movies across a wide array of genres. Importantly, not all of them come as novel-ports either.



amsawtell said:


> So yes, as a medium movies cannot compare with books--the discourse cannot be as in-depth and still make money.


 All depends what your goal is. Answer me this: if you took two people, one who read the Alien book by Alan Dean Foster, and someone that saw the movie, who do you think would most accurately sketch what the alien looked like? What the ship looked like? What Ripley looked like?

Movies are far more effective at directing specific visualizations than a novel. Movies also hit multiple senses while books hit none, arguing the act of reading isn't actually engaging a sense.



amsawtell said:


> And while, as a writer I write because I enjoy it and want to think and explore topics that does not mean that I will ever make money at it.  Screen-writers write to make money, movies are made to make money.


Pure speculation.



amsawtell said:


> Anyone else ever watch Pandorum?  It raises some pretty interesting questions about morality, insanity, power, and the role of society when that society has been destroyed all wrapped in a shiny sci-fi/horror/action movie package.  But Pandorum didn't last a week at the theater.  It was beaten out by Paranormal Activity.  Pandorum didn't pander to the masses like Paranormal Activity.  And who has seen it that didn't actively search it out?


It wasn't really that good, nor did it ask any new questions, or old ones in a very interesting way for that matter. I do like Dennis Quaid though.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 3, 2013)

What question did 'Cocoon' answer for you?  What old people look like in bathing suits?


----------



## Capulet (Jan 3, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> What question did 'Cocoon' answer for you?  What old people look like in bathing suits?



Apart from that awesomeness, it's also a commentary on growing old and dealing with loss.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 4, 2013)

moderan said:


> There hasn't been one that good since Chinatown.



You would take your family to see Chinatown?

"She's my sister!" *slap*
"She's my daughter!" *slap*


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 4, 2013)

Capulet said:


> Apart from that awesomeness, it's also a commentary on growing old and dealing with loss.



Wilfred Brimley would help give out a lot more diabetic stuff if he did the commercial in his bathing suit huh?

You are a sick, sick, poster.  You need serious help.


----------



## Nee (Jan 4, 2013)

moderan said:


> For me...it's Doctor Who and steampunk.



I'm with you on that.

But I'd like to add...and my psycho brother.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 4, 2013)

I love steampunk, personally, but I've never quite fallen in love with Doctor Who. I love the Doctor, I love the tardis, I love some of the villains, and I love the level of exploration that goes on -- it's a colossal uni(multi?)verse -- but it just never clicks loudly enough with me, and I get bored before long. I don't care enough about what's happening to the characters because I assume everything will go in the Doctor's favour. 

I've only watched nine or ten episodes, to be fair. I'll have to watch a series from start to finish to be sure how I feel about it.


----------



## moderan (Jan 4, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> You would take your family to see Chinatown?
> 
> "She's my sister!" *slap*
> "She's my daughter!" *slap*


Went with my family to see it. All of us had read "The Little Sister" and didn't bat an eye.



Nee said:


> I'm with you on that.
> 
> But I'd like to add...and my psycho brother.


Were just comments to get the ball rolling.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 4, 2013)

Hello Moderan

I totally utterly agree about holidays! It has been years since we went away. I see no sense in the upheaval, cost and the expenditure of energy to go somewhere to relax when we can enjoy being relaxed at home. My husband is a great cook so we have lovely food every day, we have good restaurants nearby so can treat ourselves whenever. I hate flying, airports, hassles, crowds, traffic and the uncertainty of all that goes with the holidaying experience. We used to go away in the past and I did enjoy aspects of it but no longer. 

As for small talk I quite enjoy it. All you have to do is ask questions, be interested in the other person. People love to talk about themselves almost without fail. I love listening to them and am often amazed at the details of the lives of others. I love meeting quirky characters and enjoy letting them relax and talk to me. I am often startled at how much my initial impression of a person is utterly changed when they tell me about the joys and tragedies of their life. All this is especially good over nice wine, human connections are so important to me. To be a kind listener is something I hope I can get better at, I try not to interrupt and to be really interested. Listening is truly an art, a tricky thing, the temptation is always to talk of oneself. So don't be afraid of small talk, if you do it right, you can end up with a lovely deep conversation and you can learn so much about human nature. You come away feeling good and the other person hopefully feels good too.


----------



## the antithesis (Jan 4, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I love teamspunk, personally, but I've never quite fallen in love with Doctor Who. I love the Doctor, I love the tardis, I love some of the villains, and I love the level of exploration that goes on -- it's a colossal uni(multi?)verse -- but it just never clicks loudly enough with me, and I get bored before long. I don't care enough about what's happening to the characters because I assume everything will go in the Doctor's favour.
> 
> I've only watched nine or ten episodes, to be fair. I'll have to watch a series from start to finish to be sure how I feel about it.



The thing about Doctor Who is you really have to be specific about which version you're referring to because the dang thing has be running for so long that to make a blanket statement like 'I don't like Doctor Who' is kind of like saying 'I don't like stuff.'

Chances are, you are referring to the revived series that is currently running. In that case, I can't blame you. I like the show, but I can admit it's gone pretty frickin dumb. Mostly in making every series, what we Yanks call a "season," build up to the destruction of the entire universe. If you keep shouting, the audience goes deaf. 

If you haven't, I'd suggest you try one of the classic episodes. Or at least I would except those old shows with the kitchy special effects don't always play well for modern audiences.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 4, 2013)

the antithesis said:


> The thing about Doctor Who is you really have to be specific about which version you're referring to because the dang thing has be running for so long that to make a blanket statement like 'I don't like Doctor Who' is kind of like saying 'I don't like stuff.'
> 
> Chances are, you are referring to the revived series that is currently running. In that case, I can't blame you. I like the show, but I can admit it's gone pretty frickin dumb. Mostly in making every series, what we Yanks call a "season," build up to the destruction of the entire universe. If you keep shouting, the audience goes deaf.
> 
> If you haven't, I'd suggest you try one of the classic episodes. Or at least I would except those old shows with the kitchy special effects don't always play well for modern audiences.



I can't watch that show it looks so cheap.  It reminds me of the movies the robots used to watch on Mystery Science Theater 3000.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 4, 2013)

I don't think they're showing classic Doctor Who anywhere on TV right now, and I don't want to buy it. Might check YouTube.

I never said I didn't like Doctor Who, though, I mentioned specific things within the episodes I'd seen which stopped me from fawning for more is all. I've seen a couple of the Tom Baker ones, but the Eccleston/Tennant/Smith trilogy is what I'm referring to when I speak about Doctor Who, you're right.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 4, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I don't think they're showing classic Doctor Who anywhere on TV right now, and I don't want to buy it. Might check YouTube.
> 
> I never said I didn't like Doctor Who, though, I mentioned specific things within the episodes I'd seen which stopped me from fawning for more is all. I've seen a couple of the Tom Baker ones, but the Eccleston/Tennant/Smith trilogy is what I'm referring to when I speak about Doctor Who, you're right.



I thought 'Dr. Who' came on PBS or some channel like that?

I watched the "Lone Ranger" trailer and I can not connect with Johnny Depp playing Tonto and having facial hair.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 5, 2013)

Having seen all versions of Doctor Who I find that my enjoyment is in direct proportion the quality of the actor.  Tom Baker was perfect, Eccleston acceptable but Smith is a disaster - far to juvenile.

I really liked the original Hawaii 5 - 0. I have tried to watch the new one but I just can't.  

1) the colours are ridiculous 
2) the idea of a naval intelligence officer who failed in his mission to transport a prisoner being given the job of leading 5 - 0 is laughable. 
3) the few stories I have seen are over the top.

Law and Order has been going for over 20 years. I think this is because the writing is excellent, the stories are believable andthe characters well rounded. (Plus there are no ridiculous car chases, Bond style villains, or scantily dressed women dropped into the plot as eye candy.)


----------



## moderan (Jan 5, 2013)

-not related to the above-
I don't connect with self-styled "experts" who only think they know what they're talking about. They're all over the various media and infest daily life.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 5, 2013)

Damn, I only have PBS America on my digital (UK), not sure if that's the same channel shown natively in the US or just a collection of PBS programs chosen specifically for the UK. No Doctor Who there, anyway.

I might just get the first two Baker series on DVD, give it a proper chance. Should be going cheap somewhere. 

Don't connect with: fashion rules. I think things being 'in' and 'out' is odd; where what you like, who gives a frig if it's 'out of season'? Be yourself. 

I don't connect with serial killers either; not for moral reasons or anything, we just have nothing in common.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 5, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Damn, I only have PBS America on my digital (UK), not sure if that's the same channel shown natively in the US or just a collection of PBS programs chosen specifically for the UK. No Doctor Who there, anyway.
> 
> I might just get the first two Baker series on DVD, give it a proper chance. Should be going cheap somewhere.
> 
> ...




Season 7 | Episode Guide | Doctor Who | BBC America


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Lilly Davidson said:


> Hello Moderan
> 
> I totally utterly agree about holidays! It has been years since we went  away. I see no sense in the upheaval, cost and the expenditure of energy  to go somewhere to relax when we can enjoy being relaxed at home. My  husband is a great cook so we have lovely food every day, we have good  restaurants nearby so can treat ourselves whenever. I hate flying,  airports, hassles, crowds, traffic and the uncertainty of all that goes  with the holidaying experience. We used to go away in the past and I did  enjoy aspects of it but no longer.



That's not really what I was on about...holidays in the sense of being just slow business days for the well-to-do while the workaday people are still at it. I disagree with rampant comsumer capitalism to the extent that it makes me ill to regard it.



Lilly Davidson said:


> As for small talk I quite enjoy it. All you have to do is ask questions,  be interested in the other person. People love to talk about themselves  almost without fail. I love listening to them and am often amazed at  the details of the lives of others. I love meeting quirky characters and  enjoy letting them relax and talk to me. I am often startled at how  much my initial impression of a person is utterly changed when they tell  me about the joys and tragedies of their life. All this is especially  good over nice wine, human connections are so important to me. To be a  kind listener is something I hope I can get better at, I try not to  interrupt and to be really interested. Listening is truly an art, a  tricky thing, the temptation is always to talk of oneself. So don't be  afraid of small talk, if you do it right, you can end up with a lovely  deep conversation and you can learn so much about human nature. You come  away feeling good and the other person hopefully feels good  too.



I'm a good listener but I don't want to hear about the weather. Passing time with inconsequentialities is not my idea of a good time. It isn't fear, it's impatience, a very deep cynicism, and a disregard for convention.



Bruno Spatola said:


> I don't connect with serial killers either; not for moral reasons or anything, we just have nothing in common.



I'm sorry to say that I do. A good part of what I write is apocalyptic because of that empathy. People vex me. We're so intelligent individually and collectively we're less than the sum of our parts. I despair for our future.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 6, 2013)

What you (Mod) just said about serial killers is off as far as their motives (as explored by FBI profilers and psychologists--of which I am neither) but what you said about people holds true. 

 I have cousins and friends who are constantly saying things like, "why do you read that?" Or "poetry is worthless." I simply have to tell them that reading in any form is a wonderful thing and that poetry holds something special if you read the right kind for you.

Right now I'm trying to get the Miss interested in reading.  She says her mommy doesn't read to her so I am.  Currently, even though she's three, I'm reading "The Tale of Desperaux" to her.  She loves the movie and she actively asks for me to read it to her.

I did not intend to post about the virtues of reading (I think that I'd be preaching to the choir here) but to say that people en masse rather befuddle me.


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

I don't often connect with what profilers and psychologists are paid to say. That stuff often rings false to my ears. It's only the veneer of civilization (and to a certain extent, the prospect of reprisal) ,for example, that keeps me from running people over in WalMart when I have to use the ridey-cart, or mounting a howitzer on my roof and blowing away the dimbulbs in the left-hand turn lane with their right-turn signal on. I exaggerate my animus, of course, but only by degree.
Serial killers are often motivated by their own hostility, deeply-ingrained ignorance, and may have certain physiological differences (some studies point to overdeveloped areas of the hippocampus, for example). It's an inexact "science" at best, and not helped by paid bs like the crap promulgated by that guy on tv who does the "more evil" scale. There's a school of thought that says that they're almost all from abusive situations...but modern society is abusive in so many ways that it's hard to notice. A matter of degree again.
Zanzibar was knee-deep in people in 1968. Now those people reach across the water and are standing on each others' shoulders.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 6, 2013)

I don't know.  As I said, I'm neither one.  I recognize the ignorance and abuse that many serial killers tend to have endured.  But I also can see where there's sexual fantasy and frustration tied into it--especially with specific serial killers like Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, and the Monster of Florence.  Others almost display an aversion to sex and perhaps that's why many of them kill.

I have trouble believing that murderers of any kind are in their right mind.  I know that in several instances serial killers have warning signs in their early lives including but not limited to the torture and murder of small animals.

On a more personal note I understand what you mean about wanting to damage other things around you and only societal considerations hold you back.  I was at a restaurant with my family on Friday and we were seated next to the vending machines and  claw machine.  These kids kept showing up and acting like baboons next to the machines.  I don't know what look was on my face but they took one look at me and left.  I do know that it took a lot of willpower for me to not come around the table and stab them with my fork.  I wouldn't do that, of course, but I wanted to.


----------



## Capulet (Jan 6, 2013)

I really don't connect with how people walk in malls and on the street these days. I _constantly_ have to either move or stop completely to avoid running over people or _their children_. I'm a little more forgiving of kids running around because, well, they're kids and their brains aren't fully formed; adults and teens should really have their heads on a swivel and be a bit more polite.

I only mention this because, as I say to my 5'2/100lb girlfriend, "the revolution is coming, and us 6'/200lb guys are just going to start hip-checking our way blissfully through crowds of mall-zombies like a scythe through wheat."


----------



## moderan (Jan 6, 2013)

Amsawtell...that's why the insanity defense is to me a fallacy-because you have to be insane to commit those crimes in the first place. Sane folks don't do it-they write books *insert laugh track here*
Capulet-exactly. And I'm bigger than that. Especially atop a ridey-cart, with my oxygen tank and bright orange hat (I wear a Chicago Bears hat in public so that drivers can see me crossing when there's less light).


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 6, 2013)

I don't connect with how people keep their kids in check in public places.  On Christmas Eve I was forced to go out and get pop and some medicine.  I was trying to get in and get out as fast as I could.  Some guy was standing in the store talking to someone and just letting his kids twirl around in circles and play.  I stood behind them for a few seconds then went to go past.  His kid almost twirled right into me.  I heard the dad say, "Did you see that guy?  He almost hit MY kid!"  I almost turned around and told him if he taught his kids better and watched what they were doing nothing would have even come close.  I the ADULT was watching where I was going, his kids were oblivious to what was going on around them.  I could have gone to jail on Christmas Eve for getting into a fight in Wal-Mart...I bit my lip and kept walking.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 7, 2013)

amsawtell;1589829

  I don't know what look was on my face but they took one look at me and left.  .[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Ah, the 'Chucky-face'. Wifey is quite the adept at that one. Her tales of brat scaring while out and about amuse to no end. There is justice in the world, small instances of it, anyway...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 7, 2013)

> I don't know what look was on my face but they took one look at me and left. .


I am reading "The psychopath test"; there is the story of the psychopath asked to identify an emotion from a photograph (fear) who couldn't, but said he knew it, it was the one people got just before he killed them.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 7, 2013)

I don’t connect with people who get all worked up over little things that don’t add up to a hill of beans. Life is too short.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Your hill of beans may mean something to someone else. All subjective.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 7, 2013)

It is not always the little things themselves that get people worked up, more often the people presenting them and how they go about it.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Jan 7, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I don’t connect with people who get all worked up over little things that don’t add up to a hill of beans. Life is too short.



Hi JosephB
I understand that totally. Yet we all do it because things *seem* to mean so much. I try to remember the Buddhist teachings that point out that none of it really amounts to anything, each moment is gone as soon as we have lived it. How many things we fret over in our lives that actually mean nothing to anyone eventually. It takes a lifetime of experience to even begin to understand how our minds dwell on meaningless things most of the time. Meditation is the only way I can find to still the thoughts and keep things in perspective. 

I mean in 100 years nobody will even remember you and me!


----------



## JosephB (Jan 7, 2013)

Yes -- that's basically what I was saying. We've all heard "don't sweat the small stuff." It's not a bad way to look at things. When I hear it, I don't come back and say, "yeah -- but what you think is small stuff might not be small stuff to someone else." It's a concept.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Every dogma has its day.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 7, 2013)

Moaning releases the pressure for me, it's very cathartic. I don't give a toss if someone else says life's too short (no offence intended at all, JoeB!); I'm not very happy, and I'm a firm believer in doing things that make you happy, so long as they don't hurt others. Positive thinkers are probably happier than I am -- well, go figure. Good for them. Life is definitely too short for me, it isn't _near_ long enough. I'll be dead soon, and that makes me mad about the 'little' things even more to be honest, not less, and I'm not afraid to say it out loud 'cos it makes me feel good. It's quite harmless, too.

I don't drink or smoke though -- those things can sometimes relieve stress, apparently -- that could contribute to why I get angry at trivial things like people who pretend to laugh or whatever. A lot of humor can come from visiting those things that make us mad, though,  no matter how small or insignificant, and laughter is good for everyone. It makes me feel better about life and its quirks, more so than just shrugging and saying life's too short. I can't do that, sadly. 

I'm not going to hide my feelings; I believe that's more unhealthy than confronting and laughing/raging in a humorous way about them. Hey, we're all different. I'm comfortable with both sorts of people.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 7, 2013)

Hence, Bruno, the origin of the well known phrase "Having a good old grumble", you are right, having a grumble or a moan gets you past it and cheers you up, it is just the other people who have to listen that get depressed.
You are wrong about tobacco though, it doesn't relieve stress. It is addictive and getting a 'fix' doesn't relieve stress, only the withdrawal symptoms; it restores you to normal, how boring is that?


----------



## Capulet (Jan 7, 2013)

People who whine about my whining are not only whiners, but hypocrites as well.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

Capulet said:


> People who whine about my whining are not only whiners, but hypocrites as well.



Do winos whine over sour grapes?


----------



## JosephB (Jan 7, 2013)

Complaining is like a lot of things – it’s fine in moderation.  I just don’t “connect" with people who complain all the time about relatively insignificant things -- or things that they can’t change or don't try to change. They're a big drag. I'd be surprised if anyone here doesn't know someone like that.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

wah.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 7, 2013)

Heh. Well, next time I don't "connect," I'll try to make it about something important, like Dr. Who or people who ask "how are you?"


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 7, 2013)

Or serial killers. And spray-on cheese, ugh; we should have chutes connected directly to the Earth's core to dispose of that pus.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Or wearing heels with jeans, or television shows. Add infinitum, mix well.


Lewdog said:


> Do winos whine over sour grapes?


To quote Johnny Hart-"Help stamp out grapes".
Thank you, Bung.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 7, 2013)

I happen to like spray on cheese. Lots of good memories.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

Clive Wearing doesn't connect with memories.


----------



## Nee (Jan 7, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Do winos whine over sour grapes?



Only when they don't have any.


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

It's a well-known fact that whining winos wear grape knee-highs.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

No, whining winos with white whiskers wipe windows with Windex and paper towels.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 7, 2013)

I don't connect with: sports.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 7, 2013)

I don't get limiting yourself to one genre of music.  I can usually find at least one song in most genres that I like.  As long as I give it a chance.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 7, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I don't connect with: sports.



Why not try non-contact sports then?


----------



## moderan (Jan 7, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I don't get limiting yourself to one genre of music.  I can usually find at least one song in most genres that I like.  As long as I give it a chance.


Most...I agree. I liked some early rap. I loathe electropop and pop/country.But I get too technical with music, having been a musician for most of my life. It's like having _another_ inner editor.
Much of the music I like is genrebending...especially prog, which will have multiple genres in a single song.
Could say the same about reading material...I love sf and (what I call) horror and noir but I read everything (once).
I don't connect with most comedy. It simply isn't funny.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

moderan said:


> Most...I agree. I liked some early rap. I loathe electropop and pop/country.But I get too technical with music, having been a musician for most of my life. It's like having _another_ inner editor.
> Much of the music I like is genrebending...especially prog, which will have multiple genres in a single song.
> Could say the same about reading material...I love sf and (what I call) horror and noir but I read everything (once).
> I don't connect with most comedy. It simply isn't funny.




Yeah I pegged you as a Steven Wright guy.  You like the guys that aren't funny.  Your favorite is probably Paulie Shore, he's the least funny man on the planet.


----------



## moderan (Jan 8, 2013)

No. Absolutely not. Stephen Wright was funny. Paulie Shore, not so much. The only reason he ever got into anything was because his dad owned the Comedy Store. My favorite is George Carlin. I also like some British humor...very dry, like mine.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

British comedy is just awful.  The only show I used to watch is The Benny Hill Show, and that was only because I was a kid and it came on late and showed good looking women in their delicates.  What can I say, I grew up in the time period before the internet and late night television and ladies under garment ads.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 8, 2013)

I don't like gangsta rap, I find it silly, but I like RUN DMC (fun), Outkast (creative), Eminem's earlier stuff (surprisingly thoughtful), a couple of Cypress Hill tunes (merely catchy, but not unintelligent), stuff like that. I'm just about to listen through Wu-Tang Clan's discography, never heard their stuff before.   

I think American comedy is generally a bit louder and broader, but I wouldn't call it universally awful or anything, that's a bit dramatic. I've only seen a couple dozen US stand-ups, so it'd be arrogant of me to comment on the entire roster. I like an equal number of American/British comedians right now, probably because a huge catalog of American content is available to us here. I don't think the opposite is true, although I've only been to America once.

 "I put instant coffee in a microwave; I almost went back in time."


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 8, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I don't like gangsta rap, I find it silly, but I like RUN DMC (fun), Outkast (creative), Eminem's earlier stuff (surprisingly thoughtful), a couple of Cypress Hill tunes (merely catchy, but not unintelligent), stuff like that. I'm just about to listen through Wu-Tang Clan's discography, never heard their stuff before.
> 
> I think American comedy is generally a bit louder and broader, but I wouldn't call it universally awful or anything, that's a bit dramatic. I've only seen a couple dozen US stand-ups, so it'd be arrogant of me to comment on the entire roster. I like an equal number of American/British comedians right now, probably because a huge catalog of American content is available to us here. I don't think the opposite is true, although I've only been to America once.
> 
> "I put instant coffee in a microwave; I almost went back in time."




Sorry if I came across as arrogant for saying that I think British humor is awful.  It's my opinion and I have the right to it.  It doesn't mean I don't like British people.  I know I will catch wrath for saying this, but I'm not a huge fan of Monty Python either.  I've seen pretty much all the films, and I used to watch Monty Python's Flying Circus when they used to play it on Mtv late at night eons ago, but it just isn't my thing.  It's probably the equivalent of Mel Brooks movies in America.  Some Mel Brooks movies I like, some I don't.  There's really no reason to assume someone is arrogant for saying they don't like a part of your country, if you said you didn't like hot dogs, I doubt all of Chicago would be writing you hate mail, they could care less.


----------



## popsprocket (Jan 8, 2013)

I don't connect with the Italians that designed my car.

So many things wrong with it that could have been fixed by using common sense.

We'll ignore for the moment that I walked straight into that one, buying a 30 year old car at the tender age of 16...


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 8, 2013)

I didn't say you were arrogant, I said it'd be arrogant of me to say all US comedy was awful, because I haven't seen that much of it, and because it would be arrogant. I thought my reply was quite non confrontational, sorry if you felt I was targeting you, I wasn't.

I don't like Monty Python either. Tell a lie, I love Python's Holy Grail. Mel Brooks I adore: The Producers, Young Frankenstein, even Space Balls and Dead and Loving it which were slated.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I don't get limiting yourself to one genre of music.  I can usually find at least one song in most genres that I like.  As long as I give it a chance.



I find, more times than not, that people will appreciate all types of music, but limit themselves only to what's popular. 



Lewdog said:


> Why not try non-contact sports then?



On the contrary, current sports should allow MORE contact to draw my attention. I find most sports have over paid girly boys that cry every time someone pees in their wheaties...I do however, respect hockey players very much.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I didn't say you were arrogant, I said it'd be arrogant of me to say all US comedy was awful, because I haven't seen that much of it, and because it would be arrogant. I thought my reply was quite non confrontational, sorry if you felt I was targeting you, I wasn't.
> 
> I don't like Monty Python either. Tell a lie, I love Python's Holy Grail. Mel Brooks I adore: The Producers, Young Frankenstein, even Space Balls and Dead and Loving it which were slated.


I find Mel Brooks hit or miss. Producers, yes, Blazing Saddles, yes. YF, resoundingly yes. Otherwise meh. Python's movies likewise. Grail and Brian are a couple of the funniest things that have ever existed. Live at the Hollywood Bowl is a treasure, if only for the sketch about the history of the jape. The rest, so-so. But the series make me laugh, and Basil Fawlty makes me howl. My Family is brilliant, especially early on. My wife turned me on to Ladies of Letters, which is deliciously sly. And it's hard to beat Geoffrey Palmer and Judi Dench. That's the stuff. You can have Russell off-Brand and Ricky "table service" Gervais. They're only funny by accident.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 9, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> I find, more times than not, that people will appreciate all types of music, but limit themselves only to what's popular.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, current sports should allow MORE contact to draw my attention. I find most sports have over paid girly boys that cry every time someone pees in their wheaties...I do however, respect hockey players very much.



It was a misguided attempt by me at a joke.  You said you didn't 'connect' with sports, so I said you should try 'non-contact' sports.



moderan said:


> I find Mel Brooks hit or miss. Producers, yes, Blazing Saddles, yes. YF, resoundingly yes. Otherwise meh. Python's movies likewise. Grail and Brian are a couple of the funniest things that have ever existed. Live at the Hollywood Bowl is a treasure, if only for the sketch about the history of the jape. The rest, so-so. But the series make me laugh, and Basil Fawlty makes me howl. My Family is brilliant, especially early on. My wife turned me on to Ladies of Letters, which is deliciously sly. And it's hard to beat Geoffrey Palmer and Judi Dench. That's the stuff. You can have Russell off-Brand and Ricky "table service" Gervais. They're only funny by accident.



You didn't like "Space Balls" or "History of the World?"


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

No. They were either too juvenile or not juvenile enough to engage me. Mel Brooks' comedy is often of that type that makes me laugh, but uncomfortably.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't find Russel Brand funny; he really creeps me out, actually. Gervais I mostly love -- The Office, Extras, Animals and the podcasts tickle me senseless, and his new show Derek I like the look of -- but his Science stand-up, to me, was a puddle of gob. I enjoy the way he reduces big, powerful concepts to nothing but the words of madmen. I think it's clever how he takes the audience into those topics, only to finish them off in the silliest way possible. I find it disarming and wholly amicable.

We're all being honest here. There's no such thing as right and wrong in art, that's clear, because we all like different things. Bad comedy and good comedy don't exist, only our opinions do, know what I mean? Not criticizing anyone here, I'm just stating a thought I'm having right now . Gotta get 'em out somewhere.

"Keep firing, a**holes."

"Use the Shwartz."

[video=youtube;356faqb9JnU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=356faqb9JnU[/video]

I love how sincerely he says, "When will _then_ be _now_?"


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 9, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I don't find Russel Brand funny; he really creeps me out, actually. Gervais I mostly love -- The Office, Extras, Animals and the podcasts tickle me senseless, and his new show Derek I like the look of -- but his Science stand-up, to me, was a puddle of gob. I enjoy the way he reduces big, powerful concepts to nothing but the words of madmen. I think it's clever how he takes the audience into those topics, only to finish them off in the silliest way possible. I find it disarming and wholly amicable.
> 
> We're all being honest here. There's no such thing as right and wrong in art, that's clear, because we all like different things. Bad comedy and good comedy don't exist, only our opinions do, know what I mean? Not criticizing anyone here, I'm just stating a thought I'm having right now . Gotta get 'em out somewhere.
> 
> ...



No, this is not acceptable.  First you make me feel bad for saying British comedy is horrible, then when I admit I find Russel Brand funny sometimes, you say he isn't funny!  Maybe it's just the type of person I am, that I enjoy shock comedy.  I find Howard Stern funny, so I guess that goes hand and hand.  I like Ricky Gervais because I can relate to him.  I enjoy leading people down that path of seriousness, to totally blow their mind at the end with a left turn.  Isn't it funny how a totally out of place word can make someone laugh at times?  This thread is "going from suck to blow."


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 9, 2013)

I think Russel Brand is witty, silly and a bit off-kilter which I like, but I just don't laugh for some reason. I wouldn't say his comedy was shocking, but the more shocking stuff out there does put me off. I don't like feeling _too_ uncomfortable when watching comedy to be honest. I like uncomfortable, some comedians just push it to the max for the sake of it. That bores me.

I agree about the silly word thing. It's my favourite type of humour, where you're taken by surprise. That's where the out-of-control belly laughs come from, for me.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

Howard Stern is more laughable than funny. Imo vulgarity is no substitute for wit. I've never seen The Office. Tv situation comedies don't attract me. The last one I liked very much was ALF. And that has aged badly.
I do watch occasionally, and enjoy, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's shows. Detest both of their standup acts though. It's the writers that make those guys good. Their arch personae are pretty grating.
Guess I'm just weird. Can't connect with Seinfeld-in general I find NYC-centric stuff annoying. LA-centric stuff too. George Lopez is supposed to be set here in Tucson but he lives in a two-story A-Frame. I've yet to see one in this town. Santa Fe or split-level ranch is about all you can find unless you're looking at a condo complex.
So many things are pitched at a younger generation that I have very little in common with. I remember back when I knew everything too...and was just as insufferable, but I don't recall being quite so desperate for sensation of any kind that I'd endure what passes for entertainment these days.
I really don't connect with update remakes, like the Smurfs going hip-hop. That's just wrong.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 9, 2013)

Nah, The Smurfs is sacred. They ticked everyone off.

I totally agree about Colbert and Stewart on all counts. Does it not interest you how our tastes vary so much in some areas and perfectly coalesce in others? I'm loving it.

Howard Stern is a pretty open guy. I admire honesty, even when it's partly seedy and not a little off-putting. I don't know what he is trying to be, a comedian, a rockstar, whatever. He's never enthusiastic about anything from what I've heard of his show. I dislike him, but maybe it's all an act. 

With Seinfeld, I'm undecided. Larry David's musings are distinctive and on-point, and I can almost feel him laughing from behind the cameras when I watch it. Kramer's physical comedy is up there with the very best, for me; not quite Buster Keaton but completely wild. Elaine isn't that funny to me but the show wouldn't work without her. George I don't get, but the same goes for him. Wouldn't work. Jerry really gets on my nerves, though, my god.  

I only watch what I like; everybody does, surely? I used to be quite cynical about things other people enjoyed, but now I don't care at all. Still, there's time for that to come back, I'm only 20. There are some who think that people like certain shows because they must be stupid or secretly don't like it and just follow the masses and laughter tracks. Could that be true? Really?

*shrugs/shudders*


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

It does interest me. When I was 20, I didn't watch tv at all. I didn't have time. I was married with a fulltime job, in my last year of college at a Division 1 school, running a band on the weekends, and playing on the baseball team that had won the CWS the previous year.
I agree about Michael Richards...that's the part of the ensemble that works for me. Larry David I dislike. I don't care for Curb Your Enthusiasm either. It was one of the shows I watched when I was in the hospital and had trouble manipulating the remote. Jerry-I'd cheerfully punch in the mouth to shut him up, and I'm pretty much a pacifist.
Stern stole a lot of his schtick from former Detroit/Chicago deejay Steve Dahl, of Disco Demolition fame.
I watch a lot of things I don't like, for research. 90% of writing is research, and I'm always trying to get at what makes a character tick. My mcs are more everyman than I am and are often not as educated. It makes it easier for me to surprise them.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 9, 2013)

Is CWS the Canadian World Series or something. . . ? Pretty cool. You good at baseball? 

They only show baseball on about channel 500 in the UK. I'm too lazy for that; they'd be lifting the bloody trophy by the time I found it.

Only sports I like are snooker and darts, but I enjoy watching the world cup. The German team makes me squeal when I watch them.

Edit: So you can watch an entire season of a show you don't like? Man, that's dedication. I cannot stand to waste my own time.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

College World Series. I was decent-a junkballing ragarm relief pitcher on a staff full of 6foot five studs who threw the ball 95. People got impatient waiting for my offerings to get to the plate.
And yes...it isn't a waste of my time if I get a story out of it.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 9, 2013)

Busy work.  I always hated filling out worksheets in school and I hate it more in my work.  If you want me to give you a report on something ask me.  I can write it up all on my own. I can even create those sheets myself.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

Okay. I'd like a report on Time Considered As a Helix or Semi-Precious Stones. You may google. I'll expect it on my desk first thing tomorrow


----------



## Ariel (Jan 9, 2013)

Can I choose either because I have _books_ on semi-precious stones.


----------



## moderan (Jan 9, 2013)

I do too...but googling will give you the answer. Has little to do with lapis lazuli or amethysts.  And absolutely not serious


----------



## Leyline (Jan 22, 2013)

*Why I Connect With Doctor Who

by George Potter, age 40, but 7 in his heart when Doctor Who Comes On*


​ 
One lovely Saturday, when I was seven years old, my Mother called me in from play.  She sat me down in front of the television, something she had never done before. My parents were suspicious of television. We were only allowed to watch it on Saturday, and -- thanks to the warped space-time of the hills where I was born and raised -- the only clear channel we received was the local PBS station. 1

"I think you'll like this, baby," my Mother said.

On the screen I saw the most beautiful woman I had ever beheld 2, dressed in skimpy leather clothes.  She wielded a blaster that fired unconvincing electronic effect rays.  Along with a robot dog (that shot lasers out of its friggin' _nose_) she was manning a barricade on what I instantly knew was a space station corridor.  She and the robot dog were pulling a Horatius-At-The-Bridge 3, buying time for their friends to get to safety, fully expecting to die in the process.

It was a scene from 'The Invisible Enemy,' a serial from Doctor Who, compressed by PBS into a 90 minute movie.

It was the most electrifying, powerful thing I'd ever seen in my short life. I watched the rest in a state approaching rapture. Soon a man showed up. A guy who was almost a special effect himself: all teeth and crazy curls and this huge impossible scarf.  I instantly knew he was a man to fear and respect, but not because he was tough or super-strong, this wasn't a comic book: he was just the smartest guy in the room, and he was incredibly kind and compassionate. A guy like that was _dangerous_ in a way I couldn't explain, then. He was dangerous because if you tried to hurt those he loved, or the innocent, he was going to figure out a way to send you screaming to hell.

My Mother taught me to read,  and  I'd been reading for child-ages, whole years, and was obsessed with science fiction. The stories I loved most refused to pander to me. They tossed me whole into new worlds that I had to figure out. 

Doctor Who did that every week, without fail.

Doctor Who kept me sane for most of my teenaged life. 4 It was a constant that I appreciated and loved. It was cancelled when I was seventeen, not too long after my idol Robert Heinlein died. Those were two blows that were tough to absorb, but I knew -- deep in my heart -- that Doctor Who could never die. It was elemental -- a myth, a legend. I found places on the Internet where true believers like myself gathered, and we made up new adventures. Some of those folk actually got their made up adventures published 5. 

We kept the faith, we ate the gruel and we waited for the light.

We were rewarded eventually. Doctor Who was off the air for almost sixteen years. It came back and became one of the biggest successes in British television. I was wary of it at first, but shouldn't have been.  The people who brought it back, and keep it running today, are fan-boys like myself. 

They will always be seven years old in their hearts, when it comes to Doctor Who. They too, have gotten a piece of their childhood back, whole -- and shinier than ever.










(1)  This led to me considering television as a whole a quintessentially British thing. In those days, PBS on Saturdays was British repeats, exclusively.  I once, in fifth grade, attempted to explain the Fawlty Towers episode 'Germans' to a classmate. I failed horribly.

(2) Louise Jameson is still my gold standard. Not that long ago, the Who forum I frequent had a tribute to her character, and she was graceful enough to post her thanks. I'd written a lyrical tribute to her. She replied' That's very sweet.' I walked on clouds for days after. 

(3) I only figured that out years after. I actually asked my Mother why she'd sat me down in front of the television that day. She said: 'Because The Doctor was a fine role model.'

(4) And my adult life. I once woke up after a pain-killer and booze binge and didn't even know where the hell I was. I had a pocket full of Percocets, and had no clue how I'd gotten them. Tom Baker's voice came to my rescue. It yelled: "But what is it FOR?" in my head. That's a line from Douglas Adams' The Pirate Planet. It worked. I flushed them, went home, and dried out.

(5) When my mother was dying, the last thing I read to her was the first glorious 30 pages of Kate Orman's "Set Piece" a Doctor Who novel. It's a gorgeous novel, but those 30 pages are something special. All about how love will accept torture to aid love.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 23, 2013)

moderan said:


> Y'know, those things, tv shows, movies, fads that other people rave about, that you don't see the sense in, don't get excited about...what doesn't float _your_ boat?
> 
> For me...it's Doctor Who and steampunk. ...



^--- This.

I don't "get" Doctor Who. It all just looks a bit too silly, for me. As far as Steampunk goes, I can't stand it. It's stupid and predictable - Unrealistic Dystopic Setting, Brass, Analog Dials, Leather and Steam. Yippidity darn doo...

Something else I don't get - Paranormal Teen Romance. What the ____? The entire genre needs an enema.


----------



## moderan (Jan 23, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> ^--- This.
> 
> I don't "get" Doctor Who. It all just looks a bit too silly, for me. As far as Steampunk goes, I can't stand it. It's stupid and predictable - Unrealistic Dystopic Setting, Brass, Analog Dials, Leather and Steam. Yippidity darn doo...
> 
> Something else I don't get - Paranormal Teen Romance. What the ____? The entire genre needs an enema.


Someone with grace and taste.
Zombies. Wade Davis wrote the last new thing to be said. Pharmaceutical commercials. Ima go rub Axiron on the dog and see if it gets hairier.
Doctor Who isn't shiny. Doctor Who sparkles


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 23, 2013)

I don't connect with with uniformity, boy I'm glad to get that off my chest.


----------



## moderan (Jan 23, 2013)

So much for consistency, he said, mashing the potatoes.
G is operating under the patently false premise that he is sane. So is Tom Baker, who was better in Monarch of the Glen.
I don't connect with golf. I think it should be a contact sport.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 23, 2013)

Lew, my stick-in-the-mud grandmother is reading this, so I can't reply, but I'm happy. We're all happy and we all float down here.


----------



## Lewdog (Jan 23, 2013)

moderan said:


> So much for consistency, he said, mashing the potatoes.
> G is operating under the patently false premise that he is sane. So is Tom Baker, who was better in Monarch of the Glen.
> I don't connect with golf. I think it should be a contact sport.




Golf can be a contact sport if you have an awful slice.  I've hit my fair share of other golfers.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 23, 2013)

They all float. . .


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

Which?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 24, 2013)

Oh, someone before said, "we all float down here", which is like a line said by Pennywise in Stephen King's _It._ "They all float down here. They all float. . ."


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

That was a play on words, Bruno. What also floats on water?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 24, 2013)

Dead people?


----------



## Ariel (Jan 24, 2013)

Small rocks.


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

Burn them all.
[video=youtube;zrzMhU_4m-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/video]


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 24, 2013)

I wonder if a float would float?


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

Would a whole herd of floats be a floatilla?


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 24, 2013)

Now _that_ is a play on words .

Thing I don't connect with: war movies. There are lots of good ones, but none would make my personal favourite movie list.


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

I agree. Most "war movies" (at least the WWII, WWIII type) are just fearmongering or polemics and that doesn't interest me. I'd probably like Apocalypse Now if it was an hour and a half as it has indelible images and the general theme works against type, but it's @3 times that and ponderous instead of heavy.
The exceptions are the movie versions of MASH and Catch-22, which capture an entirely different spirit.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 24, 2013)

About Apocalypse Now, I agree. There's so much to like, but it seems to try very hard to make you _dislike_ it. Sheen's personal descent in the movie is more interesting than anything else in it, I think, and the way Kurtz is built up and up through other characters' descriptions of him, like he's an untouchable, supernatural force, making you imagine him as some black cloud with eyes and a sick grin. That's what I loved about it, the insanity, but nothing more. Don't know about you.


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

Agreed. I also think that Marlon Brando ruins the movie once you actually meet Kurtz. He isn't magnetic enough in this performance to justify Dennis Hopper's (and by extension, the rest of Kurtz's followers) mania. That performance is again ponderous instead of heavy. The effect of the whole movie is like watching your team go to sudden death overtime, and losing on a bad ref's call. It's like being cheated.
That insanity is what works in the other two films I mentioned also.


----------



## Leyline (Jan 24, 2013)

War movies I love:

Kubrick's _Paths Of Glory_ and _Full Metal Jacket_.

Peckinpah's _Cross Of Iron_

Fuller's _The Big Red One_

Weir's _Gallipoli_

Gordon's _A Midnight Clear_


----------



## moderan (Jan 24, 2013)

Those are at least better than the run of the mill. I used to say that Kubrick was my favorite director but that was based on "Strangelove," "Clockwork", and "2001", and was back when I hadn't seen Barry Lyndon or The Shining, both of which I find awful for different reasons. I can't say I would want to see either of the above Kubrick films again, given the choice. Didn't enjoy them. Or Eyes Wide Shut.
Cross of Iron is a good film. Peckinpah has the reputation of being simply a glorifier of cartoony violence but there's a reason why he did what he did and that isn't it. He just didn't feel that the camera should shy away from the difficult when it presented itself. He didn't overload his scripts with opportunity to do so, The Wild Bunch notwithstanding.
The others I've only seen once and barely remember, so I can't say anything good or bad about them.
I just don't connect with war stuff. War sf is not so fun either, except for some of Gordon Dickson's stuff, or Joe Haldeman's first. Space opera, yea, space war, meh.
I don't connect with Star Wars in any meaningful fashion either. The first one was fine but I saw it the same day as I saw a Pink Floyd show and I already had a seat on the left hand of Mr. Natural by then and was gearing up for takeoff. The theater was in sight of Soldier Field or we wouldn't have been able to pull it off. The second one made me practice light breathing and examine the insides of my eyelids within a half hour. Those stompy-robot creatures, meh.


----------



## SunnyE (Jan 28, 2013)

Violent video games. Kurt Vonnegut. Chocolate. Rap/Hip Hop music. Tiny pick up trucks with tires the size of horses (I live in Texas, that's actually a big deal here). Plastic surgery and similar procedures (except in cases of birth defects/disabilities/etc. I'm talking strictly massive boobs, Botox, lypo, lip injections, face lifts that result in the mouth being twice as wide, that kind of thing). NASCAR. Ace Ventura/Dumb & Dumber type movies. Facial piercings. When girls dye the top of their one color and the underside a different color. Not judgemental about the last two. I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just old now.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

Why violent videogames in particular? Why not just violence itself?


----------



## Leyline (Jan 28, 2013)

LOL. Thanks. Anyone who doesn't connect with Vonnegut gets crossed off on my list of people I care to talk to.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 28, 2013)

To save a lot of writing, basically anything done (or redone) in the last 15 years; well except for certain books (the ones which haven't been made into movies or TV shows).

SunnyE, I'd almost go for your list, but chocolate?  Sorry, but if I wasn't responsible enough to think about what I eat, I'd be a chocoholic within a week.  Most other 'sweets' are blah.

And all those people who condemn others for 'not being accepting or tolerant' of whatever.  Haven't they realised they're being a oxymoron and hypocritical at the same time?

Anyway, while people are lining themselves to be shot over the Beatles thing, it's not difficult to produce a few hits when you did many hundreds of songs.  All of their failures were just quietly swept out of sight.  Btw: Beatles weren't revolutionary.  Buddy Holly & Bill Haley were both around before the Beatles.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 28, 2013)

Posts where the writers use a stream of correct terminology that is not in common usage.

Posts where the writer uses words which I don't understand.


----------



## Charlaux (Jan 28, 2013)

Twitter, though I'm really trying I can't say I get it.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Anyway, while people are lining themselves to be shot over the Beatles thing, it's not difficult to produce a few hits when you did many hundreds of songs.  All of their failures were just quietly swept out of sight.  Btw: Beatles weren't revolutionary.  Buddy Holly & Bill Haley were both around before the Beatles.



Bushwah. Also hogwash. Also so completely not-true that the statement itself is silly.
A) Yes, the Beatles were revolutionary. In many ways. Firstly, as they pointed out themselves, lps (and eps, and .45s) "revolved". Secondly, they changed the way popular music was written, performed, recorded, and presented. They did that again and again. Their failures were not swept under the rug-they were presented along with everything else. I've heard the Tony Sheridan stuff too, and most of Ringo's solo work.
This is not to say that Buddy Holly and Bill Haley were not revolutionary in their own rights. Haley's Comets set a standard for musicianship that wasn't matched until the heyday of the Jordanaires, and Buddy Holly was the prime mover of the rock and roll songcraft upgrade, along with Leiber and Stoller, after the initial rush of the music's advent and acceptance had passed.
B) It _is_ difficult to "produce a few hits when you did many hundreds of songs". If it weren't, everyone would be doing it.


----------



## Pluralized (Jan 28, 2013)

Political Correctness, organized religion, political polarization, rampant consumerism and the glorification of "busy." Anything having to do with "Housewives," or Big Rich anything. 

People that defend ignorance and resist free knowledge. Fast food, and most things made of plastic.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 28, 2013)

moderan said:


> Bushwah. Also hogwash. Also so completely not-true that the statement itself is silly.



Absolutely.


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 28, 2013)

moderan said:


> Bushwah. Also hogwash. Also so completely not-true that the statement itself is silly.


Maybe you were preempting your own comments?



> A) Yes, the Beatles were revolutionary.


When there's musicians doing it a decade prior to them it's not revolutionary, even if they were to become a standard-bearer.



> In many ways. Firstly, as they pointed out themselves, lps (and eps, and .45s) "revolved"


So you're giving The Beatles credit for vinyls?  Seriously, that's clutching at thin air from the start.  What next, credit Abba for the cassette tape, or Madonna for CD?



> Secondly, they changed the way popular music was written, performed, recorded, and presented. They did that again and again.


Beatles were no more revolutionary than Twilight.  Granted, The Beatles are better than Twilight, however (despite what the book's fans claim) Twilight's success doesn't make it revolutionary.  And if others then copy Twilight, it still doesn't make Twilight revolutionary.



> Their failures were not swept under the rug-they were presented along with everything else. I've heard the Tony Sheridan stuff too, and most of Ringo's solo work.


98.5% of people haven't.  Singing 'Hot Potato' for 4 minutes & jumping up in the air isn't anything better than Wiggles for adults.



> B) It _is_ difficult to "produce a few hits when you did many hundreds of songs". If it weren't, everyone would be doing it.


How many 1 hit wonders are there?  Hundreds.  So it's not difficult at all.  Abba had many horrid songs, 90% of Slim Dusty is garbage.  Heck, if you swam through Dusty Springfield records, you could find a few decent songs.
See, it's not so difficult at all.


Anyway, I'm sure we'll have people citing forum train derailments as another thing they don't connect with


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

Let's just have a Beatles sing-a-long and drown out the blasphemers.

HERE COMES THE SUN, DOO OO DO DOOO!


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Maybe you were preempting your own comments?
> 
> When there's musicians doing it a decade prior to them it's not revolutionary, even if they were to become a standard-bearer.



Yeah. Stereo separation, that was Les Paul. Otherwise, no. What the Beatles did in terms of songwriting, recording, and setting standards for attendance was unprecedented.  What you're focusing on is approximately 1963. From Rubber Soul onward, the Beatles were consistently breaking new ground in terms of stylistic experimentation, in terms of lyricism, and in terms of arrangement. I imagine that Bill H and Buddy used a great many sitars and backward guitar tracks.



Rustgold said:


> So you're giving The Beatles credit for vinyls?  Seriously, that's clutching at thin air from the start.  What next, credit Abba for the cassette tape, or Madonna for CD?


Read it again. Try to understand the concept of humor.



Rustgold said:


> Beatles were no more revolutionary than Twilight.  Granted, The Beatles are better than Twilight, however (despite what the book's fans claim) Twilight's success doesn't make it revolutionary.  And if others then copy Twilight, it still doesn't make Twilight revolutionary.
> 
> 98.5% of people haven't.  Singing 'Hot Potato' for 4 minutes & jumping up in the air isn't anything better than Wiggles for adults.
> 
> ...



You've not made a case at all. Where are _your_ hit singles then? And how do you explain the hundreds of talented and unemployed musicians wandering around?
Twilight? Is that the best you have? *performs eyeroll* 
You wrong me, sir. You waste my time with less than I would have wasted it on if left to my own devices.
Here's my entry:Hide Your Love Away


----------



## Rustgold (Jan 28, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Let's just have a Beatles sing-a-long and drown out the blasphemers.
> HERE COMES THE SUN, DOO OO DO DOOO!



I'll sing along with you, and let my 'lovely singing voice' create a whole new generation of blasphemers.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

Copycat.


----------



## Ariel (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah, the Beatles were revolutionary.  They were constantly changing and experimenting with sounds, textures, and harmonies.  They brought "world" sounds to rock by including things like the sitar. Simply because they began as a pop group doesn't mean they didn't add some of the most amazing things to main stream music.

Also, the reference to vinyls was that they (vinyls) go _around_ as in revolve.  It's a joke and a rather brilliantly executed one because so many people don't get it.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

It's okay to dislike the Beatles as a group, I'd be worried if someone didn't, but you have to give credit where it's due, whether it's to Pythagorus, Bach, or a gang of hippies who sang about octopus' gardens and eggmen, as hard as that is, haha.


----------



## dolphinlee (Jan 28, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> , and most things made of plastic.



I assume you don't mean things like these: milk bottles, worktops, washing up bowls, cleaning fluid bottles, showercurtains, CD/DVD cases, refrigerator linings, bristles of toothbrushes,computer casings, keyboard casings, radio casings, spectacles and mobile phones.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

And let's not even get started on chocolate.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 28, 2013)

dolphinlee said:


> I assume you don't mean things like these: milk bottles, worktops, washing up bowls, cleaning fluid bottles, showercurtains, CD/DVD cases, refrigerator linings, bristles of toothbrushes,computer casings, keyboard casings, radio casings, spectacles and mobile phones.


Not to mention the plastic lenses implanted when my cataracts were removed.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

The eyes have it!


----------



## JosephB (Jan 28, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> It's okay to dislike the Beatles as a group, I'd be worried if someone didn't, but you have to give credit where it's due, whether it's to Pythagorus, Bach, or a gang of hippies who sang about octopus' gardens and eggmen, as hard as that is, haha.



I have the albums, but I'm not a big Beatles fan. When I'm on shuffle and a Beatles song comes on, I usually enjoy it -- but I rarely make a point to listen to it. You can't deny their contribution -- Sgt. Pepper's alone really was a game changer.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I have the albums, but I'm not a big Beatles fan. When I'm on shuffle and a Beatles song comes on, I usually enjoy it -- but I rarely make a point to listen to it. You can't deny their contribution -- Sgt. Pepper's alone really was a game changer.



I agree. I think from Sgt. Pepper onwards, they were simply not the same band they started as. Their personalities changed dramatically, particularly with Harrison going off to India and Lennon meeting Yoko. When you change, your output does too, of course, for the better in the Beatles' case IMO. 

Songs I love: 

I Me Mine
Yesterday
Here Comes The Sun
Octopus' Garden
Eleanor Rigby
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Dear Prudence
I Am the Walrus

I saw the movie _Yellow Submarine_ when I was six or seven, and it completely changed my taste forever.

Don't connect with:  

Spicy food.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 28, 2013)

Hmm -- I really like some of the older stuff like _Ticket To Ride, A Hard Day's Night_, _Eight Days a Week_, _Love Me Do. _McCartney's bass is unappreciated -- sounds great in _Taxman._ Then I like _Revolution_, _Helter Skelter -- Come Together_ is one of my favorites. There are lot's of others though. Really dislike McCartney's music hall influenced songs.

BTW -- Lennon is the only post-Beatle stuff I listen to. C_old Turkey, Jealous Guy, Instant Karma, Working Class Hero_ -- great songs. Wings generally makes we want to hurl.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

Maybe I'm Amazed. My Love. Live and Let Die. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey. The entire Band on the Run album. Rock Show. And many more. Sir Paul gets a bad rap cuz of the Silly Love Songs, but the man can play like nobody's business on about seventeen different instruments and can still hit the high notes at 72 years of age.
I like me some George too. Great guitar player. Kinda so-so catalogue but some greats. Out of the Darkness is _killer_.
I was thinking about this. I know how to play and sing their entire catalogue. I can't say that about any other band, ever (at least not with more than a couple albums). Not Floyd, not Sabbath, not Zeppelin or Deep Purple or Traffic or anyone else I really like. The only band that comes close is Eagles, and I've forgotten some of their stuff. I used to do the one-guy-and-a-tape-machine-and-a-guitar thing and that was my meat.


----------



## JosephB (Jan 28, 2013)

Well, I don't give him a "bad wrap." I've listened to McCartney's post Beatles music carefully and considered it -- and I don't like the lion's share of it. _Baby I'm Amazed_ is an exception. I've probably listened to all of George's output as well. I have _All Things Must Pass_ -- and like a few songs off it -- but that's about it.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

Could be worse. I've listened to all of _Ringo's_ output 
Diff'rent strokes. I taught myself to shred last year too. I know you hate that. But it was freeing.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

George Harrison has always been my favourite beatle. Great guitarist; great voice; decent lyricist. "I don't know whyyyy-y-yyy, nobody told you. . ." That makes me well up for some reason.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm a Lennon fan. But I like them all. I grew up a Beatle fan-the first song I consciously remember encountering for the first time is Norwegian Wood.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Jan 28, 2013)

John's a very close second on my list. The lullaby-esque feeling on Dear Prudence puts me right to sleep. I find it unusual how they all have beautiful singing voices -- that isn't the most common thing in the world, is it? And none of them had lessons if I remember right. Their harmonizing is almost as good as The Beach Boys' best; it adds a wonderful layer to their music, an important one.

Ringo is solid as a rock of course. It annoys me when people say he's the best drummer who ever lived, but fair enough.


----------



## moderan (Jan 28, 2013)

It isn't common at all. None of them had lessons but they were from musically-inclined environments.
Ringo keeps time wonderfully and doesn't add a lot of filigree. I like his lefty style a lot. He and Bill Ward have so much big-band and small orchestra jazz in their backgrounds, and you can hear it in the stretchy way they play with the beat...sometimes, surging ahead, sometimes getting a little behind, all according to some inner topography. I love that. Charlie Watts is from that school too, as was the late Aynsley Dunbar. Musta been something in the air post WWII.


----------



## SunnyE (Feb 2, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Why violent videogames in particular? Why not just violence itself?



Well, obviously violence in general is a bad thing. I was thinking violent video games as opposed to non-violent video games. I personally have no desire to sit there pretending to shoot people and such. By contrast, when you're watching a show or movie with violence, or reading about it, it sometimes has relevance to the story and you are somewhat removed from it. In those types of video games, you are the person committing the violence and it seems to be the only point of the game.


----------



## SunnyE (Feb 2, 2013)

Leyline said:


> LOL. Thanks. Anyone who doesn't connect with  Vonnegut gets crossed off on my list of people I care to talk  to.



I'll add one to my list. People who are willing to write someone off  as not worth getting to know or talk to simply because they don't like  an author they like. Or something silly like that. But you're welcome. I  suspect I won't wither without your company. 



Rustgold said:


> SunnyE,  I'd almost go for your list, but chocolate?  Sorry, but if I wasn't  responsible enough to think about what I eat, I'd be a chocoholic within  a week.  Most other 'sweets' are blah.



LOL, I get it. Lots of people feel that way. It's just not my thing. But I like other sweets, so that makes us even.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Feb 2, 2013)

I don't connect with internet 'Social Justice Warriors' and language police. They're retarded.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 2, 2013)

Being woken up in the morning by work on my day off.

I'm one of those people that once I'm awake in the morning and moving around, that's it, I'm up.  Unfortunately it doesn't matter how much sleep I had the night before.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2013)

SunnyE said:


> Well, obviously violence in general is a bad thing. I was thinking violent video games as opposed to non-violent video games. I personally have no desire to sit there pretending to shoot people and such. By contrast, when you're watching a show or movie with violence, or reading about it, it sometimes has relevance to the story and you are somewhat removed from it. In those types of video games, you are the person committing the violence and it seems to be the only point of the game.



This is along my line of thinking. I grew up playing sports games like Madden football and NHL hockey -- never had any desire to play games where you shoot people.


----------



## Vitaly Ana (Feb 2, 2013)

Haters and Greed.

Hating quietly sucks life from the self. Greed subtly sucks life from those in need.


----------



## moderan (Feb 2, 2013)

JosephB said:


> This is along my line of thinking. I grew up playing sports games like Madden football and NHL hockey -- never had any desire to play games where you shoot people.


Sega!
I still play those on those rare occasions when I play video games. I tried sim games and shooter games but they don't have much appeal. Quest-type games that require me to learn a list of arcane keyboard commands just frustrate me. And I had a hand in developing the material for some of them.
There was one violent game that I loved-Carmaggedon:Carpocalypse Now. Awesome game where the object was to run over pedestrians. I used to get home every night after driving the cab all day and play that one. Wish-fulfillment? Probably.


----------



## Akoya (Feb 2, 2013)

Politically correct Nazi (not to be confused with grammar Nazi) and those who don't like reading.  

I also don't understand those who don't enjoy old movies from the 40's.  There is one, The Scarlet Pimpernel, that is exceptionally good, the 40's version not the 80's.  The book is exquisite, beautiful writing and great detail.  Yes, the acting is a tad cheesy but it is clean and family friendly.  I just don't see how anyone could pass it up in favor for movies like Saw or Chucky?  In my view there is really no competition on which is a better quality entertainment.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2013)

They put out a lot more product in the 40's -- and most of it wasn't very good. We're only watching and talking about the cream of the crop -- the relatively few that hold up.

Otherwise, I think it's apples and oranges. A lot people who really like Saw and Chucky etc. probably don't appreciate quality movies -- regardless of when they were made.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 2, 2013)

People who combine the words 'need' and 'deserve' with the words 'treat' and 'luxury'.

"We are off to the Seychelles for a week, Peter needs a break and we deserve a little treat."

No he doesn't, he is barely middle aged and from the state of his stomach I reckon he hasn't exerted himself since he played rugby at school, if then, and 'The Seychelles' is not a little treat, that's a drink of clean water and a peppermint, not a jet halfway round the world and servants.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 2, 2013)

It's all relative -- depending on what kind of work you do, how hard you work and what you can afford.


----------



## PiP (Feb 2, 2013)

Hi Moderan,
Interesting question...

I don't connect with the TV program "I'm a celebrity get me out of here" Geesh, why would anyone want to eat critters or get in a pond of snakes. In fact, I can't connect with any reality TV shows. Anyone remember Big Brother?


----------



## moderan (Feb 2, 2013)

I remember it existing. Never seen it. I barely connect with tv.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 2, 2013)

I loved the first series of Big Brother. It turned into the worst kind of entertainment very soon after that though, I feel -- from interesting social experiment to televised dehumanization, in a way. A bit of a dramatic description, perhaps, but it became tough for me to watch people get ridiculed and scream at eachother. There were sweet, funny moments, but they were hardly focused on. I haven't watched since about series 4, and I have no intention of starting again now.


----------



## moderan (Feb 2, 2013)

More time watching tv=less time writing, making music, drawing pictures, etc. I'm more interested in those things. There's a tv on here most of the time but it's just radio with pictures and it's never tuned to a station that carries Big Brother. I dunno which station that is even.
Jeopardy, now there's a show. Food or Cooking network, check. Just a matter of preference.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 2, 2013)

Ah, do you like quiz shows? I watch QI and Mastermind, but nothing else interests me at the moment, on UK TV at least. I watch Jeopardy clips on YouTube all the time. 

Have you seen the movie _Quiz Show_?


----------



## Rustgold (Feb 2, 2013)

moderan said:


> I remember it existing. Never seen it. I barely connect with tv.



I feel sorry for the Poms who have to pay 145 pounds ($310?) per year just to have a TV.  Seriously, I wouldn't even pay $5 for the junk presented.


----------



## moderan (Feb 2, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Ah, do you like quiz shows? I watch QI and Mastermind, but nothing else interests me at the moment, on UK TV at least. I watch Jeopardy clips on YouTube all the time.
> 
> Have you seen the movie _Quiz Show_?



I have. I don't like all quiz shows, just Jeopardy. Quiz Show is a fine movie. I have it on a dvd.



Rustgold said:


> I feel sorry for the Poms who have to pay 145 pounds ($310?) per year just to have a TV.  Seriously, I wouldn't even pay $5 for the junk presented.



It costs us more than that to have cable. My wife pays it. We have all the channels. I just don't watch em. The tv is an expensive night light. I habitually fall asleep in front of it while political talking heads murmur into the darkness, soothing in their monotony.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 2, 2013)

I pay for internet and for Netflix.  I don't even get public television.


----------



## PiP (Feb 3, 2013)

Hi Bruno,
I agree, it is like a social experiment. In fact the whole concept of fly on the wall TV I just can't connect with at all - Humiliating others in the name of entertainment I find abhorrent. In fact, I rarely watch TV now. Writing and connecting with real people on the internet with similar interests is far more fulfilling.


----------



## PiP (Feb 3, 2013)

Hi Moderan,

I rarely, if ever watch TV, it's just on as my husband is a TV addict - I'm a writing and internet addict.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

Greetings. I'm not really in disfavor of humiliating others, should they deserve it. I just don't like to watch other people do it. But writing and other positive forms of communication are far preferable in any case.


----------



## namesake (Feb 3, 2013)

moderan said:


> Y'know, those things, tv shows, movies, fads that other people rave about, that you don't see the sense in, don't get excited about...what doesn't float _your_ boat?
> 
> For me...it's Doctor Who and steampunk. The weird thing about both of those is that I am a confirmed science fiction fanatic. But Who leaves me scratching my head, and The Difference Engine, by two of my favorite writers, was sleep-inducing. I don't have any sort of fascination with the Victorian Age anyway, so maybe that's the hook I spat out. I dunno.
> Doctor Who is just silly. I like Tom Baker though. Met him at ChiCon a couple of times. Cool guy. Good actor.
> ...



Then you should think about the repercussions to moderation for such posting since it can be unpredictable. Not to mention I've found my fair share of people who are like this and run the demeanor that isn't expected of them. Always be honest. But not on topics like these. I apologize if anyone who thinks this is inappropaite. But I feel so many problems could be avoided.

The term grammar nazi is something I've grown to abhor, since it can have a resemblance to the demeaning and immoral behavior. Once again I apologize. My favorite posters would be amsawtell and chris miller. I wish I could look sincere behind a computer screen. So maybe that is not your intent and I will never know.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

namesake said:


> Then you should think about the repercussions to moderation for such posting since it can be unpredictable. Not to mention I've found my fair share of people who are like this and run the demeanor that isn't expected of them. Always be honest. But not on topics like these. I apologize if anyone who thinks this is inappropaite. But I feel so many problems could be avoided.
> 
> The term grammar nazi is something I've grown to abhor, since it can have a resemblance to the demeaning and immoral behavior. Once again I apologize. My favorite posters would be amsawtell and chris miller. I wish I could look sincere behind a computer screen. So maybe that is not your intent and I will never know.


Why should I think about the "repercussions to moderation for such posting"? I'm not really sure what you're talking about. This is simply a topic for conversation, partly in jest, partly to blow off steam about minor things. Little rants. No big deal.
I like the term "grammar nazi". I think it's perfectly appropriate, as is the term "feminazi" when referring to a certain behavior pattern, such as is often displayed by the moderators of a very large writing site that shall remain nameless in this paragraph (not this site). And several of my older relatives were prisoners in such camps. Is it somewhat insensitive? Yeah. Life is like that though. It isn't like the terms wouldn't propagate if you and I didn't use them.
I abhor political correctness. But it is a useful tool. If you look around, you'll see many useful tools, and great many more useless tools. I enjoy pillorying the latter on occasion.


----------



## namesake (Feb 3, 2013)

I dislike what you enjoy. Any fake principles you have that are not punished yet by law have been genocides of sorts in other places. For example killing people for their race shouldn't be acceptable or sexual orientation because of the real life examples of people who suffer and go through other means of justice or injustice. For instance injustice for killing people who are transgender is seen in the public eye atrocious. But when humilated in public it receives approval. You simply cannot be becuase of your personality, and what you see in media and other places be such a hypocrite. That to me is the nazi principle. Use real life examples. Don't use philosophy. Don't assume, unless you are socrates aka have a ability to think like a person of reform.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

namesake said:


> I dislike what you enjoy. Any fake principles you have that are not punished yet by law by have been genocides of sorts in other places. For example killing people for their race shouldn't be acceptable or sexual orientation because of the real life examples of people who suffer and go through other means of justice or injustice. For instance injustice for killing people who are transgender is seen in the public eye atrocious. But when humilated in public it receives approval. You simply cannot be becuase of your personality, and what you see in media and other places be such a hypocrite. That to me is the nazi principle. Use real life examples. Don't use philosophy. Don't assume, unless you are socrates aka have a ability to think like a person of reform.



You dislike what I enjoy? 
So, you're against good food, loud music, weird humor, imaginative media creations?
Or is this a minirant against calling stuff "_________nazi" because of the relation to the "Thousand-Year Reich"? I suspect a sarcasm deficiency.



:emptiness:


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 3, 2013)

I feel bad for Nazis; they get all the flak.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 3, 2013)

> I feel bad for Nazis; they get all the flak.


Don't; it's called Karma, or as they say in Sussex, "What goes around comes around."


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm sure you know I was joking -- Nazis; flak -- but still, I agree .


----------



## JosephB (Feb 3, 2013)

You have to admit -- they had pretty sharp uniforms. And don't forget those cute little Volkswagens.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

And Werner von Braun. They had him too.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 3, 2013)

[video=youtube;K08akOt2kuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo[/video]


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 3, 2013)

moderan said:


> And Werner von Braun. They had him too.


So did America.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> So did America.


Yes, later. He had first to develop the V2.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 3, 2013)

I sort of connect with the V2. The explosion from one knocked the midwife who delivered me off her bike, she still had concussion and put me down on a hot water bottle filled with boiling water immediately after I was born. I still have a huge burn scar down my back.


----------



## moderan (Feb 3, 2013)

Ew. That's a bad connection.


----------



## arkayye (Feb 6, 2013)

benluby said:


> Hyphenated people.



That's funny. I have good friends that are hyphenated & didn't have a choice in the matter. It the pretentious upstarts that you have to watch out for. They tend to hyphenate for effect rather than inherit it.


----------



## moderan (Feb 7, 2013)

Here's one I haven't brought up for a while: The X-Men. I can't stand the X-Men. They were a minor group, nearly canceled until Chris Claremont took them over. They went downhill from there, in my opinion. I HATE WOLVERINE. Terrible character. Hulk shoulda smashed. Gambit is an idiot stereotype. Dark Phoenix was dumb. Their movies put me to sleep. Worse than Daredevil, who I like in the comics.
And they're everywhere!
AAaaaaaaaaugh!
LOL.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 7, 2013)

The scale at work reading false numbers.  I hate zeroing the thing out when nothing's on it.  I think something's wrong--probably needs cleaned out again.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Feb 7, 2013)

moderan said:


> Here's one I haven't brought up for a while: The X-Men. I can't stand the X-Men. They were a minor group, nearly canceled until Chris Claremont took them over. They went downhill from there, in my opinion. I HATE WOLVERINE. Terrible character. Hulk shoulda smashed. Gambit is an idiot stereotype. Dark Phoenix was dumb. Their movies put me to sleep. Worse than Daredevil, who I like in the comics.
> And they're everywhere!
> AAaaaaaaaaugh!
> LOL.



Agree. To me, Wolverine, like Batman, are no longer truly characters in the comics. They have become brands, soda pop cans and posters for franchise marketing. They could do anything to Batman or Wolverine and it wouldn't matter. Marvel and DC don't really make art anymore. They release product.


----------



## moderan (Feb 7, 2013)

It's been that way since the early 80s. Is why I stopped collecting, truly. Underdeveloped characters, overdeveloped pecs, shoddy storylines, just unimaginative. Once Marvel merged with Toybiz and started hemorrhaging money, it was all over.


----------



## Arcopitcairn (Feb 7, 2013)

I think the thing I liked best about eighties comics was the black and white boom. There was creativity there.


----------



## moderan (Feb 7, 2013)

That was about the time I got married and graduated college. Didn't have time to keep up. Didn't really start catching up until the late 90s, and by then my perspective had changed irrevocably.


----------



## moderan (Feb 27, 2013)

Insurance companies. Harumph!
I've been wrangling for months to get some meds for my fibromyalgia. Still not approved. For more than a year now to get a portable O2 concentrator. Still not approved. The most recent fibro attack has me virtually useless. I have no concentration and am unable to get any work done at all as a result.
And there's no real financial reason for refusing or dragging their feet.
Insurance be damned!


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 27, 2013)

Yeah sorry to hear that, hopefully the Blackhawks keep winning to help keep your mind off of it a little bit.


----------



## moderan (Feb 27, 2013)

They don't play now til Friday. Ima play with the baby bunnies.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 27, 2013)

I don't connect with bunnies.  I did once.  The little jerk bit me.  On the breast. 

I get that the bunny was scared and wanted left alone but he came over to me before I picked him up in the pet store.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 27, 2013)

Maybe he thought it was a carrot.


----------



## Lilly Davidson (Feb 27, 2013)

moderan said:


> Insurance companies. Harumph!
> I've been wrangling for months to get some meds for my fibromyalgia. Still not approved. For more than a year now to get a portable O2 concentrator. Still not approved. The most recent fibro attack has me virtually useless. I have no concentration and am unable to get any work done at all as a result.
> And there's no real financial reason for refusing or dragging their feet.
> Insurance be damned!



Hi Moderan 
That must be very very hard for you. 

As it happens I hate insurance companies more than ever today. I am not kidding but I have spent around 3 hours of precious time today just on sorting out my car insurance policy. The existing one has put it up, I spent time doing price comparisons and then found myself so frustrated at all the add-ons and other tricks all of them put me through. I hate dealing with these people, they make life hard for us all and as you have found, when we claim for anything they drag their feet or find loopholes to avoid paying. 

I hope you feel better soon, your illness cannot be easy to deal with and must stop you feeling at all creative.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 27, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> Maybe he thought it was a carrot.


Well, they're certainly not orange and they're not carrot-shaped.  Pretty sure it was he was scared.


----------



## moderan (Feb 27, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I don't connect with bunnies.  I did once.  The little jerk bit me.  On the breast.
> 
> I get that the bunny was scared and wanted left alone but he came over to me before I picked him up in the pet store.


That's how our late friend Nipit got her name. She bit my wife right on the nipple because a cat jumped up on the bed and scared her. Bunnies are bities. And their teeth are not cuddly.



Lilly Davidson said:


> Hi Moderan
> That must be very very hard for you.
> 
> As it happens I hate insurance companies more than ever today. I am not kidding but I have spent around 3 hours of precious time today just on sorting out my car insurance policy. The existing one has put it up, I spent time doing price comparisons and then found myself so frustrated at all the add-ons and other tricks all of them put me through. I hate dealing with these people, they make life hard for us all and as you have found, when we claim for anything they drag their feet or find loopholes to avoid paying.
> ...


Thank you Lilly. I try not to whine but sometimes it's too much. The insurance industry in general is a joke. I used to work in it (in several capacities, mostly involving data-gathering). It's bs bolstered by speculation and administrated by whimsy.
I am self-treating my fibromyalgia with homegrown remedies, but sometimes I need supplemental medication. It's no fun to have indeterminate pain five days a week. My wife has gone theough this for years-for me it is a fairly recent development. Apparently one's oxygen intake and processing is a component of the body's ability to manufacture serotonin, which is the root of the problem. I try to eat things with complex B-vitamins as much as possible, to try to help raise levels, but my pulmonary system is so compromised that such a diet is only a temporary panacea.
And as I don't believe in damnation, I'm trying to think of an appropriate sentence for claims adjusters. Perhaps a special little cruel and unusual thing, just for them and collections agents.
That's my entertainment for today, I think. If I come up with something suitable, expect a story.


----------



## Brock (Feb 27, 2013)

I don't connect with reality TV shows that are about as "real" as The Wizard of Oz.  Not only are they obviously scripted, the people are horrible actors.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 27, 2013)

I don't connect with...

Twilight
Harry Potter
The Hunger Games
Electronic music
Pop(ular) music
Instagram
Snap Chat
Twitter
Facebook
Most math
'Logic' behind more gun control 
Teen partying 
Three quarter sleeve shirts

Pretty much most popular things, but hey, like Bob Senger sang: 

"Call me a relic call me what'cha will 
Say I'm old fashioned say I'm over the hill 
Today's music ain't got the same soul 
I like that old time rock and roll!"


----------



## moderan (Feb 27, 2013)

Those are not unusual things to be disconnected from. At least most of them aren't. Some of them I've never heard of, and would be loathe to investigate-like Instagram and Snap Chat. Sound horrible.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 28, 2013)

moderan said:


> Those are not unusual things to be disconnected from. At least most of them aren't. Some of them I've never heard of, and would be loathe to investigate-like Instagram and Snap Chat. Sound horrible.



With respect, maybe for people of more advanced age than I . Well, I'll try not to assault your eyes to much with this description, but they're picture sharing applications for iPhones. All the rage-for many. Honeybadger Angelwing don't give a s**t.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 28, 2013)

I like Harry Potter. I like some electronic music too: Radiohead, Massive Attack, Portishead, The Prodigy, couple Moby tracks, Gorillaz, Gary Numan, Kraftwerk.

That's it though. The others on your last are fair enough for me, and I'm twenty one. There's nothing wrong with Twitter or Facebook, but some of the people on them are quite, quite terrifying. Hey, that's the internet. . .


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 28, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> I like Harry Potter. I like some electronic music too: Radiohead, Massive Attack, Portishead, The Prodigy, couple Moby tracks, Gorillaz, Gary Numan, Kraftwerk.
> 
> That's it though. The others on your last are fair enough for me, and I'm twenty one. There's nothing wrong with Twitter or Facebook, but some of the people on them are quite, quite terrifying. Hey, that's the internet. . .



If you like Harry Potter, that's cool-I know I just never was into the fantasy/magic rage...although Skyrim was my first venture into this, and I must say, I quite enjoy Skyrim. 

What puzzles me is how I got interested in Celtic music! I can understand classic rock, since it's probably what I heard when I was younger. U2 was my first fav rock band, thanks to my cousin. But with Celtic, actually, I think what did it was two things. First, hearing the song "I'm Shipping Up to Boston" by Dropkick Murphy's on my bro's ipod a long time ago. I searched for Dropkick Murphy's songs, and on this one site, it misattributed the Boondock Saints theme to Dropkick. I clicked on the link, and instead of this Celtic punk song I was expecting, out comes this beautiful piece of heavenly music. Thus, this sealed the 2nd part, in that I found out "mother of God, this sounds beautiful, I gotta find some more like this!" 

So when I listen to something of supreme musical talent, by Celtic Crossroads, for example, or hear a humorous, upbeat, and more positive love song in '50s rock form, then hear a popular yet depressing love song, I react against it, wondering why it's so popular. 

As far as the internet goes, that is true. People on the internet scare me sometimes.


----------



## Tony-The-Tiger (Feb 28, 2013)

Rap and hip-hop.  And I don't just mean the mainstream radio crap, which in my view just has no merit whatsoever.  (Though that is a problem that transcends any single genre.)  There are more obscure hip-hop acts that I can at least respect and call artists, but none of it really piques my musical interest.  But then, I generally prefer music that most would consider very slow-paced.  

As a side note, has anyone else been at a gas station/convenience store and watched as someone pulled up in their car, blaring their awful music at a ridiculous volume, and get out to go in the store, leaving their car and music running?  I have seen this more than once, and I just cannot conceive of the sort of blisteringly stupid mindset a person would have to possess to do such a thing.  Every time it happens I want to take their car and drive it into a river.

Or maybe I should just open the door and lock it with their keys inside.  :twisted:


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 28, 2013)

*@Angelwing:* You're just a unique human being with unique tastes and emotional responses -- that's cool. You seem quite reasonable about the things you dislike, which is the way to be IMO. I'm glad everyone's different though (as I'm sure you are); imagine the Hell on Earth it would be if we all liked the same stuff? *shudder*

I like lots of things that people absolutely hate more than most:

Cradle of Filth -- I truly believe some of their music is stunningly beautiful. They use organs in their work, harpsichord, lots of symphonic layers. The singer has a voice as malleable as clay, too, although people usually switch off his soon as he starts screaming like a captured banshee. Doesn't annoy that people think it's trash, because it's so hard to enjoy. The lyrics are immaculate too, for me. I get it [the hate] but I like it; I'm not a Satan worshiping freak, my favourite artist is Bach for goodness' sake.  

M. Night Shyamalan -- I think _The Sixth Sense_, _Unbreakable_ and _Signs_ are wonderful films. *DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!*

More controversially, I don't like _The Godfather_ all that much. I think _The Godfather pt. II_ is a much better film in every single way.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 28, 2013)

Tony-The-Tiger said:


> Rap and hip-hop.  And I don't just mean the mainstream radio crap, which in my view just has no merit whatsoever.  (Though that is a problem that transcends any single genre.)  There are more obscure hip-hop acts that I can at least respect and call artists, but none of it really piques my musical interest.  But then, I generally prefer music that most would consider very slow-paced.
> 
> As a side note, has anyone else been at a gas station/convenience store and watched as someone pulled up in their car, blaring their awful music at a ridiculous volume, and get out to go in the store, leaving their car and music running?  I have seen this more than once, and I just cannot conceive of the sort of blisteringly stupid mindset a person would have to possess to do such a thing.  Every time it happens I want to take their car and drive it into a river.
> 
> Or maybe I should just open the door and lock it with their keys inside.  :twisted:



I hear you-that stuff on the radio pretty much all seems negative in one way or another. Or the music itself is annoying, in which case a river unfortunately just isn't handy


----------



## Tony-The-Tiger (Feb 28, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> M. Night Shyamalan -- I think _The Sixth Sense_, _Unbreakable_ and _Signs_ are wonderful films. *DUN DUN DUUUUUUUN!*



I like each of those, but Shyamalan lost me after The Last Airbender movie.  I loved the Avatar series, and he drained everything good from it and left it a lifeless husk, which is how I felt after watching it.

I now refer to M. Night Shyamalan as a s***bender.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 28, 2013)

Even _The Village_ had merit, but yeah, he sucks now.


----------



## KarinaRetzov (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't click with the 'sexy vampire' trend.  In my opinion, vampires were created to inspire terror through a process that naturally repels many humans - the spilling of blood.  Vampires are historically dark creatures, and to move them into the teenage dating game trivializes their usefulness elsewhere.
Moody, sparkly teenage vampire? No thank you.


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

KarinaRetzov said:


> I don't click with the 'sexy vampire' trend.  In my opinion, vampires were created to inspire terror through a process that naturally repels many humans - the spilling of blood.  Vampires are historically dark creatures, and to move them into the teenage dating game trivializes their usefulness elsewhere.
> Moody, sparkly teenage vampire? No thank you.


You're not alone in that. I've posted several memorable rants here on that very subject.:ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 28, 2013)

Some stories romanticize vampirism quite well. I thought it was the terrible writing that put people off that stuff, not the themes.  

The 'sparkly' comments are as annoying as Twilight now, though. I'd rather ignore that manure altogether *nods sternly*.


----------



## KarinaRetzov (Feb 28, 2013)

*Solemnly bows head* I shall aspire to ignore the manure, Master Bruno.


----------



## Rustgold (Feb 28, 2013)

Bruno Spatola said:


> The 'sparkly' comments are as annoying as Twilight now, though. I'd rather ignore that manure altogether *nods sternly*.



I don't connect with how people associate things like Twilight with something useful like manure.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Feb 28, 2013)

We're not allowed to swear. My hands were tied, sir.


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Well...Twilight might be useful as landfill or as rabbit food. I gave my stepdaughter's copy to Dammit. He enjoyed it much more than we would have. He doesn't sparkle much. Perhaps the wooden characterization could be put to use in the construction industry?


----------



## Ariel (Feb 28, 2013)

From my understanding the sparkling bit came from a dream the writer had. Personally I'm baffled as to why she chose "vampire" for the sparkling creature rather than say, "fairy."


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

That was the subject of one of my rants-that we now have a stock "powered" character, who can be substituted for the hero/villain of any piece. Vampire, elf, fairy, zombie, they're all smooshed together into one archetype rather than separate and differentially powerful conceptions. Mary supermen, I calls em.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 28, 2013)

I do not connect with glitter altogether.  That includes adult entertainers wearing it.  I can't tell you how many times I got busted when the glitter ended up on my clothes.  8-[


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Perhaps you should seek another form of entertainment. I heard that reading is fundamental.


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Tony-The-Tiger said:


> I like each of those, but Shyamalan lost me after The Last Airbender movie.  I loved the Avatar series, and he drained everything good from it and left it a lifeless husk, which is how I felt after watching it.
> 
> I now refer to M. Night Shyamalan as a s***bender.


I prefer M Night Shylock.


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> With respect, maybe for people of more advanced age than I . Well, I'll try not to assault your eyes to much with this description, but they're picture sharing applications for iPhones. All the rage-for many. Honeybadger Angelwing don't give a s**t.


That a new reality star?


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 28, 2013)

moderan said:


> Perhaps you should seek another form of entertainment. I heard that reading is fundamental.



It wasn't for entertainment, it was research.  Yeah, research, that's the ticket!


----------



## Roscone (Feb 28, 2013)

moderan said:


> Most "comedians" should be billed as "alleged comedians" in my eyes.


The whole Basketball wives franchise


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Roscone said:


> The whole Basketball wives franchise


That's reality shows. Different category, same result. Yes, dismal. All I've ever seen is commercials for that show but that's all I need to see. Basketball Wives, NY, NJ, LA, ATL Housewives, the whole lot...just awful ways to spend one's time.
Reading, I hear, is fundamental.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2013)

I was trying to think of a reality show I like -- I like the premise of _Pickers_, but I want to punch that hyper, skinny guy. Along those lines, I like _American Restoration_, the owner actually seems like a pretty cool guy. I enjoy watching how they restore the various items. But like all those shows, they have to ruin it by cooking up shenanigans and little side plots. So annoying.


----------



## Leyline (Feb 28, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I was trying to think of a reality show I like -- I like the premise of _Pickers_, but I want to punch that hyper, skinny guy. Along those lines, I like _American Restoration_, the owner actually seems like a pretty cool guy. I enjoy watching how they restore the various items. But like all those shows, they have to ruin it by cooking up shenanigans and little side plots. So annoying.



I just can't connect with reality shows in the most basic sense: it's simply not a format I can be entertained or intrigued by. I even demand documentaries to have a complex narrative and quite a bit of visual and structural style (think Errol Morris and Michael Wadleigh). I'm a snob about cinematography, editing, and dramatic writing, and enjoy the craft in film and television as much as or more than I enjoy characters or plot-lines or whatever.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 28, 2013)

I don't know why, but I like the quasi-reality show "Amish Mafia."


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

I like Wipeout, but only with Jill.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2013)

Leyline said:


> I just can't connect with reality shows in the most basic sense: it's simply not a format I can be entertained or intrigued by. I even demand documentaries to have a complex narrative and quite a bit of visual and structural style (think Errol Morris and Michael Wadleigh). I'm a snob about cinematography, editing, and dramatic writing, and enjoy the craft in film and television as much as or more than I enjoy characters or plot-lines or whatever.



I'm not always that picky. There are shows that can be on while I'm doing other things -- I just watch when something grabs my attention. The two shows I mentioned qualify on that level because I'm interested in the basic subject matter -- for the same reason I like Antiques Roadshow. I occasionally watch house hunting and renovations shows for the same reason. They are about _something__. _I don't watch much that gets my undivided attention, but when I do, it has to be worth my while -- and all those things you mentioned are important to me. That's why I don't bother with reality shows -- especially considering they don't have much to do with reality.


----------



## moderan (Feb 28, 2013)

Sports are the only worthwhile reality shows to me. And only certain sports.


----------



## Leyline (Feb 28, 2013)

Don't connect at all with sports, either. I've even tried to force myself, such as when I was living with my cousins and they were all hurt that I didn't want to sit and watch the game with them. I just cannot find any interest whatsoever there, and would end up reading a book.


----------



## Leyline (Feb 28, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I'm not always that picky. There are shows that can be on while I'm doing other things -- I just watch when something grabs my attention. The two shows I mentioned qualify on that level because I'm interested in the basic subject matter -- for the same reason I like Antiques Roadshow. I occasionally watch house hunting and renovations shows for the same reason. They are about _something__. _I don't watch much that gets my undivided attention, but when I do, it has to be worth my while -- and all those things you mentioned are important to me. That's why I don't bother with reality shows -- especially considering they don't have much to do with reality.



My aunt watches that annoying pawn shop show during dinner. I eat over here now. Ha.


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2013)

Heh, yeah -- it's pretty awful. They're all jerks.


----------



## Leyline (Feb 28, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Heh, yeah -- it's pretty awful. They're all jerks.



Not to mention outright liars. Bald guy once claimed it would take him months to sell a near-mint copy of _The Amazing Spider Man_ #1. Uh, _I_ could have found him a buyer in twenty minutes for substantially more than his obviously lying 'expert' claimed it would fetch.


----------



## Ariel (Feb 28, 2013)

Those pawn shop guys make me want to punch something.  I think they're rude, arrogant, and just plain jerks.  They're not funny, they're not smart, and they're not even handsome.  What qualities do they have that make them interesting as people?  Money does not equate talent or personality.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 28, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> Those pawn shop guys make me want to punch something.  I think they're rude, arrogant, and just plain jerks.  They're not funny, they're not smart, and they're not even handsome.  What qualities do they have that make them interesting as people?  Money does not equate talent or personality.


 
I finally decided "Ok, I've tried not to watch this show, but I'll try watching a bit..." However now I see the truth in all the people with jokes like "You have the only working original in the world? Best I can do is $30." or "So you have the Holy Grail? How about 25 bucks."


----------



## JosephB (Feb 28, 2013)

I like to poke around pawn shops -- why I thought it might be interesting when it first came on.

There's another version of the show called _Cajun Pawn Stars_. I've only seen bits of it, but the people seem nice and sometimes buy things because they know the people need the money. It probably won't catch on.


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 28, 2013)

Rick is my uncle and Corey is my cousin.  The 'Old man' is I guess my second Uncle?  How rude to judge them by how they look on Tv.  There are many instances where they have paid more than what the person wanted because the person had no idea what they had.  It happened just the other day with some book.  Shame on you all!


----------



## Lewdog (Feb 28, 2013)

I'm kidding!


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Mar 1, 2013)

"And they're not even handsome." Ha. 

I love _Antiques Roadshow_, Joseph. I like beautiful things, and when a gem crops up on that show, I get really excited 'til I'm jumping inside. Sounds dumb but I don't mind.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 1, 2013)

We get the UK _Antiques Roadshow_ here, it obviously  has older stuff, but I actually like the U.S. version better. They have more art deco, arts and crafts movement, Native American and colonial stuff, which is more simple and more to my taste. Plus they have more toys, guitars and civil war stuff and odd memorabilia -- not so much furniture and decorative items. I still enjoy the U.K. version though.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 1, 2013)

As for the pawn shop guys I think the only reason they give anybody large payouts is because they don't want to look like too big of jerks.  They have to keep the viewers invested.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Mar 1, 2013)

JosephB said:


> We get the UK _Antiques Roadshow_ here, it obviously has older stuff, but I actually like the U.S. version better. They have more art deco, arts and crafts movement, Native American and colonial stuff, which is more simple and more to my taste. Plus they have more toys, guitars and civil war stuff and odd memorabilia -- not so much furniture and decorative items. I still enjoy the U.K. version though.



The art deco pieces are my favourite, and mind-blowingly elaborate furniture/jewellery inherited from rich relatives. Old children's toys as well, music boxes, obscure collections of this and that. Fascinating to me.   

I didn't even know there was a US version of it; I'll have to track some down online.


----------



## moderan (Mar 2, 2013)

Pawn shops are cool places to poke around in. I get a lot of my guitar gear, vintage pedals and mixers and stuff, from them. And some of my aliens come from pawn shops. But watching them? Nah.
I don't connect with drivers who don't look to both sides when approaching an intersection or exiting a strip mall, apartment complex, or office building. I've almost been run over four times today and traveled a total of six blocks. It isn't like I'm hard to see...I'm wearing a bright orange shirt, lime shorts, and purple Converse, and flying a two-foot freak flag.
Maybe they aimed on purpose.
I don't connect with colorblind homicidal maniacs.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't know what your rules say, our highway code says "Give way to pedestrians already crossing roads you are turning into", it used to say "Give way to pedestrians crossing roads you are turning into" but they added 'already'. Yep, I am the kind of nerd who buys a new edition of the highway code every so often and checks out the changes.

Things I don't connect with; people who can't be bothered with details like the highway code and end up killing around 3,000 people a year just in this country, and that is not counting all the broken arms and legs or wheelchair cases that don't die!


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 2, 2013)

Women and people. They are complete mysteries to me.


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't connect with smoking. I don't smoke, but what I mean is I don't connect with the reasoning behind smoking. Specifically cigarettes. I understand that smoking is a familiar habit to resort to when a smoker has already been smoking, but it's just plain bad for you. I suppose it could be peer pressure, trying to fit in and all that. But still.

I think cigars are better. They're not something you always need, but something that you have on occasion, maybe to celebrate something. Similar with alcohol if it's controlled. Supposedly, wine actually has health benefits-and so does chocolate, if in small, controlled quantities. 

/end potential rant


----------



## nicolam2711 (Mar 2, 2013)

I once tried smoking, just cause my ex made me hold his lit cigarette while he was in a shop buying more and I was drunk... It had no pleasure in it as far as I could see. Just bad health problems.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 2, 2013)

There were actually commercials that extolled the health benefits of cigarettes.  Smoking goes back _generations_.  I'm probably of the first generation in which _not_ smoking is expected to be the norm.  It's harder to see the appeal in something older generations have done if you, yourself, have not been raised to see it as appealing.

Yes, people who smoke know it's bad for them.  How can they not?  But just as with any addiction someone else telling that addict to quit isn't going to do any good until the addict decides to quit.

There are reasons that absolute bans on consumer products don't work.  For proof look at the eighteenth amendment of the United States constitution.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

Hugo Chavez, and now he is apparently dead.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 5, 2013)

Smoking is one of the few vices I've managed to avoid. My dad used to smoke in the car, he'd barely crack a window, and the smell made me sick. Conditioned me to hate cigarette smoke. Thanks, dad!


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

Both of my parents smoked, and when I was a kid I couldn't stand the smell of it and actually had asthma.  My doctor told them not to smoke around me but they never listened.  The one memory that stuck in my mind my entire life that kept me from smoking happened when I was about 8.  For lunch I heated up the last of the Spam and cabbage from the night before.  I sat it on the coffee table to eat and watch TV.  My parents had left their over flowing ashtray on the table, I sneezed and the ashes went all in my food.  I threw the food away and almost puked thinking about it.  I still get sick to my stomach thinking about it today.


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 5, 2013)

My Grandma on my Dad's side smokes, and has since long before I was a little kid. One time, when my brother and I were over there (we were pretty young), she basically told us not to smoke. I don't remember exactly what she said or anything, but she got the message across. 

On a side note, JosephB, Albert Einstein must have been a personal friend of Steve Miller, huh?


----------



## Brock (Mar 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Hugo Chavez, and now he is apparently dead.



I think that I connect more with Chavez now that he's dead.  Is that weird?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

Brock said:


> I think that I connect more with Chavez now that he's dead.  Is that weird?



That only leaves two more guys from the axis of evil, Castro and Putin.


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That only leaves two more guys from the axis of evil, Castro and Putin.



I assume you mean Rawl Castro. 

Aren't we also forgetting *clears throat*medinejad, and Kimmy Un?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> I assume you mean Rawl Castro.
> 
> Aren't we also forgetting *clears throat*medinejad, and Kimmy Un?



Raul Castro is already known as being a lot more open minded about America than Fidel.  Kim Jung-Un doesn't scare me near as much as his dad did, and Iran's leader is losing more power by the day with the fall of all his allies in the middle east.

That's why I also don't connect with nuclear power or weapons.  Period.


----------



## Brock (Mar 5, 2013)

Dennis Rodman.  I don't connect with Dennis Rodman.


----------



## Angelwing (Mar 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That's why I also don't connect with nuclear power or weapons.  Period.



I don't want to start something, but do you mean that nuclear power is bad, and/or unecessary, etc? 

I have to say, I haven't really connected with nuclear weapons either. I think the Navy got it right when they converted some Ohio class SSBNs (nuclear missile carrying) to SSGNs (conventional guided missile carrying). Why keep a few subs just sitting there with a bunch of nukes onboard, when you can put it into action, raining shock and awe to the tune of 100+ conventional cruise missiles?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 5, 2013)

Angelwing said:


> I don't want to start something, but do you mean that nuclear power is bad, and/or unecessary, etc?
> 
> I have to say, I haven't really connected with nuclear weapons either. I think the Navy got it right when they converted some Ohio class SSBNs (nuclear missile carrying) to SSGNs (conventional guided missile carrying). Why keep a few subs just sitting there with a bunch of nukes onboard, when you can put it into action, raining shock and awe to the tune of 100+ conventional cruise missiles?



Yes I don't think nuclear energy is as "cheap and efficient" as we are led to believe.  The amount of danger, and the waste that it creates isn't worth it.  Hydro power, solar power, wind power, and even the new age bio-fuel created by the methane gas given off from growing algae, is better in every way.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 5, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> That only leaves two more guys from the axis of evil, Castro and Putin.


 What about  The New Emmanual Goldstein ?


----------



## KarinaRetzov (Mar 6, 2013)

Okay, here's something that really drives me up the wall. Does anyone understand the "I laughed way too hard at this" comment?  How did you decide that you laughed 'too hard'?  Or 'way too hard' for that matter?  If you find something funny, do you have to plan exactly how hard you're going to laugh, so that you can remain appropriate?  All I want to know is, WHO DECIDES HOW HARD WE SHOULD LAUGH?


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 6, 2013)

Brock said:


> Dennis Rodman.  I don't connect with Dennis Rodman.


Just who would want to connect with him.



Lewdog said:


> That's why I also don't connect with nuclear power or weapons. Period.


As a military weapon, nuclear weapons is a white elephant.  You can't take out a tank, plane, bunker, or hanger with a nuke.  The only purpose of a nuclear weapon is to commit mass genocide, or to discourage somebody else from committing mass genocide against you.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 6, 2013)

As far as nuclear power stations go it's about footprint.  For their size nuclear power plants produce at least twice as much power as other forms of generating power.  That's useful for places where space is at a premium and population is high--like Japan.

Solar power isn't viable in places where long periods of rain or no sunshine is likely.  Wind power depends too much on places that generate a lot of wind and the windmills take up a lot of space.  Hydro-electric power requires a dam or a waterfall to generate power.  Dams are incredibly damaging to the areas they are placed within and can cause trouble further downstream, including by changing the temperature of the water they use so that native wildlife cannot survive.

That leaves the algae-methane.  I haven't heard of this but I'm fairly certain it's a lot like burning any other fuel--the emissions are dangerous to the environment as well.  If not then that's great.

My point is that every technology we currently have has its downside to use. Every one of our energy sources has something that is dangerous or harmful or that makes it non-viable for every place.  Further, there will always be people exploiting others for money and new technology.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 6, 2013)

Here is a page that describes some of the uses of algae as fuel.  

Algae fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Japan they produce energy from a system that uses the motion of waves of the ocean in order to produce electricity.

Wave power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for some of your arguments about eco-friendly energy creating devices cons based on their locations, many of them are not actually in the area where the electricity are for.  For example Hoover Dam's electricity that is created, most of it is transported through power lines to Los Angeles and surrounding areas.  This is done in several areas.

I guess I can best describe my lack of connection with nuclear power, because it's bi-products will destroy the Earth in the long run.  What is the point in a short-cut to energy if in the end it will kill us?


----------



## Ariel (Mar 6, 2013)

I understand that thinking.

It was Hoover dam I was thinking of when I said that it changes the ecology of the river and the land surrounding it.

Here in Missouri there are no natural lakes.  The oldest of these lakes, Ozark Lake, was created by a dam that supplies electricity to several small towns surrounding it and has created a booming tourist trade in the area.   Several species of fish native to the river(s) damed to create the lake have changed or disappeared since the lake's creation.  The temperature around the lake has changed, and the formation of all of these lakes, along with the introduction of other grasses and trees, has hastened the end of the native prairie grasses of Missouri which has led to changes in the diets and habitats of native birds and wildlife.

Also, the water is disgusting--so dirty you can't see the bottom in very shallow water.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 6, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I understand that thinking.
> 
> It was Hoover dam I was thinking of when I said that it changes the ecology of the river and the land surrounding it.
> 
> ...



Some of that change can't be blamed on the dam.  A large part of it is the higher temperatures and the melting of ice caps that then flow into the rivers and bring more sediment down stream.


----------

