Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
That is uh... Not how the history of language works. Or history (Rome didn't really fall at a well-defined point in time, it changed and/or faded away). Citation needed, to say the least.
If it is still the first of April where you are and you are trolling me, well done.
Yes, and Plutarch died a few centuries before the fall of Rome (in the west), so this seems especially unlikely.
That's just what the CHURCH wants you to think. Sheeple, all of you.
That's not particularly true. Latin scholars are pretty sure that the Catholic Church pronounces all its Latin wrong because the church is strongly influenced by the dominance of Italians.
Also, I watched a recording of the last stage production of Rent, and is it just me or does the movie seem to be pushing the view that the poor are poor by choice and are no good layabouts and terrible people?
How did you feel about Rashida Jones' character?
I felt like she was there just to explain Zuckerberg's characterization to the audience, which I found a little insulting.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
She didn't explain much at all.
She mostly seemed there as someone Zuckerberg could talk to in the deposition timeline so we could get some back and forth and see what Zuckerberg was thinking and as a way to easily explain the ultimate outcome of the whole mess to the audience (through Zuckerberg)
At times, she seems more like a therapist than a random legal associate.
Why on Earth would someone in her position speak so intimately with someone she's just met, much less attempt to summarize his motivations and foibles for him? Is she speaking for his benefit or for the audience's?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The last words on the protagonist delivered immediately before the conclusion aren't just going to be some minor character's opinion. If her assessment didn't carry more heft than that, then it wouldn't be worth hearing at that point when the audience has already developed its own impressions of Zuckerberg.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
The last words on the protagonist delivered immediately before the conclusion aren't just going to be some minor character's opinion. If her assessment didn't carry more heft than that, then it wouldn't be worth hearing at that point when the audience has already developed its own impressions of Zuckerberg.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
They're really easy to use too. I'd be happy to tell people how they're used, if anyone is in doubt.
'Get your fucking finger on the wookie'
I also felt like it wasn't suited to Cronenberg's talents. Knowing this was part of the same run of films that included Videodrome and The Fly, I'm wondering why this film failed to engage me the way those do.
That's three films I've watched recently now where I'm left wanting more. I need to break this streak soon.
Compromise is essential for anything to function in society. I couldn't get past Billy Beane's unwillingness to incorporate elements of both schools of baseball management.
Certainly both methods have assets and flaws. I was annoyed by the implication that SABR-metrics was infallible and the old-fashioned ways were completely flawed. Both ways have merit.
And I saw Wrath of the Titans. It was a blast, I have no idea why people are bashing it so hard. Needed more of Zeus and Hades' Jedi buddies force blasting demons and Bill Nighy missed a chance to say"do you fear death" again.
Toby Kebbell was also a surprise.
I agree. It was entertaining to watch and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I had the same reaction as when I saw Snakes on a Plane. That it was an ultimately forgettable movie, but it gave me exactly what I expected!
On average, I'd say it was a little better than John Carter, simply because it was acceptable through the entire run, instead of jumping between awful and awesome like John Carter.
I don't want to spoil it for you but...
The movie kind of portrays the two camps in the way it was going down in the early 2000s. Modern front offices (well the good ones, anyway), including Beane himself in Oakland, now take an approach that combines the two.
I don't see why the spoiled part counts at all. That's more a catch-all for the movies "this isn't exactly the truth, just a story" premise.
The last one is just her position. She doesn't think he's a bad guy (he treats her very nicely in their few conversations and is very polite and all that) ... and yet he's involved in some truly dickish reprehensible things.
Her last line isn't a summary of his motivations because it doesn't explain them. It never touches on why he does what he does. It's just a summary of his actions. He's a nice guy who does really dickish things.
What her comment doesn't answer and what the movie seems to want us to think about is why he did that shit.
And I think that's the interesting question even in real life cause around all the story-telling going on, the facts of the actual case are still there. In real life, it's even more confusing why everything went down the way it did.
No shit?
Knowing the broad strokes of something doesn't mean you know the movie, especially not if it's an even remotely decently made movie.
That line of argument might make sense if Fincher had made a straight up documentary detailing the events.
'Get your fucking finger on the wookie'
it seemed like it worked
and the old ways that they showed included judging players based on names and faces. I don't really think there's room to compromise between statsstatsstats and random elements we choose to look at with a given player. that's the point.
Also wasn't it important to the plan that it be implemented completely or not at all? I got the impression that it wouldn't work unless they committed to it whole-hog.
Although if teams are using a hybrid version now then I guess that's not true.
from the movie I got that he was one of if not the first guy to be doing that. he had to make a stand.
but I don't know (and I mean I truly don't know, not that I don't believe it) how you really mix the two. the stats guys turn their heads when you make half your choices or what?
You know, it doesn't look too shitty, and it seems to follow original story more faithfully (no Mars, for example). Still, CGI looks cheap.
gamertag: Canadianllama
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
It was basically Aliens meets A Better Tomorrow II on the set of Attack the Block.
I liken the carnage level to what happens when you start fucking with one of Tony Jaa's elephants.
Which his to say: "It is good."
I enjoyed Source Code, and I didn't have much of a problem with the ending (although I can see why people would feel otherwise). What annoyed me about the movie was how much better it could've been.
Maybe the creators did want to go in that direction but the investors didn't. Avatar did the same thing, only I doubt Cameron had any intention of fleshing out Jake's story beyond