sexy_shapiro

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Yeah that's called "a question" bruh... look it up. it was meant to start a discussion not a declaration of my opinion. Clearly some of you don't know the difference.

 

 

Also this.

Alright, no need for that tone at all. I’m going to bow out. I’m not even mad at you guys, or even judging you guys, but for some reason you’re being snippy towards me for simply trying to share with you guys how I try practice compassionate thought and living.

It’s clear that with my history of being a sexual assault victim that this debate is not helping my mental health and only triggering my PTSD. It’s time for me to walk away.

12 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 Which I never did. 

8 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not blaming her but at the same time, is she really a victim?

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Dear god you people are bad at this... I'll make their argument FOR them. Rather than compare this incident to gang rape or chronic spousal abuse and go immediately nuclear, here's a more appropriate straw man that could  have been used if folks weren't so eagar to prove their moral superiority (yet again)and actually thought about what they were typing before comparing apples to shit that ain't apples. What you COULD have said is It would be like finding out Trump made a racist comment at the expense of Ben Carson and then asking if I felt bad for him. While the racism would be wrong in this example (The same as in SHS' case) I STILL wouldn't feel a LICK of sympathy for Sleepy McGee. Would I think he deserved it? No. Would I care that it happened to him? HIm specifically? Again, no. Would I immediately compare this hypothetcial situation to a lynching or a police shooting? Hell no because IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. Jesus Christ you guys really need to get out and spend some time with real live, breathing people.

The reason why I used exaggerated examples is because I’m curious about where you draw the line. How severe does the harassment have to be before sympathy is elicited?

I’ve also been sexually harassed at work, so I tend to not be as calloused towards this issue at others.

Also, it’s fine if you just shrug at this. You aren’t laughing at this like others in this thread are. I mainly take issue with you trying to take away her victim status.

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Is this situation with Huckabee even CLOSE to the same thing? I would say no for a whole bunch of reasons.

So what you’re saying is that there are some situations where a woman can be sexually harassed while also not being considered a victim? Just to be clear that we’re on the same page here.

You can make bad decisions and still be a victim.

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I'm not blaming her but at the same time, is she really a victim? Like if someone says "Do not feed the bears" and a person feeds the bears banyway and gets ripped to shreds are they really a victim? I don't feel good that this happened to her but I don't feel bad either. I pretty much feel 

If an abusive husband eventually kills his wife, is she not a victim because she didn’t leave soon enough?

I’m not saying I feel bad for her per say, but where we do we draw the line when it comes to “well, she knew what she was getting into”? Like, let’s say theoretically that Trump raped her while she was working for me. Would we still be shrugging and say it’s her fault for working under him? I’m sure most here wouldn’t, but why make an arbitrary distinction about what forms of sexual harassment are worthy of sympathy and which ones aren’t?

Should our sympathy for women end when they make decisions that we deem unwise? I’m sorry, but some of the language being used here sounds awfully close to victim-blaming.

7 hours ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

He's truly one of the worst human beings on the planet, but Vishnu help me, he can occasionally get a genuine chuckle out of me 

Yeah, a boss making sexual jokes about one of his only female employees is hilarious.

2 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

From what I have heard it callbacks exclusively to the first movie. I don't think you really need to rewatch it to "get" the new series, but it would probably increase your appreciation for the nostalgia. So as long as your going to spend the time watching the series might as well spend a little extra time watching the movie.

 

I think I'll watch the second movie, as well. I don't know if this is a super unpopular opinion, but I actually like the second one more than the first.

 

Third one is garbage. I wouldn't bother.

I heard it does a good job of brining newcomers up to speed but it does seem like I’d have more of an emotional connection if I at least watch the first movie beforehand. I haven’t seen it since  I was maybe 6 or 7, so I basically have no memory of what happened.

It’s been years since I’ve seen the movies. Do I need to rewatch all three before getting into the series or just the first one?

The kid in Oakland at end should be the next Black Panther. I’m not completely joking.

Considering how much I loved The Muppets growing up, I’m surprised that I haven’t seen a single episode of The Muppet Show, outside of clips I was able to fine online. There were never reruns on when I was a kid. I think the only way available at the time was to buy a box set. And now it’s not even available for streaming. What gives? I thought it was generally considered to be their high point.

5 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

To this day, the Muppets are funny to me. I feel bad for not having seen at least the 2011 movie, but from the bits I've seen, it's lovely.

I mean, the only person you’re hurting is yourself. 

If you’re feeling down during the pandemic give it a watch. It feels like a hug.

The characters were created with the format of the Muppet Show in mind, so it makes sense that the show was as successful as it was. The shows haven’t as been successful simply because the premise behind the ideas behind them are not as strong.

But why only focus on television? The movies have done mostly well over the years with only a couple of financial duds. Sure, they haven’t remained as culturally significant as they were in the 70’s, but that’s asking a lot of any property to remain equally relevant over a span of decade. It’s no small feat that a variety show spoof was able to spin off into a number of successful narrative films. And they even managed to have a hit in 2011 long after the franchise had been considered dead.

But the 2011 movie actually does address their decline in popularity. The world and our media is more cynical and the Muppets aren’t cyclical at all. I’ve introduced The Muppets to a few of my students and they think they’re hilarious. Kids might not be actively seeking out Muppets content, but from my experience the humor still works as well on them as it did for me at that age.

The only movie I would risk my life for would be to see Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen. I still refuse to watch it until I can experience it in a theater for my firs time.

1 hour ago, Brick said:

 

As well as Jackie Robinson Day since the MLB moved it from its regular day of April 15th, and it was Jack Kirby's, the co-creator of Black Panther, birthday. 

I know, it was brought up earlier in this thread.  What I meant was that in addition to those other significant days, it was also the anniversary of I Have a Dream. 

Yesterday was also the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

So terrible. Such a tragic loss. When I first saw the headline on another board I thought it was a joke. Was hoping it was a joke.

Phantom Menace is the only prequel to be shot on film. When fans say that is the prequel that most “feels like Star Wars”, this is something they are taking into account, whether consciously or subconsciously. If you watch all three within a short period, the film format really makes it stand out from the other two. There are other elements that make it feel more like traditional Star Wars in my mind, but the celluloid definitely plays a significant part.

The portion with the two 14 year old girls is gonna be Stranger Things with zombies.

16 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

That's the genius of it. He's going to again take characters nobody has heard of and make them insanely popular just like he did with GOTG obviously mixed with a couple characters people know.

The vibe I’m getting is that this will lean into the suicide mission aspect more than the original movie did. James Gunn is going with a large roster of obscure characters so that he can kill many of them off without much consequence.

Appropriately enough the Cohen version of Hallelujah also appears in Snyder’s Watchmen.

I’m never met anyone from here despite living in the same city as Wade for over two years.

I did once have a date with a guy I knew from IGN but that’s another story.

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

A movie can’t lose money in just one market. Warner is going for a few things though. They want to recoup as much of their investment as possible. They want to help exhibition get back on its feet.

 

Neither of those things are accomplished by putting the movie out at no additional cost to their HBO Max subscribers like Disney did with Hamilton.

I’m not pretending to be knowledgeable about the business I’m just openly ruminating about how to release something and make it be a cultural splash in 2020, as opposed to other years when there isn’t a deadly pandemic.

18 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

 Hamilton with a low $11.5 Million budget is easier to write off compared to Tenet with a $205 Million budget.

I mean the movie is gonna lose money regardless, at least domestically. Maybe it would be better to try and make a cultural splash rather than barely create a ripple.