Ain't Too Proud To Chat..

If rollingalong came over to my house, tripped and fell face first on the rug, I'd be like, "Dude, you're eating more carpet than me on a Saturday night."

 

i'm not wrong...i personally do not allow anyone to use a gay reference in a derogatory way in this thread..it does not just slide by like many other places this happens....i could care less if you stop saying that shit in this thread but if you don't i will be calling you and anyone else on all of it.....you don't fucking know the history of the fifty thousand posts weve had here and all the other people that tried this shit....ive been there for all of them

it is the right thing to do and you fucking know it..take that shit elsewhere and say it PLEASE!

 

Okay... So, it's not full moon and everybody's freaking out...


What the fug.

 

You compared cocksucking to a shitty internet connection.....that's derogatory....its black and white....nothing like making a crack about eating carpet...nothing like that what so ever..
keep digging

 

But you told the one gay person in the thread to go fuck herself.

Am I missing something here?

 

And you told me to go fuck myself as if masturbation is derogatory.

 

I don't get what you mean??

 

its a ben shapiro argument

i was stirring the shit pot

 

Who is Ben Shapiro? While I go kick his ass?

 

he's a smart jew

 

You keep trying to stir that shit pot, don't you?

 

new doctor referred me to the medical marijuana clinic, now i'm totally legal. feels weird to be able to walk down the street smoking a joint without any worries...

 

NME was never a regular purchase I ever made, but back in the 70s I got it all the time..
Sign of the times I guess

British music magazine NME discontinues print edition after 66 years

 

I think print media in general is an endangered species.

 

I have a couple nme magazines somewhere in my attic.

Anyway, just got to Brooklyn...finally Some real snow. My feet will be hurting before I get back to Manhattan

 

i was just talking to hubby about that. i think that human stories are supposed to be told. secondary is read text, no body language, but still a human picture forms in the imagination. i think that a big part of why people get SO worked up about movies is they do all that work for you, the storyline, but also the visuals, and its never AS descriptive as speaking or text, and the images are not as satisfying and dont give the same feel or information. "As his eyes adjusted to the dark room, he glanced around. the shelves strained under the weight of thousands of jars, many dusty, but some carefully cleaned. little leatherbound books were tucked amongst them, in no discernable order, a few falling apart at the bindings and in desperate need of repair."

when you write it, or speak it, it tells you whats important to the story. you can "see" it. but if you have a movie and the dude walks in to a dark dusty cabin with a bunch of jars.... its just background. you cant point to one jar and say "hey! watch the jars! theres something important to the plotline!" without removing the viewer from the experience.

 

On the other hand it takes 2 seconds to show a guy look at a jar. And a couple minutes to read it's importance that will be explained in a couple minutes in the movie....if its done right.

 

I agree that that's a much more mainstream approach to movies. Many of the comic-book-space-adventure-epic-multi-billion-dollar movies would treat that as background. But I've seen some movies that go out of their way to set the tone and setting through the visuals. It's like you said, when you read something, you see it in your head. Problem is, what we see doesn't make it to the screen much these days because the general movie audience is like, "Who cares about the jars? Get to the action! Get to the dialogue! Get to the sex scene!"

I think with the advancement of technology, we've lost a little of our ability for visual storytelling. Think of any movie before the CGI revolution that used highly elaborate special effects--King Kong, Jaws, Star Wars, Superman. Those films are revered today not because of their special effects, but because of story, character development, plot devices, suspense, visuals etc. Special effects were so primitive that those movies couldn't rely on them and be successful.

Today, it seems most mainstream Hollywood blockbuster type of movies go right for the over-the-top CGI action sequence and never let go. As a result, everything is in the background. Not just the proverbial dusty jars, but the actors, their characters, plot devices and visuals that set tone, mood, and setting. Everything.

I'm old.