Messages

[Bloodrayne]

but there are without question things that can be apprechiated and things to draw inspiration from none the less.

There are Jaws.   For sure.

With music listening to everything never hurts.   But usually you know after a couple songs (6-9 minutes).   A person buys an $8 movie ticket and doesn't like it.... that's two hours of discomfort.  However, I usually see bad movies as lessons just like you.    Bloodrayne is the best lesson of them all!

I'd rather start a thread about a famous guy becoming a racist and then actually identify myself to the world that I, indeed, am a racist.   (sarcastic smiley)

Hey Jaws, its cool man.  Don't worry about all this because ultimately you like what you like and you shouldn't bring in higher elements like other people's opinions or whatever. 

Sorry I hijacked the thread.   I just wanted to express distaste for his latest movie because it was, IMO, unremarkable.   The focus on other movies was novel but will quickly be nothing more than a meaningless anachronism.

Like I said, I enjoy most of his movies:   Clerks, Dogman, Chasing Amy, and probably one other.. maybe.

[langauge]

The Big Bang theory isn't an atheistic theory. It says absolutely nothing about whether God or something else caused the universe to exist. (I think.) In fact, there are already lots and lots of theists who believe in the Big Bang.

Erenan.  I think you proved my point here.  The reason why the Big Bang is acceptable is because some theists adopted intelligent design... EVENTUALLY.    Intelligent design is a reaction to scientific fact that is hard to dispute.   Proof that science is slowly but surely winning.

The problem with certain religious sects adopting Big Bang is that they have specific langauge that says "On the first day God created the universe.   On the second day God created the earth, on the third day God created man, blah blah blah."      And its this language that gets bastardized once science offers evidence to the contrary.   People will say "Oh, well we didn't mean ACTUAL days. You children thought we meant Earth days?   We meant GOD days Of course the earth wasn't created in one day.   Duh!"  And its the langauge in the form of a book that everybody is supposed to agree on!  Or atleast believe in...

Surely you get the point here.  Religion has a certain flexibility because the langauge and text can be twisted any such way.  As to where the Big Bang can be squeezed in there... even when clearly it had nothing to do with the original text or context.     The Bible is like the U.S.  Constitution.   It gets amended.  The specific words don't change but their meaning becomes whatever suits the purpose.   [edit]  and the difference between the Constitution and the Bible is that the Bible is filled with historical events and an everlasting being's specific commands and suggestions.   And its usually those commands and suggestions that get amended.   Not to mention- nobody ever researches the authors of the specific passages where in some cases the passage was written hundreds of years after the event in the passage.   (there are three accounts of the sermon on the mount - one called "sermon on the plain".)  If those authors couldn't agree on the place where it happened... how in the world can a modern day Christian be confident of the order of events that happened there??  (where?)

Dmitri-  Nothing can actually disprove God.   That's the problem many rational people have with him.   Even if the Big Bang were proven, people could argue intelligent design.

Not everyone will be scientists?   Did I make this claim?   If today's trend is religion, and I say in the future we will see a shift towards science... then am I also making the claim that everyone today is a priest or a rabbi?


And so you've been to the future?   Does the english language still exsit?

Science has better things to do than chase unicorns!   Don't get me started on time travel.  If it existed, don't you think there'd be some evidence other than some kid posting on the internet!

Furthermore, Scid built a monument in his backyard which said "Here on this date, time travelers first appeared publically and let their presence be known."     And no one ever showed up!    Time travel doesn't exist, even as a possibility.  That's a whole other thread.

Opinions differ

Roughly 60% - 40%  I'm afraid. 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clerks_2/

Yes!   From now you must be Catholic!   From now on you must wear one of those silly rubber things on the end of your cock!

Hmm, I think I just realized where your and my difference of opinions of Clerks 2 stem from.


For me, Smith's rough style has always been unnecessary.   I love the dialogue, don't get me wrong but that should never carry the movie completely.  Look at Tarantino.   His dialogue has always been the most talked about thing.  Reservoir Dogs was all dialogue but it carried so well.  Pulp Fiction is one of the most qoutable movies ever.   But he enjoys the cinematic so much that he creates this entire visual style for his movies.   He's got the dialogue AND the style.

Now Kevin Smith on the other hand, broke out with Clerks.  Understandably, it looked rough.   Its just "set up the camera here because this person is talking.  Now move the camera here for the reverse shot.  Now here because we see this guy's reaction"   real typical stuff.   The focus is on the dialogue. 

But several movies down the line, he's still doing that.  Nothing much cinematic.   You know, dolly shots, crane shots, aerial photography?    He keeps it so simple all you really see is talking heads.  And it wouldn't be a big deal except he hires on an entire department of people to be his "eyes".     The cinematographer and the camera department surely have ideas for cinematic shots and angles, but it always comes down to Kevin keeping it simple.

But all the shots look the same and the photography is boring.  You said Clerks 2 is 10x better and I wholeheartedly disagree.   With his pull and number of resources... all he chooses to do is add color?

Chasing Amy is his best.   But his most memorable (because of the visuals!)  is Dogma.   I even liked Jersey Girl which he calls his biggest sellout movie.    Clerks 2 had nothing going on.  He made the conscious decision to cut back on cinematics & make it a true sequel to what was essentially a student film.

And that's exactly what it feels like.

Well I don't see any Buddhists trying to force the teaching of Buddhism in schools...


OK, we won't let a couple of rotten eggs ruin the omelet.  I will from this point on use the term "Southern Baptists" for all Christian ignoramuses.   But I think it's a little unfair that those with faith in science are forced to follow the thousands of chess pieces and moves and arbitrary distinctions of religions one considers a myth to begin with.

You're all at fault in that regard, I'm afraid.   Simplify your silly teams.

"Smith is finally maturing into the modern voice of a disaffected generation, a label he earned rather haphazardly a decade before."

That wordy piece of pie just says "Kevin Smith is maturing as a filmmaker."   My point was not that "Kevin Smith's Clerks 2 was forgettable."   My point was "the movie Clerks 2 was forgettable."   Secondly, have you seen Clerks?    How could anybody NOT mature as a filmmaker after that?   Its like watching a play thats been recorded.

Don't go and try to dismember my opinion because "you get" Smith.   Do you "get" his visual style?   Because he doesn't have one.   There's nothing to get.    Even his cinematographers will admit that.  The guy loves his dialogue and sure enough it's funny.  But when all you can say about a movie is "the filmmaker's dialogue is improving" well maybe the guy has other things to focus on.    Words are forgettable!   Time to make it a little more cinematic!

Wes Anderson, now there's a guy who makes memorable films.

Geeze Clerks 2 was so unremarkable.   You think 3 years from now anybody will care about Smith's opinions of LOTR or Star Wars?   That's all that movie was.

Didn't Newton give you all you need to know?


Well, Eranan I like your point about cultural phenomenons but the real truth about Christianity is that its like politics.  When a person hears the word "politics" they associate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  All the politicians of the daily news.  Same with Christianity as to where ... if I hear about South Carolina schools placing labels in textbooks calling out evolution as only a "theory" and therefore nothing more than a guess or hunch... well I'm going to think of those Christian fundamentalists when we talk about religion vs. science.  They are the forerunners of the Christian faith where science is concerned. They are setting precedents.   And retarded ones at that.  Same with the Kansas school boards  etc.   

Christians want to cockblock science from kids.  They are further causing ignorance, they surely don't think of their practices this way.  But that is precisely what these Christians are doing.   Save some face and stop your fellow Christian folk.

Nickelback is known for their full-soul depth lyrics.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yWxaohCvQFg


Nickelback is the the number 1 band in Portugal!   http://youtube.com/watch?v=r3k8Z1n657E&mode=related&search=

I'd say downloading music is stealing.

The music industry could cut back on middle men if you ask me.   I'd like it if music went totally independent.   There would be some really talented people that didn't get drowned out by the bubble gum packaging of other artists.    Bob Dylan would have been found all the same in such a world.

You guys have Dr. Pepper in the U.K. right?

Good lord I hope so.   


I'm 21 but I'm curious exactly how much irony is involved if an 18 yr old brit bought me alcohol and shipped it to me in the U.S.?  Better yet, a 16 yr old from greece or Norway?    Do people do this sort of thing all the time.  I just never think about importing and regional availability.

I think the problem with your Yahoo Spam Filter just may be the part of it that's "yahoo".

Spam.   Generated, garbled spam.    Some people have published their "spam poems"   so I think its the best spam out there. 


While we have a thread devoted to spam, here's the link to the telemarketer warrior!  #1 on ytmnd (which I normally despise)
http://howtoprankatelemarketer.ytmnd.com/

As I already said in my original post, man has created religion because he had no ways or tools to explain things in nature to him, like death, the light of the sun, how rain happens etc. Later when it was organized it was a made a system to try to make sure people will  act well with others. And of course in more recent history religion is abused for profits and power.
The earliest "gods" of men where the sun, the moon, mother earth and such. The purpose it served is explaining howcome things in the nature are what they are. It then developed to multigods systems of beliefs. Getting more detailed because more types of nature's things, and parts of life (including life and death) were assigned gods, and therefore it was more simple to explain how the world worked (again for people who hadn't the tools to research it), and already back in that type of religious world,thousands of years ago, avanve was taken on it for profits - collect taxes and gifs and sacrificies that the leaders of worshipping took and profited on (not everywhere, but a lot). Judaism was the first religion that believed in one god and out of which came Christianity & Islam. These religions made much more rules desgined to ensure people will act descent and be good with each other, which is the good aspect I see in faith, but with that came again the the taxes, the gifts and the profits.

To sum it up again man created religion 1) to explain things he couldn't explain otherwise. 2) Then to ensure pepole being good to each other 3) and it developed to make profit and get power with it.

What I'm saying is now that you have the tools to explain things that happens in the nature that those ancients couldn't, you should listen to it. Whatever is still unexplainable if it sits well with faith, go ahead and believe in it. But don't disregard facts.
I'm saying we shouldn't live in the world of beliefs of thousands of years ago without questioning it and tkaing  out what's irrelevant, our world has changed, our technology and intelligence has progressed, let's progress with it.

That's a wonderful post, Nost.     

In a few hundred years mankind will treat each other with common decency without religion.    I feel this way because science does have most of the answers now, geology is a wonderful example: an asteroid lands on the earth and geologists can use carbon dating to better understand the history of the solar system (the planets formed at roughly the same time and those distant from the sun contain more gases because of an explosion that blew the majority of those gases away from the nearby planets, like Earth!   From the leftover gases that existed on Earth and energy from volcanic activity or lightning etc, an atmosphere began to develop.  It was dark and uninhabitable but water began to accumulate!   Organisms began to grow in this water, as the atmosphere continued to develop into one which could be breathed in, and eventually a fish grew fins which were little stubby legs and his descendents volved into amphibians, and one of them took the first step onto land! Or more like sludge.... )

Nobody even guessed that before Darwin! Even Darwin had shitty evidence like finches and turtles and crap.   So unless we had a time machine how are we to know the writers of the Bible wouldn't take the facts we have and consider them?   How can tradition even COMPETE with scientific evidence?

Of course, evidence can come along and prove any theory wrong.   But most religions REFUTE evidence due to conflicts with words in a book.  But look how far we've come.    Science knows few questions that have no reasonable guess or theory.    In the future, I'm confident the one book way will pass and people will grow faith in multiple books.