Moments when a piece of entertainment completely lost you.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:15 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote: I thought that scene did a good job of establishing why Arya wouldn't trust a person she'd never met before and who was literally covered in Lannister patronage. That she has an opportunity to reject the next iteration in her cycle of dubious protector figures and go alone by choice gives her more agency than simply being forced into it; I don't know if it's a better version of her transition to self-determination, but I don't think it's worse.

That argument would probably have more weight if she wasn't heading to Braavos to sign up with the Faceless Men and get her eyes stolen by her new mentor figure.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:30 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I am not in fact a retarded person (that term has a specific medical meaning), so you're still wrong. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll eventually manage to move the goalposts to your satisfaction.

Don't be such a childish ass. Maybe retarded has a specific medical meaning or maybe it doesn't because it has been completely replaced by mentally challenged. But either way it also has a colloquial insult meaning, which is obviously the one I am using. Just like when I call you a moron, I am not calling you a retarded (or mentally challenged) person from the 1800s, and when I call you an idiot I am not calling you a retarded (or mentally challenged) person from 1400s. And when I just called you a childish ass, only a childish ass would respond by claiming they are not a childish ass because they are over 14 years old and are not actually two thick cheeks around an anus.

But good job not at all demonstrating how a horn that has never done a damn thing is totally relevant while a growing army of miscontented smallfolk that hasn't done much, but still thousands of times more than that horn is totally irrelevant.

You proved to absolutely no one's satisfaction that you are not completely full of shit. By the way, just to be clear, I am not saying that you have no muscles, bones, blood, internal organs, or otherwise cells anywhere in your body because they have been cleared out to make room for copious amounts of shit that have been jammed into you. I am saying you are full of shit.

Are you done pointing out that words have other meanings besides their insulting ones as some kind of complete non sequitar defense against the stupidity of your positions? Or am I going to have to turn this into a horse corpse beating?

My actual position is that Brienne's chapters don't have enough story content to justify the time spent on them. You might notice that the Riverlands outlaw part of the plot doesn't actually advance in book 4.

No, your actual position is that there was no things for Brienne to do in the show so they had to make them up. Which was of course, completely wrong. Now, you might notice that none of the plot of any Brienne scene in the show advances either, so your point is fucking completely unhelpful in defending your thesis.

I don't agree that they don't do anything special. For example, Sansa's betrayal is a hugely important action in Book 1, even if it happens off-screen; and the 'weasel soup' incident is kind of a big deal as well. I could name others.

You are correct that Sansa does one thing of importance off screen. However, you will note that this does not in fact help any of her on screen chapters pass the "Only people who do things matter" test that you set up.

And Weasel Soup is not an incident that is in any way a big deal. Since the same thing would have happened anyway a minute later.

But even when the Stark girls are just observers, what they observe is often immediately relevant to the overarching plot. The confessions that Sansa hears in Book 3 are a big deal in a way that the coy revelation on the Quiet Isle just is not. Arya's viewpoint in Book 2 shows us the situation with the Lannister army; that's relevant to the war in a way that farting around with Nimble Dick and Hyle Hunt just is not. And they personally get character arcs that are complete within each book.

Here, let me summarize that for you:

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I, angelfromanotherpin reject foreshadowing as a valid literary device. Also characterization and setting detail. The only valid literary purpose that may be served by words on a page are the explanation of past events, never setting things up for the future.

This is why I, angelfromanotherpin think the scene where Robert says that Bran should be put down is a worthless waste of space. It does not explain past events, but only sets up a payoff for many books later, and therefore uses the completely unacceptable literary device of foreshadowing, or build up.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:33 pm

A mentor is different from a keeper.

The Faceless Men say they can set her up in a variety of cushy lifestyles, and she chooses their tutelage. She's seemingly free to back out of that relationship any time she wants, and she chooses to stick with it. Very distinct.

angelfromanotherpin · Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:19 pm

Kaelik wrote:But either way it also has a colloquial insult meaning, which is obviously the one I am using. Just like when I call you a moron, I am not calling you a retarded (or mentally challenged) person from the 1800s, and when I call you an idiot I am not calling you a retarded (or mentally challenged) person from 1400s. And when I just called you a childish ass, only a childish ass would respond by claiming they are not a childish ass because they are over 14 years old and are not actually two thick cheeks around an anus.

That's true, but there's no objective measure of the colloquial versions. In which case I do and/or do not qualify by relativism fiat and including them is a meaningless caveat on your original 'all' statement and can be ignored; in which case your statement is still wrong and I'm kind of offended that you wasted my time with it.

No, your actual position is that there was no things for Brienne to do in the show so they had to make them up. Which was of course, completely wrong.

That's one straw man, because I at no point said that.

But your own straw man just kicked your ass. There are no things for her to do, not from the third act of A Storm of Swords, which is the actual source material for this season. She is in a perfect position to move on to wandering around uselessly chasing red herrings all of next season, though.

Now, you might notice that none of the plot of any Brienne scene in the show advances either, so your point is fucking completely unhelpful in defending your thesis.

What. She is given a mission to find the Stark daughters, finds a lead on one of them, follows it, finds her, and then is rejected by her. That is actually a complete plot arc for Brienne and it advances in the majority of her scenes.

However, you will note that this does not in fact help any of her on screen chapters pass the "Only people who do things matter" test that you set up.

That is not a test that I set up. I didn't say that only people who do things matter; I said that Brienne 'didn't have enough actual in-book story to keep [her] occupied. That's two straw men.

Here, let me summarize that for you:

angelfromanotherpin wrote:I, angelfromanotherpin reject foreshadowing as a valid literary device. Also characterization and setting detail. The only valid literary purpose that may be served by words on a page are the explanation of past events, never setting things up for the future.

This is why I, angelfromanotherpin think the scene where Robert says that Bran should be put down is a worthless waste of space. It does not explain past events, but only sets up a payoff for many books later, and therefore uses the completely unacceptable literary device of foreshadowing, or build up.

Do you shit actual straw? Because three instances of you making things up and attributing them to me in a single post is my actual limit. Can I just quote you conceding if that sort of dishonesty is acceptable?

I won't be responding to you further on this subject.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:25 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:That's true, but there's no objective measure of the colloquial versions. In which case I do and/or do not qualify by relativism fiat and including them is a meaningless caveat on your original 'all' statement and can be ignored; in which case your statement is still wrong and I'm kind of offended that you wasted my time with it.

Really you fucking idiot. Your defense is literally "hyberbole is monstrous, and furthermore, because idiot is a subjective insult, therefore no one is an idiot"? Are you trying to parody Zak S?

Your definition is completely unfounded. You cannot justify your definition at all. Yes, obviously not "all" definitions include the Riverlands or exclude everything else. Here are some other definitions:

Only PoVs were a character is literally being fucked are relevant to the plot. Only locations that are called Hightower are relevant to the plot. Only locations that involve someone named Stark are relevant to the plot.

All of those are definitions that exist, they are also all stupid and unjustifiable, just like your stupid unjustifiable definition.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
No, your actual position is that there was no things for Brienne to do in the show so they had to make them up. Which was of course, completely wrong.
That's one straw man, because I at no point said that.

Before you say you never said something, maybe check to make sure you didn't actually say it.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:You get problems where some characters (Brienne I am looking in your direction) must have something significant enough coming up to justify keeping around as main cast members, but don't have enough actual in-book story to keep them occupied until then.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:There are no things for her to do, not from the third act of A Storm of Swords, which is the actual source material for this season.

You are, completely unsurprisingly, completely wrong. They are already doing scenes from Dance of Dragons right now in the exact same episode.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:That is not a test that I set up. I didn't say that only people who do things matter; I said that Brienne 'didn't have enough actual in-book story to keep [her] occupied. That's two straw men.

Wholly fucking shit Zak S. Saying one thing at one point does not magically erase the other things you said. Here is a quote of you defending your claim that Brienne is irrelevant despite the many relevant things she sees:

angelfromanotherpin wrote:A lot of what Brienne sees might very well be set-up for later payoff (like the Cleganebowl theory), but in terms of what she actually does, it's basically nothing.

Notice how this could literally just be name replaced by Sansa and still be true.

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Do you shit actual straw? Because three instances of you making things up and attributing them to me in a single post is my actual limit. Can I just quote you conceding if that sort of dishonesty is acceptable?

You sure can, but see, people will see that you are full of shit. When I create a quote of you, I do it in a deliberate manner to show that it is not a direct quote, and I trust the audience to read it and compare it to what you actually said and realize that you are in fact basically saying exactly what I am saying you are saying.

Which is when you whine about how things she sees are not immediately relevant you are basically just whining that authors should not write things to set up later plot points, which is a thing that shows up all the time with all the characters.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:20 am

Call me a philistine, or an uncultured swine, I mean, I wouldn't necessarily argue either of those terms even not taking this post into account, but we just watched Sense and Sensibility ('95) in my Intro to Cinema class tonight an...

ugh. Just... ugh. Upper class twits being fucking silly over other attractive upper class twits in the Approved Regency Manner (TM) and either having a "quiet" affair or throwing themselves at them.

*sigh* yeah, I'm a philistine, but that was just interminable.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:06 pm

The point with the period pieces is that's how people really lived their lives before radio and tv and internet and shit. Lots of gossip about the casual sex people were having until pregnancy came along and either someone got married or got disappeared.

Especially the upper classes, who did literally grow up home schooled and not know anyone outside their family and the rotating servants outside short periods at single-sex boarding schools at a late age. Being old enough to be presented at a dance could expand someone's world from six people to twenty in an evening.

It being an interminable and vacant life with impossible but meaningless standards, particularly for the women, is the point. If you were technically upper class but couldn't afford the social circuit, life got incredibly lonely after marriage. People kept old letters from family and friends for decades because reading them over again was all they had.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:07 pm

Yeah, I get that. I'm not saying it was a bad movie, or inaccurate or anything. It was just not my thing. For exactly the reason why it would probably be considered pretty good by most people who are into that sort of thing.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:48 am

I made it about 30 seconds through a trailer for Lucy until Morgan Freeman said that tired line about humans using only 10% of the brain's capacity. Immediately closed window; will never watch movie.

Fucking hate that stupid, stupid urban legend trope or whatever you'd call it.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:51 am

The trailers for Lucy are shit. It's just some bullshit about stupid brain myths and forcing taxi drivers to speak English at gunpoint in a vaguely Akira-ish movie.

Heh, eric's post wasn't there when I started this. the time gap is only because I grabbed a coke.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:27 am

Judging solely from the trailer, that movie should have been titled, "Scarlett Johansson walks down a corridor while thinks explode"; and I can't see how a movie with that title could possibly do worse than $100 million domestic.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:50 am

That or "Scarlet Johansson, Bad Science and White Faux Feminism."

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:02 pm

I've seen a bunch of Lucy parody pitches floating around my facebook feed.

'Most people only use 10% of their rope. What if you could access all of it? Noosey.'

'Most people only use 10% of their rhymes. What if you could access all of them? Seussy.'

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:28 pm

In addition to my bottomless hatred of the "10% of your brain" myth, there's also the fact that I don't really see any conflict in that movie. Lucy doesn't turn into a god, where most of the movie she's developing super powers and people are trying to stop her. She just is a god by the time they're done with the setup. And then the trailer is nothing but a series of completely one-sided physical confrontations. That's violating some very basic storytelling conventions.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:42 pm

I have a hard time with the idea of a drug that turns a mule into a god, while the people who manufacture it haven't already taken it themselves. The only reason I can think of to answer that is an utterly horrible death. Which puts the plot at girl turns superhuman, girl kills baddies, world rejoices in freedom, girl dies horribly. The end.

Ganbare Gincun · Post by **Ganbare Gincun** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:37 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:'Most people only use 10% of their rhymes. What if you could access all of them? Seussy.'

I'm pretty sure that if you're only using 10% of your rhymes, your name is Chuggo. LOL

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:31 am

Most people can only access 10% of their Bullwinkle impressions. What if you could access all of them? Moosey.

Most people can only access 10% of the fruit in their blender. What if you could access all of them? Juicy.

Most people can only access 10% of their medical knowledge. What if you could access all of it? MD Housey.

Most people only drink 10% of what is handed to them. What if you could drink all of them? Roofie.

Aaaand that's all I have for this moment

Occluded Sun · Post by **Occluded Sun** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:10 pm

Unless Lucy is having a grand mal seizure, I'm not buying it. And as I'm pretty sure that would make a terrible movie, I wouldn't buy it even if she were.

K · Post by K » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:10 am

There is a Salon piece about how ScarJo has morphed into the new face of female horror because of Lucy, Under the Skin, and Her.

The armchair film theorist in me is going to have to watch Lucy in order to have the data to think about the issues mentioned.

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:32 pm

Most companies only test 10% of their product. What if you tested it all? QC.

Most actors only use 10% of their sanity. What if you used none? Busey.

Most people only understand 10% of what I say. What if you understood it all? You'll see.

Most men use 100% of their strength and stamina. What if you only used 10%? Pussy.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:49 am

You got the 10% and 100% the wrong way 'round in the last one. HTH.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:51 am

Most poor people can only access 10% of their money. What if they could access all of it? American Dream.

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:39 am

I'm on family vacation this weekend and Sunday night is traditionally movie night. (you know where this is going)

Sister in Law wants to see Lucy and she unironically pitches it to other family members as "It's the movie where she uses 100% of her brain." I threw up in my mouth a bit.

I can stomach fucking apes with machine guns riding horses more than that stupid 10% meme as a premise. However, since wife is not very interested in any movies playing, we'll skip on paying $21 for the two of us to see a movie and instead play cards tonight.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:33 am

Its magical psychic powers. You can have any explination for magical psychic powers, because magic.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:38 am

Just try to pretend that they're saying "double her mental power," triple, quadruple, etc. I know it's hard, but try. Or that they're talking about some conceivable maximum level of mental improvement.