OT: 105th Obsequious Banter Thread: Penny for Your Thoughts

[DancingPanther]

A fine hat

 

[Tripod]

Bro...how did this knowledge evade you this long? Lol



That movie is incredible

No clue

 

[Deadpool8812]

I feel your pain. My brother was diagnosed with stage 3 colon surgery. He’s had 3 surgeries since May. He is home now and on the long road back.
Best wishes to you and your family

Much appreciated.

Thoughts and prayers to your brother and his entire support system. Hope for a speedy and complete recovery!

 

[Lord Defect]

TIL William Shatner is Michael Myers
View attachment 591500

Seriously? The mask was based off him.

 

[DancingPanther]

I feel your pain. My brother was diagnosed with stage 3 colon surgery. He’s had 3 surgeries since May. He is home now and on the long road back.
Best wishes to you and your family

Tough to hear and I'm so sorry, but in an effort to lighten the mood a little, your brother's colon cancer might be treatable with my favorite drug

Ziv-aflibercept

(Ziv-uh-flib-er-sept)

Just say that

 

[Superman33]

How the H does one plan such scene, let alone rehearse it or play it? Mind-blowing

Not sure how many takes they did, but I do know he wasn't supposed to hit that one guy and it is still the take they used. He ends up needing to sprint to catch up to the camera again after the collision. To me it makes the run a bit more believable.

 

[Beef Invictus]

There was a review of 1917 that complained about the film being futile. My bro, it is a World War I film.

 

[ajgoal]

View attachment 591540

BOOP.

 

[Lord Defect]

Not sure how many takes they did, but I do know he wasn't supposed to hit that one guy and it is still the take they used. He ends up needing to sprint to catch up to the camera again after the collision. To me it makes the run a bit more believable.

Is this streaming anywhere?

 

[Magua]

I said it when it came out: 1917 is a technical marvel, and while it’s purposefully lean, I don’t find it the most memorable movie apart from the central conceit and certain shots. I do appreciate the circular story part, but in terms of character and anything new to say……if it wasn’t shot in long takes, it loses much of its appeal. I don’t think it could’ve been any better with its constraints, mind you, but those same constraints capped it as very good and not great.

 

[Superman33]

Is this streaming anywhere?

Apparently it is on Amazon Prime.

I said it when it came out: 1917 is a technical marvel, and while it’s purposefully lean, I don’t find it the most memorable movie apart from the central conceit and certain shots. I do appreciate the circular story part, but in terms of character and anything new to say……if it wasn’t shot in long takes, it loses much of its appeal. I don’t think it could’ve been any better with its constraints, mind you, but those same constraints capped it as very good and not great.

I think people should definitely watch 1917 strictly for the filming method. Just from a film making perspective it is incredibly impressive. That being said, I appreciate the "tight" story. I'm a fan of focusing on those smaller individual stories over the big battle to big battle style stories. Really helps bring the perspective of every person involved in those wars had their own lives and stories to live, rather than just being meat in the meat grinder of war.

 

[Cody Webster]

Still catching up on Yellowstone...watched the season 3 finale last night....holy shit. It was like 945 when it ended. We had to watch the hour long, first, episode of season 4. Couldn't turn it off not knowing what happened

 

[Kermit the Prog]

Apparently it is on Amazon Prime.



I think people should definitely watch 1917 strictly for the filming method. Just from a film making perspective it is incredibly impressive. That being said, I appreciate the "tight" story. I'm a fan of focusing on those smaller individual stories over the big battle to big battle style stories. Really helps bring the perspective of every person involved in those wars had their own lives and stories to live, rather than just being meat in the meat grinder of war.

I'm a war movie buff, and of all the major wars involving the U.S.A. or the Allied Forces, WWI has been the least represented in film, with the possible exception of the Korean Conflict. I was glad to see a well-done and innovative movie on The Great War, even at the micro level.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I'm a war movie buff, and of all the major wars involving the U.S.A. or the Allied Forces, WWI has been the least represented in film, with the possible exception of the Korean Conflict. I was glad to see a well-done and innovative movie on The Great War, even at the micro level.

The best multiplayer first person shooter of the last 12ish years happens to be a WWI game too

 

[Magua]

I think people should definitely watch 1917 strictly for the filming method. Just from a film making perspective it is incredibly impressive. That being said, I appreciate the "tight" story. I'm a fan of focusing on those smaller individual stories over the big battle to big battle style stories. Really helps bring the perspective of every person involved in those wars had their own lives and stories to live, rather than just being meat in the meat grinder of war.

It's a very good movie, as I said, and it should be watched. I don't care for endless battle scenes either, and I'm a former film major, so trust me, I appreciate the wizardry of it. Frankly, I find too many action scenes boringly composed in general today. Besides the end trench run scene, the night scene through the rubble is breathtaking. I mean, it's Roger Deakins.

I just don't find it all that "tight" actually. By nature of simulating real time, minus the one time lapse, it does dawdle at times, not that I don't think pregnant pauses are important. It's a visceral walk-through experience -- that's its appeal. Not really character, for which it's rather paper thin; I don't think new ground is broken. I said lean, but part of me thinks it's sparing. As a film exercise, I don't know if it could be improved. Holistically? It didn't burrow inside of me either, like the best war films. Too much of the one-take conceit is baked into it.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Still catching up on Yellowstone...watched the season 3 finale last night....holy shit. It was like 945 when it ended. We had to watch the hour long, first, episode of season 4. Couldn't turn it off not knowing what happened

I watched the four seasons a few months ago. Big fan of the show even though I caught on late.

I thought initially it was just about a farm or some shit. I didn’t know it essentially had like a crime family element to it.

 

[Hurricane28]

I said it when it came out: 1917 is a technical marvel, and while it’s purposefully lean, I don’t find it the most memorable movie apart from the central conceit and certain shots. I do appreciate the circular story part, but in terms of character and anything new to say……if it wasn’t shot in long takes, it loses much of its appeal. I don’t think it could’ve been any better with its constraints, mind you, but those same constraints capped it as very good and not great.

1917 was a good movie. And I don't mean good in a way of my personal enjoyment, but more of the cinema experience. We don't really get those kind of movies anymore, the big budget movies are all CGI/Comic book/etc.

Its how I felt about Top Gun: Maverick. Just an insanely good and well shot movie that felt and was real.

 

[kudymen]

F1 management pulling a big time Ferrari here. They keep talking about Verstappen as the world champion, although he is mathematically still 1 pt away. TV presenter calls him champion. There are various graphics pronouncing him champion. Verstappen keeps saying he doesnt know if he is champion.


edit - listening to announcers, there were lots of confusion about the regulations. Amusing. Feels way less chaotic than Michael Masi hehe

 

[wankstifier]

That Marvel special was good. Kinda regret watching the trailer, though. I was too hyped by that

 

[Jack Straw]

Question for our esteemed mods- if you put someone on ignore you don't see any threads they create. This seems like a bad thing. I know I'm not the only one who has experienced this. Any chance some smart person would look into changing how this works?

For the record, the person that I would really, really like to ignore is not a Flyers fan and doesn't post here. Just almost everywhere else.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

Question for our esteemed mods- if you put someone on ignore you don't see any threads they create. This seems like a bad thing. I know I'm not the only one who has experienced this. Any chance some smart person would look into changing how this works?

For the record, the person that I would really, really like to ignore is not a Flyers fan and doesn't post here. Just almost everywhere else.

If you go to your ignore list, at the very bottom (this is a long scroll for me, since I've got over 400 users on mine), there is an option that lets you either remove ignored content entirely or hide with, but with an option to reveal it.

 

[Chinatown88]

If you go to your ignore list, at the very bottom (this is a long scroll for me, since I've got over 400 users on mine), there is an option that lets you either remove ignored content entirely or hide with, but with an option to reveal it.

View attachment 591967

I hope it's 420 just for the memes.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

I hope it's 420 just for the memes.

Close. It's 426, because life is too short to deal with stupid f***ing trolls on hfboards.

 

[Lord Defect]

If you go to your ignore list, at the very bottom (this is a long scroll for me, since I've got over 400 users on mine), there is an option that lets you either remove ignored content entirely or hide with, but with an option to reveal it.

View attachment 591967

How do you have 400 people on ignore and I’m not included. Somehow I’m offended by this b

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

How do you have 400 people on ignore and I’m not included. Somehow I’m offended by this b