OT: Let's talk about movies and TV - Part XXII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,334
20,289
Jeddah
Season 6 of Chef's Table just dropped. The series has become a force. It is perhaps the very best original series on Netflix right now and it is showing no signs of slowing down.
I just went to eat at Gaggan in Bangkok last saturday, rated #1 restaurant of Asia. He was on season 2 of that show I think.
It was a very fun dining experience. 25 course dinner with 8 wine pairing.
They give you an emoji menu, each meal represented by one emoji...no description. Every meal they bring they tell you what it is and describe the story behind it. Cool concept. 2h30 of eating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Runner77 and Fenris

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,334
20,289
Jeddah
The SJW crowd would tell you he's pictured as a criminal and is an anti-hero, which shouldn't count, somehow.

Nevermind he kills droves of mostly white men.

Anyway, Blade was great. Black Panther, not so much.
Blade was so bad ass. The first one was terrific.
Black Panther was a joke. Garbage.
 

sandviper

No Ragrets
Jan 26, 2016
13,645
24,979
Toronto
Blade 2 was a little underrated IMO. I loved the fights in that movie, though the club scene blasting New Order at the start of Blade 1 ranks as one of my fave kickass scenes in movies.
 

ArtPeur

Have a Snickers
Mar 30, 2010
14,308
11,982
I just went to eat at Gaggan in Bangkok last saturday, rated #1 restaurant of Asia. He was on season 2 of that show I think.
It was a very fun dining experience. 25 course dinner with 8 wine pairing.
They give you an emoji menu, each meal represented by one emoji...no description. Every meal they bring they tell you what it is and describe the story behind it. Cool concept. 2h30 of eating.

Crazy stuff haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Runner77

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
Blade 2 was a little underrated IMO. I loved the fights in that movie, though the club scene blasting New Order at the start of Blade 1 ranks as one of my fave kickass scenes in movies.

Oddly enough, I prefered Trinity. I hated the addition of face-splitting vamps and i thought the story itself was so-so.

Despite its shortcomings, i loved how they brought Dracula into blade's world in Trinity.
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
I dont disagree with the fact that you need to acknowledge history but calling Colombus a terrorist is pretty dumb.

What should we call foreign invaders who commit mass genocide?

Terrorist might not be the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind.

I disagree with Lee mostly, but he's calling a spade for what it was, just that its use in his little diatribe could've been avoided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edgy

Deebs

Without you, everything falls apart
Feb 5, 2014
17,429
14,373
What should we call foreign invaders who commit mass genocide?

Terrorist might not be the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind.
Different time and no way one can call them terrorists. They aren't there to create fear, they are the to take your belongings, life and land.
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
Different time and no way one can call them terrorists. They aren't there to create fear, they are the to take your belongings, life and land.

Like I said, not the right word, but the first one that comes to mind.

Cortez did the most of the genocide, but Columbus was no sweetheart.

The funny thing is that calling him a terrorist is mild compared to the actual words i'd use for what he did.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,525
58,608
Citizen of the world
What should we call foreign invaders who commit mass genocide?

Terrorist might not be the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind.

I disagree with Lee mostly, but he's calling a spade for what it was, just that its use in his little diatribe could've been avoided.

I don't think anyone ever called Alexander the Great a terrorist, or Napoleon, or Attila.

I mean, sure you could stretch the definition and it works, but context matters a lot here... The history of mankind pre-1945 is bloody and it shouldn't be held to the same standards as today, thats ridiculous. It's like painting everyone that lived pre-wars as simpleton because of the difference in technological advances. The world has changed, for the better, you can't start and call everyone a "rapist/racist/misogynist/murderer" or what ever.

Honestly, though, I agree that Colombus doesn't need to be celebrated, I think there's a grey zone between the two, aka calling Colombus a terrorist and not celebrating him.
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
I don't think anyone ever called Alexander the Great a terrorist, or Napoleon, or Attila.

They were conquering despots.

I mean, sure you could stretch the definition and it works, but context matters a lot here...

It's a nuance of sociopathy where despots reside at the pinnacle which is megalomania, whereas terrorism, historically speaking and not just in the post-cold war era definition, in its essense, is an anti-social form of warfare, a reactionary sociopathic tendency of those who are traumatized by oppression. It's warfare for the disenfranchized.

But the essense of "terrorizing" is still the same and applies to all forms of warfare. The Conquistadors terrorized central america and the west indies, just as much as the pirates terrorized the west indies, just as much as the brits with some of the native american tribes.

It's not because a word was re-approriated that is loses its original intended meaning, hence why I said the Palahniuk catchphrase, it's not the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind. That's because terrorizing has more than ONE meaning/application.

The history of mankind pre-1945 is bloody and it shouldn't be held to the same standards as today, thats ridiculous. It's like painting everyone that lived pre-wars as simpleton because of the difference in technological advances. The world has changed, for the better, you can't start and call everyone a "rapist/racist/misogynist/murderer" or what ever.

I find that a bit odd. It's the same overall relationship between the outcomes of societal stratification, personal developmental trauma and the insuing sociopathy.

You talk of standards, but to me that's irrelevant. The way you seem (assumption) to represent standards is through moral value judgements. I just see declining tendencies towards sociopathy because of overall stress relief in childrearing of our modern societies, but I still see the same overall mechanism present. It's the same behavior misadaptation to a lack of attachment-reward development and/or concurring physical and psychological traumas. Still the same overall factors. What it was then, is still the same today in how some of the first world countries are still pillaging 3rd world countries, it's still the extreme expression of sociopathy, the megalomania, its greed and thirst for power and dominance.

Honestly, though, I agree that Colombus doesn't need to be celebrated, I think there's a grey zone between the two, aka calling Colombus a terrorist and not celebrating him.

He was a sociopath, plain and simple.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,525
58,608
Citizen of the world
They were conquering despots.



It's a nuance of sociopathy where despots reside at the pinnacle which is megalomania, whereas terrorism, historically speaking and not just in the post-cold war era definition, in its essense, is an anti-social form of warfare, a reactionary sociopathic tendency of those who are traumatized by oppression. It's warfare for the disenfranchized.

But the essense of "terrorizing" is still the same and applies to all forms of warfare. The Conquistadors terrorized central america and the west indies, just as much as the pirates terrorized the west indies, just as much as the brits with some of the native american tribes.

It's not because a word was re-approriated that is loses its original intended meaning, hence why I said the Palahniuk catchphrase, it's not the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind. That's because terrorizing has more than ONE meaning/application.



I find that a bit odd. It's the same overall relationship between the outcomes of societal stratification, personal developmental trauma and the insuing sociopathy.

You talk of standards, but to me that's irrelevant. The way you seem (assumption) to represent standards is through moral value judgements. I just see declining tendencies towards sociopathy because of overall stress relief in childrearing of our modern societies, but I still see the same overall mechanism present. It's the same behavior misadaptation to a lack of attachment-reward development and/or concurring physical and psychological traumas. Still the same overall factors. What it was then, is still the same today in how some of the first world countries are still pillaging 3rd world countries, it's still the extreme expression of sociopathy, the megalomania, its greed and thirst for power and dominance.



He was a sociopath, plain and simple.
I can't agree with that, again you're transposing your morals, the morals of a 21st century man onto actions made six hundred years ago (Or more, because if you hold Colombus as a sociopath of kind, you have to hold every single conqueror/warmonger to the same, and that is a SHITLOAD of people.) Calling any of those guys sociopath is being a bit oblivious to the actual world they lived in. What you refer to as sociopathy was in fact, social back then, that's the big difference. You can't project sociopathy towards the whole existence of men pre-1945 (You can stretch it to late 1800's where there was a shift in the perception of war as being a rightful bad or even some kind of noble game.), because warmongering and violence was just a part of life. I know it seems like a foreign concept but it is what it is.
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
I can't agree with that, again you're transposing your morals, the morals of a 21st century man

You're the one who keeps seeing it in moralistic terms. Stop projecting.

Sociopathy is a clinical term. I apply it in terms that it is meant to be used. It's a judgement of facts, not morals.

onto actions made six hundred years ago (Or more, because if you hold Colombus as a sociopath of kind, you have to hold every single conqueror/warmonger to the same, and that is a ****LOAD of people.) Calling any of those guys sociopath is being a bit oblivious to the actual world they lived in. What you refer to as sociopathy was in fact, social back then,

This is where you are wrong. It is was more prevelant, yes, but not the norm. It was culturally dependant and region specific. I've read quite enough books on the traumas of war and its epidemiological impact to know that the majority of the population, in most cases, had succesful nurturings. The problem was that the prevelance of trauma was far greater than today.



that's the big difference. You can't project sociopathy towards the whole existence of men pre-1945 (You can stretch it to late 1800's where there was a shift in the perception of war as being a rightful bad or even some kind of noble game.), because warmongering and violence was just a part of life. I know it seems like a foreign concept but it is what it is.

Again, it's not a question of projecting, but a clinical term that applies in fact. It's not a moral value judgement, but recognizing the impact of sociopathy and its origins.
 

sheed36

Registered User
Jan 8, 2005
47,670
36,340
No Man's Land
Read the book when it came out and have been waiting for the movie, looks to have gone low budget as they initially planned to have Christopher Walken playing Ozzy which would have been interesting

Still will probably catch it tho

I never knew there was a book and it does look a bit low budget. David Costabile from Billions and Breaking Bad is also in it and I enjoy his work so that's another reason why I'll check it out. Plus we'll get to see Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon) in a much different role as well so there's some familiar faces in it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Runner77

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,525
58,608
Citizen of the world
You're the one who keeps seeing it in moralistic terms. Stop projecting.

Sociopathy is a clinical term. I apply it in terms that it is meant to be used. It's a judgement of facts, not morals.



This is where you are wrong. It is was more prevelant, yes, but not the norm. It was culturally dependant and region specific. I've read quite enough books on the traumas of war and its epidemiological impact to know that the majority of the population, in most cases, had succesful nurturings. The problem was that the prevelance of trauma was far greater than today.





Again, it's not a question of projecting, but a clinical term that applies in fact. It's not a moral value judgement, but recognizing the impact of sociopathy and its origins.
You're applying a clinical term to 99.2% of Human history, man. That cannot work. If we were talking about a regent/monarch working under a mostly democratic world (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.) I would 100% agree, but that is true for .8% of history. There's a change of perception after the Napoleonic wars that shouldn't be ignored and there's a realization that the old world ways did not work anymore after the 2nd (Most would say first.) world war.
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
You're applying a clinical term to 99.2% of Human history, man. That cannot work. If we were talking about a regent/monarch working under a mostly democratic world (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.) I would 100% agree, but that is true for .8% of history. There's a change of perception after the Napoleonic wars that shouldn't be ignored and there's a realization that the old world ways did not work anymore after the 2nd (Most would say first.) world war.

You're misconstruing things here. Let's just stop because this is pointless. But one last thing, actual human history is about 250k years old and we have spent 99.9% of our history as mostly highly social and egalatarian hunter gatherer tribes with very little levels of violence, no matter how Steven Pinker tries to deny it.

Sociopathy is a developmental affect that became more prevelant after the advent of agriculture, the division of labor and the ensuing social stratification that developed afterwards.
 

ottawa

Avatar of the Year*
Nov 7, 2012
33,832
10,470
Orléans/Toronto
Come on now, QTip can go hit or miss. He's not the greatest director in cinema, NEC.

There are quite a few names in front of him. Starting with Kubrick and Darabont.

Spaghetti Westerns don't have great scripts and the action is mostly sensationalistic. It will never beat the depth and beauty of a movie like Shawshank or Green Mile.

I honestly don't think any of his movies have been misses, they've all been well received. All his movies he directed by himself are either massive hits or cinematography marvels, or both.

Reservoir dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill vol 1
Kill bill vol 2
Death Proof
Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained
Hateful 8
 

Grate n Colorful Oz

The Hutson Hawk
Jun 12, 2007
36,308
34,581
Hockey Mecca
I honestly don't think any of his movies have been misses, they've all been well received. All his movies he directed by himself are either massive hits or cinematography marvels, or both.

Reservoir dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill vol 1
Kill bill vol 2
Death Proof

Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained
Hateful 8

Those were pretty ordinary to me. Kill Bill is a huge snore fest. It's pure valium to me.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
91,525
58,608
Citizen of the world
You're misconstruing things here. Let's just stop because this is pointless. But one last thing, actual human history is about 250k years old and we have spent 99.9% of our history as mostly highly social and egalatarian hunter gatherer tribes with very little levels of violence, no matter how Steven Pinker tries to deny it.

Sociopathy is a developmental affect that became more prevelant after the advent of agriculture, the division of labor and the ensuing social stratification that developed afterwards.
I agree, which is why I only counted 10000 years or so ago and didn't account for most of prehistoric times.

I know were you're going, I just don't think it's an actual fair argument, I also don't think you can disagree that pre 1800 vs post 1800 is the same world, our era is just a logical step in the great filter.
 

overlords

#DefundCBC
Aug 16, 2008
33,095
12,977
The City
I honestly don't think any of his movies have been misses, they've all been well received. All his movies he directed by himself are either massive hits or cinematography marvels, or both.

Reservoir dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill vol 1
Kill bill vol 2
Death Proof

Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained
Hateful 8 (haven't seen)
Those were pretty ordinary to me. Kill Bill is a huge snore fest. It's pure valium to me.

Same as me, pretty much. QT is okay, has churned out some seriously entertaining stuff, and I think he's pretty fantastic with dialogue, but putting him anywhere near 'best director' is pretty laughable. I felt django was messy and long, like it was his Dark Knight Rises. Christoph Waltz' delivery coming so close to what he did in inglorious was really distracting for me. Really like PF, IB and RD, in that order. No idea what people see in Jackie Brown. It's incredibly boring to me. Also really can't stand Uma Thurman (outside PF) in anything so I'm willing to agree to disagree on Kill Bill but I've fallen asleep through Vol 1. on three separate occasions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad