Unfortunately, the universal human impulse to write giant paragraphs when your taste in media is challenged is impossible to resist for many.short posts saying “nuh-uh I’m right and you’re wrong” are better suited for this thread than novels that make my eyes glaze over as I scroll through
[resolved - i appreciate the response, especially since i had not considered that possibility]Unfortunately, the universal human impulse to write giant paragraphs when your taste in media is challenged is impossible to resist for many.
Upon rereading, I realize that my initial post reads like vague sniping at the participants of the recent discussion, but that wasn't my intention. I was trying to make a general statement about Internet discourse; I wasn't consciously thinking about the recent discussion in this thread when I posted that. I can't speak to whether that particular discussion fits my observation because I didn't read much of it. I apologize for making you feel attacked. I have no hard feelings towards you or anybody else who participated in that discussion, and I'm not bothered by it happening. As you say, I can harmlessly scroll past posts that I'm not interested in reading, and I have been.ill be real, i really didn't like this post. it's kinda mean to broadly paint people discussing something they care about as "my feelings got hurt when people criticized my taste so i'm gonna cope and mald". like, i understand this dynamic can happen, but i think the post is pretty dismissive. i can't talk for other people, but for me, i took a lot of effort to curate my competitive knowledge and experience into a thorough yet casual-comprehensible way, reasoning that some criticisms were fair and some weren't. i don't think you targeted this post at me specifically, but, like, i'm included, and i imagine others likely object to being included.
for the broader objection to longer posts, my thought is like, there are plenty of shorter posts, can't you just scroll past the longer posts you don't like? arguments like this can fall flat in other contexts, but like, there's nothing offensive about the longer posts, and i don't see them clogging up limited space - there's been no takes in this thread for 2 days, plenty of time for anyone wanting to jump in with a shorter post.
(i know this post is discussion and not a take, but the past two posts were also discussion and not takes)
(i'm also aware this sort of discussion can spiral into unproductiveness so i'm probably not going to directly respond to anything about take length, i might edit this post to include my response though)
(if this post becomes no longer relevant i have no objection to deleting it / it being deleted)
nuh-uh I’m right and you’re wrongshort posts saying “nuh-uh I’m right and you’re wrong” are better suited for this thread than novels that make my eyes glaze over as I scroll through
does that count as a take
It does, now let me tell you why your take is shitshort posts saying “nuh-uh I’m right and you’re wrong” are better suited for this thread than novels that make my eyes glaze over as I scroll through
does that count as a take
I disagree: I think that Jack Black was one of the only celebrity castings that actually made sense in that movie, if only because they used his musical chops in a fun way. The movie clearly wasn't going for a super serious tone, so the goofier take on Bowser didn't bother me much.I didn't like Jack Black as Bowser.
Now, this is not a statement against Jack Black. He is a fantastic actor and comedian. However, I feel like he failed to sell the most important part of Bowser, that being his threat level. Bowser is an incredibly menacing and powerful villain, and I don't think Jack Black did as good of a job capturing that as someone like Neil Patrick Harris could. I felt like Bowser as a whole in the movie was far too focused on comedy. The scene where he effortlessly destroys an entire castle and the scene at the end were some of the best in the whole movie, and perfectly captured that feeling of an unstoppable rampaging monster, but the vast majority of Bowser's scenes are entirely dedicated to comedy, and that is really disappointing. Bowser has established himself as such an imposing character, and to prioritize comedy over this fantastic aspect of him makes the movie a lot worse than it could've been. I still enjoyed the movie a lot, but I really wish they cast someone better suited for the role, and made him feel more threatening as a whole.
While I disagree, I respect your opinion. However, all this makes me realize how good Neil Patrick Harris would be as Bowser. He has excellent comedic delivery, fantastic vocal range, and is a good singer. He fills all three boxes of funny, threatening, and a good singer, and as shown in A Series of Unfortunate Events, he can do all three at the same time.I disagree: I think that Jack Black was one of the only celebrity castings that actually made sense in that movie, if only because they used his musical chops in a fun way. The movie clearly wasn't going for a super serious tone, so the goofier take on Bowser didn't bother me much.
Counterpoint: Jack Black makes a better Bowser because he's fat.While I disagree, I respect your opinion. However, all this makes me realize how good Neil Patrick Harris would be as Bowser. He has excellent comedic delivery, fantastic vocal range, and is a good singer. He fills all three boxes of funny, threatening, and a good singer, and as shown in A Series of Unfortunate Events, he can do all three at the same time.
I agree. Oran Berry Blissey is better thought of as an uncompromising expression of self than as a strategy.The lower ladder can be very appealing when you pay enough attention to it. One thing the low ladder players have that isn't very common among high players is the ability to express their personalities. Unlike high level plays where people use pre-established teams and strategies, low level players are alot more authentic with their decisions, it's not just about playing to win, it's about taking pride in your true self, and establishing your identity on the playing field. Sure they may not be very compitent, but they make up for it with their genuine sense of self, rejecting the norms of the masses, and performing solely with their own experience and preferences.
I remember really liking the emergency broadcast episode. That's all I remember, though.I appreciate Local58 for pushing analogue horror very far, but I think it's kinda overrated
It's not super scary and it's a little simple compared to newer entries like Monument Mythos or Vita Carnis. I mean yeah it came much earlier, but I don't agree with praising it so highly compared to more sophisticated series
that IS the best episode of it. "This message will repeat until nobody is left to receive it" goes really hard. I think it's still the best emergency broadcast in analogue horror historyI remember really liking the emergency broadcast episode. That's all I remember, though.
I also watched Gemini Home Entertainment. I remember liking it, but it definitely had a formula that became tough not to notice when watching consecutive episodes. There's only so many times that I can watch the slightly unnerving videotape suddenly become much more disturbing — followed, of course, by a hard cut to footage of someone on the scene of the monsters — before it stops being scary. The first episode remains the best one, in my estimation.that IS the best episode of it. "This message will repeat until nobody is left to receive it" goes really hard. I think it's still the best emergency broadcast in analogue horror history
I still think Local58 is really good, just not as good as some contemporaries. Monument Mythos, Walten Files, Vita Carnis and Gemini Home Entertainment go really hard. Monument Mythos especially, it's such an insane alt history setting and I love how it's based on Americana. Seeing something like Mount Rushmore or the Air Force One contorted in horrifying ways is really cool
This isn't a hot take; this is just a statement of fact.BKC wants a Machamp suspect because he is jealous of Machamp's eyebrows, which are bigger and even more beautiful. It is his hope to one day steal them, like a Highlander.
I'm just amazed that there are people who have strong feelings about things other than the original anime series and movie.90-95% of people saying that Evangelion 3.0+1.0 is bad seem like they never even watched the movie
I get that the rebuild series is extremely confusing and has a lot of unexplained plot points (like most of the third movie) that go nowhere, but it's astoundishing to hear masses say that 3.0+1.0 discredits the time loop theory when it, verbatim, directly to the face of the viewer, says that that's exactly what's happening. I don't think you can misunderstand this if you watch the movie. It's like watching Empire Strikes Back and coming to the conclusion that it discredits Vader being Luke's father
I know it can be frustrating to not understand the majority of what's happening, but for some to wait 14 years for the movie, having watched the series, EoE and the previous movies, and to somehow dismiss the final confrontation between Shinji and Gendo? To have Asuka's mommy/daddy issues be addressed? To see Shinji grow up? I can understand being critical of the path it took there, but I don't think you'd dismiss this whole part if you actually watched the movie and went in there with an open mind. It's like people were still upset about 3.0 (which okay fine, that is a frustrating movie and it harms the whole series) and didn't want to like this movie from the start