"Uhhhhhhh, I was just testing you when I said the bad guy's first mistake was killing Bond's driver! Yeah, that's it!" you claim. Lame excuse, kid. Killing people who are a threat to their operation isn't a mistake. What would be a mistake is to let them live and allow them to expose what they're up to. So if the bad guys didn't screw up when Bond was around (in both Octopussy and Live and Let Die), their plans would have succeeded, regardless of whom they killed earlier. And don't forget the fact that in Skyfall, the bad guy's first mistake was having Bond brought to his island.
Tell that to Akira Kurosawa, who brought King Lear, a story set in eighth century England, to 17th century Japan in Ran. Tell that to Jerome Robbins, who brought Romeo and Juliet, a story set in 15th century Italy, to New York City in the 1950s in West Side Story. Tell that to Sergio Leone, who took Yojimbo, a story set in 19th century Japan, to the Mexican Border in A Fistful of Dollars. Tell that to Jonathan Larson, who brought La bohème, a story set in Paris around the 1830s, to New York City in the 1990s in Rent. Tell that to John Sturges, who brought Seven Samurai, a story set in 1587 Japan, to the American west in The Magnificent Seven. Tell that to Fred M. Wilcox, who brought The Tempest, a story set on an island during the Renaissance, to outer space in the 23rd century in Forbidden Planet. "Durrrrrr, all those people are dead, I can't tells them anything!" you respond. Thanks Captain Obvious, my point is they all brought stories to different time periods and settings with success. Those are concrete examples; all you can do is come up with hypothetical scenarios. RoboCop set during the French Revolution? Sure, it could be done as a steampunk movie. Incidentally, had you done any research, you would have learned that RoboCop was inspired by 8 Man, a Japanese comic written in the 60s.
"The car is obviously on a trailer! The car is obviously on a trailer! THE CAR IS OBVIOUSLY ON A TRAILER!" you scream for the umpteenth time, hoping it will come true. Protip: If you want to prove something, you need evidence. Your words alone, as important as you think they are, aren't going to cut it. If you can't provide evidence, you've conceded this point.
"Wahhhhhh, that don't count! Point of view angles is the most common angle ever! How dare you provides evidence to goes against my word! My word are law! You is a total moron to opposes it!" you wail. Even if a POV angle is "the most common angle ever used in film" (and it's not, eye-level angles are- http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-54_u-251_t-647_c-2411/camera-shots-angles- and-movement-lighting-cinematography-and-mise-en-scene/nsw/camera-shot s-angles-and-movement-lighting-cinematography-and-mise-en-scene/skills -by-text-type-film/film-overview. Before you try to claim POV angles are eye-level angles, let me point out that POV angles don't have to feature characters in the shot, eye level angles do.), that's irrelevant. You claimed The Driver did not use the same camera angles as Bullit and The French Connection (or to directly quote you, "Bullitt do not use the same camera angles and neither does the French connection"), I proved it did. I have evidence, you have nothing. Deal with it. But since you came back for further abuse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lbs_nYW3-o&t=3m20s
Here, the angle is focused on the interior of the car and what the driver sees through the windshield.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zcvKPnc60&t=2m01s
Look at that, same angle!
Here, you claim I'm "the critical type who keeps on trying to prove how smart he is on forums like this" while boasting about how I didn't pick up on some insult you used. Oh dear, you made yourself look dumb again. In any case, your poor understanding of the English language and your reliance on Stone Age insults isn't doing you any favors.
It took you over two months to come up with that? Have fun copying what I write, you're only demonstrating that you worship me. So did my message hurt you so badly, you needed time to recover? Or did your parents catch you writing inappropriate things and take away your internet privileges? Whatever the reason why you were gone for so long, it's good to see you've returned to set the human race back a few millennia.
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
Hi Gramps.
I love the fact your ranting and your soooo desperate you just wait on the internet for my messages, I on the other hand had a lot more important things to do than write a reply to an internet forum, but I've got a quick 5 min so here goes.
Really? in Skyfall I would have thought his first mistake was blowing up MI5, because without that Bond would have never turned up in the first place.
Ahem so your saying that Robocop could be set in the French revolution then? Thanks for the concrete examples by the way, lets not lose sight of the original point, you disagreed with me when I said that To Live and Die in La was similar to other earlier films, which you nit picked apart, but your quite willing to see that Romeo and Juliet is basically west side story. Doesnt that make you a complete idiot???
Yes the Car is OBVIOUSLY ON A TRAILER in the chase scene in to live and die in LA are you a complete moron, can you not see it do you need to buy thicker glasses, have you no idea about physics. watch it again.
"Wahhhhhh, that don't count! Point of view angles is the most common angle ever! How dare you provides evidence to goes against my word! My word are law! You is a total moron to opposes it!"
Best scentence ever!!!!
Really POV not common in car chase shots???? are you serious???? its been around since Harold LLoyd, you should remember that one.
I dont need to have to comeback to you on a shot by shot basis, your just wrong and you know it, its why you are frantically trying to dig your self out of your own hole.
Its sooo funny when you just dont get it, you angry little man, if you had some friends you could have a talk to them and calm down, but I guess you dont.
Now quickly, write another rant and just prove me right, or have you got something more important to do? I guess not :)
I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Those are mighty ironic words from a little kid who usually responds within hours of me. Got any more personal details to share?
Blowing up MI6 (MI5? And you try to accuse me of not understanding things.) was part of the bad guy's plan. If you think succeeding in what you were trying to accomplish is a mistake, you'd better look up the definition of mistake. Bond would have never found the bad guy if he wasn't brought to the bad guy's island.
You're severely lacking in the logic department here. West Side Story actually was inspired by Romeo and Juliet, whereas To Live and Die in L.A. is an original story. You fallaciously compared it to a bunch of old movies, I refuted your comparisons, and you've stopped talking about most of them. If you think RoboCop couldn't be set during the French Revolution, go look up a science fiction subgenre called steampunk.
Hey, where's your proof? Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist. The late Roger Ebert knows you're lying:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/to-live-and-die-in-la-1985
"The masterstroke in "To Live and Die in L. A." is that the chase isn't just on a freeway. It goes the wrong way down the freeway. I don't know how Friedkin choreographed this scene, and I don't want to know. It probably took a lot of money and a lot of drivers. All I know is that there are high-angle shots of the chase during which you can look a long way ahead and see hundreds of cars across four lanes, all heading for the escape car, which is aimed at them, full speed. It is an amazing sequence."
As a film critic, it's Ebert's job to pick up on obvious mistakes. He was watching films before you were even conceived so he knows how to spot them. And he saw no faults with To Live and Die in L.A.'s car chase. The word of arguably the greatest American film critic takes precedence over a little kid who thinks he's in the center of the universe.
Best "scentence" ever? That's mighty narcissistic of you. But that's to be expected.
You didn't say POV shots are common in car chases, you said a POV angle is "the most common angle ever used in film." Care to describe yourself some more? That's all you can do because you can't refute the factual evidence of The Driver having the same camera angles as Bullitt and The French Connection.
Says the kid who claims I keep trying to prove how smart I am and then gets hard because I didn't respond to an insult he thought was oh so clever. The sad truth is I don't care what you meant. Try again, Otto. Don't know why I'm calling you Otto? Tough.
Those fake smiles aren't fooling anyone but yourself. Better type up your next message quickly, you don't want your parents to catch you on their computer again. You'll be forced to live with the knowledge of how you didn't get the last word in this conversation.
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
Hey Gramps
Your so funny, I love the fact you can't remember your last posts, didn't you say I worshiped you in your previous post, want to look up narcisist?
H'mm I thought the Villain was trying to acomplish M's death? in which case he really stuffed that up by bringing Bond back into play didn't he? Oh yes your right it was MI6 but I don't really proof read these things, unlike you maybe?
What we have here folks is a regurgitator, someone able to take in information but be totally unable to digest or assimilate it, and is only able to throw it back up to try and establish his own weak point of view.
Erbert says "don't know how Friedkin choreographed this scene, and I don't want to know." guess what, I do know, and he towed the car on a trailer with a central fixed point, and its obvious, well it is if you have any idea about physics or film.
This brings me to the next point why should I bother trying to explain why the chases are different, you've just got no idea, none!
It would be like trying to explain algebra to my dog, entertaining for a while but eventually fruitless, and in the end I'd just feel stupid for trying.
You can see how Robocop could easily be set in the French revolution, and how West Side Story was inspired by Romeo and Juliet, but not how McQ being chased by other Police might inspire To live and Die in La????
Of course I know why you call me Otto its the lead character in Repo Man, one of my favorite movies, and a by word for cool young punk, so thanks for that :)Oh or were you trying to prove how smart you are Twilight?
The smilies arn't fake I'm smiling, but its at you not with you :)
p.s I'd let you into more personal details, but its far to exciting for you at your age.
I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Here is a little kid afflicted with unwarranted self-importance and a certain neurodevelopmental disorder that will not be mentioned because I don't want him crying to the admins about how I went too far. As a result of these conditions, he's dragging this conversation out in a desperate attempt to get the last word. Unfortunately, he has nothing left to offer, so he ends up repeating his same old baseless claims (while accusing me of regurgitating information lol!) and makes himself look bad in the process. No evidence has been provided to support the claim of the car being on a trailer in To Live and Die in L.A. and no refutation has been made to the visual proof of The Driver's car chase having the same camera angles as the ones in Bullitt and The French Connection.
In regards to the former, you've already conceited this point due to your refusal to prove it. All you can do is whine and PMS about how "obvious" the trailer is. If it was so obvious, you should have no problems proving it. But you can't and nothing will change that. Now you're even trying to claim you know more than Roger Ebert. Like I said before, the word of arguably the greatest film critic trumps the word of an anonymous little kid with no achievements to his name. As for the latter, you're now trying to claim it's just the car chases that differ. You didn't say the chases themselves were different before, you said the camera angles were. You've backpedaled on your argument... again! And you tried to claim I can't remember my older posts.
Look up the phrase "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." By copying me, you prove you want to be like me. And while you were discussing the subject of worship, you copied my "narcissistic" remark! Some things have to be seen to be believed.
No, Silva's plan was to get revenge on M. He did want her dead, but he first he intended to have her suffer. This included blowing up MI6's headquarters to make her and her organization look incompetent. I wouldn't expect you to know this, but a plan is often a multistep process. Not that it matters, you would claim anything Silva does is a mistake, even if he killed M at the start of Skyfall, because Bond would be sent after him. News flash: as long as the bad guy accomplished what he set out to do (like blowing up MI6), he didn't make a mistake. You still refuse to acknowledge the fact that Bond had no clue who Silva was and would have never found him if Silva didn't have Bond brought to his island. Proofreading is a bad thing? No wonder why every generation gets dumber.
Putting aside the fallacy of comparing similar sequences to similar storylines and McQ's obscurity, let's really look at the car chases from To Live and Die in L.A. and McQ. Although the protagonist of McQ is chased by the police, the officers who go after him are corrupt. So really, McQ is still being pursued by the bad guys, just like most car chases in police movies. With To Live and Die in L.A., the police officers who pursue Chance are not corrupt; they're just doing their job. They're not even revealed to be members of a law enforcement agency until after the chase is over. So what we have here is the "good" guy being chased by other good guys. To break this down for you: McQ is chased by bad guys; Chance is chased by good guys. You need better comparisons.
Wrong, the answer was someone a little more mainstream. Can't watch mainstream films because it will betray your status as a "true" film buff, amirite? But if you really want to be compared to a 5'4" grocery store boy who has his girlfriend stolen by his best friend and gets tortured by electricity, go ahead.
You doth protest too much. You think you're smarter than everyone else, but at the end of the day, you're still a mentally immature individual who alienated all his real life contacts. Face it, the only way you could benefit the world is if you pulled a Geoffrey Huish. That would make a hilarious story and it would prevent your kind from breeding.
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
ohh you really do have grumpy old man syndrome dont you?
I think you'll find McQ is actually chased by the good cops who have been tipped off that he has a large drug stash in his wrecked car,he was set up by corrupt cops but its the beat cops that are after him, but hey you obviously haven't watched it or your just unable to grasp the plot. You obviously need to lay off the meds a bit.
Do you even know what a Narcisist is? heres the definition:-
Narcissism is a term that originated with Narcissus in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own image reflected in a pool of water. Currently it is used to describe a person characterised by egotism, vanity, pride, or selfishness.
Hmm so you think people worship you, what would that make you? Silly Billy.
Yes its obvious, can you still drive? oh sorry you probably can't but if you could you would see the trailer shot, its plainly there, but as I said if you can't see it, that is your problem, not mine.
The chases and the camera angles are different, as I keep saying but I'm kind of sick of repeating my self now.
Wrong Twilight? no I think you will find I'm right, and yep I'm happy to be compaired to a short grocery boy who foiled the NSA and flew away in an alien powered flying 64 Chevy Malibu, are you happy to be called Twilight?
I'm bored of your whining, just as I guess everyone else is.
I really do have other things to do, so expect very terse replies from now on, I've spent more than enough time pandering to your stupidity.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Says the guy who won't stop talking about old movies. I seriously hope you are a little kid, because if you aren't, I have more reason to lose faith in humanity. It's pretty unsettling conversing with someone physically five years older than me, but mentally twenty years younger.
Quick recap:
No proof of the car being on a trailer provided? Check.
No refutation made to visual evidence of the similar camera angles? Check.
Empty arguments repeated in an effort to get the last word? Check.
Discussion going nowhere due to an inability to support claims? Check.
What's really unfortunate is you've dropped most of your claims, but the two you can't back up refuse to die. Control your disorder already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2IQfxg2rN4 - I could have sworn Al Lettieri was one of the bad guys. In regards to the car chase you described, the scenario is still different since Chance actually broke the law, unlike McQ, and the pursuers aren't revealed to be cops during the chase. In other words, a good cop is chased in McQ, a not so good cop is chased in To Live and Die in L.A. Anyways, if you really believe a forgotten Dirty Harry knock-off inspired anything, you're dumber than you think I think you are.
Here you go again, twisting things to fit your own viewpoints. Had I said others worshipped me, you would have ground to stand on here. But I didn't, I said you worshipped me since you copied what I wrote. Copying me means you want to be like me. Just like you're copying my use of the term "narcissistic."
Trying to be someone you're not, how typical of you Otto. Besides, I doubt the other Otto survived the car's radiation. What next, going to claim the London Underground is a political movement?
No, what you can't stand is being proved wrong. When you think you're better than everyone else, it just kills you to be wrong. And you copied me again. Typical.
You have other things to do? Like what, purchasing obscure movies with your welfare check? Your posts are becoming briefer because you keep getting refuted. You'll still respond in order to get the last word and convince yourself that you're in the right, but you're running out of things to say. Also, feel free to keep describing yourself, it'll just run contrary to your intention of making "very terse replies."
I take back what I said earlier. The only way you could benefit the world is if you pulled a Michael Hutchence.
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
The reason you have lost faith in Humanity is everyone is sick of your waffling on.
Oh so you are now trying to quantifiy what you said about McQ?
Didn't need to twist it you wrote it, and it describes you perfectly.The fact that you think I want to be like you confirms this and is the very definition of Narcissistic (duh!).
If you cant see the trailer shot, that makes you the moron, not me.
No use repeating arguments I've won already to someone sooooo mentaly below me.
Posts becoming briefer as quite simply you bore me.
The funny thing is the more angry I make you, the more you reveal about yourself, and you cant help it, bet you are a fustrated low income, or even wefare recipient, angry at the world as it won't listen to you, defintely a loner, but you'll pretend thats by choice.
As for me, well keep guessing, because you just have no idea at all, which really makes me :)
I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
"No use repeating arguments I've won already to someone sooooo mentaly below me."
Putting aside your inability to spell "mentally", let's take a look at your previous posts:
"Obviously its been a long time since you saw To Live And Die In La, so watch the chase sequence again and you will see the obvious errors."
"Ahem I think you'll find out the errors I pointed out quite a few times now, and I will again is the fact the car is obviously on a trailer and being swung around mechanically, how could you miss it?"
"Yes the Car is OBVIOUSLY ON A TRAILER in the chase scene in to live and die in LA are you a complete moron, can you not see it do you need to buy thicker glasses, have you no idea about physics. watch it again."
"guess what, I do know, and he towed the car on a trailer with a central fixed point, and its obvious, well it is if you have any idea about physics or film."
"Yes its obvious, can you still drive? oh sorry you probably can't but if you could you would see the trailer shot, its plainly there, but as I said if you can't see it, that is your problem, not mine."
"If you cant see the trailer shot, that makes you the moron, not me."
Nobody is better at making you look dumb than yourself.
What makes this contradiction even funnier is you previously said I was "waffling." Your posts are turning into autobiographies.
Great job not refuting what I said about McQ! And keep lying about the car being on a trailer, your PMSing comments tell a different story.
Only in the fantasy world you live in is that a perfect definition of narcissism. In the real world, narcissism is love of yourself, not believing others love you. Just because you think you're worshipped by others doesn't mean you worship yourself. You refuse to acknowledge you copied me, which is why you want to be like me. You're only clinging to the "narcissistic" remark because I used it. So go ahead and keep using it, you're demonstrating your love for me. It's pretty adorable watching you struggle to understand the term.
If I bored you, you would stop replying. But you can't, because you need to get the last word. So you keep watching this thread, waiting for my response. That's not how someone reacts to a boring individual. Too bad you keep getting debunked, which results in your posts becoming shorter.
Predictably, you copied what I wrote. Couldn't let my remarks slide, could you? Man, the truth must really hurt. Go ahead and keep projecting yourself on me, your personal details will keep slipping out and you're too stupid to realize it.
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
Ok its gone far enough.
In the Fantasy world I live in that was the dictionary definition of Narcissistic.
Now have you heard of Narcissistic personality disorder?
Takes advantage of others to reach own goals
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic
My friends partner says you exibit the classic signs of it based on your posts,(we've been reading them together) get yourself checked out.
Now to McQ, basicly you haven't watched it all have you? A quick internet search will always trip you up, there's three car chases in McQ (four if you count the truck /alley scene!) he's chased by a marked police car after breaking into the police pound. Who put the dope in McQ's car? Didn't McQ confiscate Heroin/Cocaine and give it to an informer? and then sleep with her? good cop?
Here we go again, ok take a look at the freeway scene, look at the close up of Peterson driving the car, check out the way he saws at the wheel, check out the motion of the car, now check out the background, does that fit together?no? is it because he's on a trailer? Yes :)
Now this is an essay, because I have no wish to continue, because quite frankly, yes you bore me, your wasting my time, and your getting far too agitated, saying I should commit a Michael Hutchins??? You don't think thats a bit far???
My last post will contain some of the other reviews to live and die in La got when it came out, enjoy :)
reply
share
charliesafari
12 years ago
The staff at Variety magazine were not impressed with the film and wrote that it was over the top: "To Live and Die in L.A. looks like a rich man's Miami Vice. William Friedkin's evident attempt to fashion a West Coast equivalent of his 1971 The French Connection is engrossing and diverting enough on a moment-to-moment basis but is overtooled ... Friedkin keeps dialog to a minimum, but what conversation there is proves wildly overloaded with streetwise obscenities, so much so that it becomes something of a joke".
In his review for the Washington Post, Paul Attanasio wrote, "To Live and Die in L.A. will live briefly and die quickly in L.A., where God hath no wrath like a studio executive with bad grosses. Then again, perhaps it's unfair to hold this overheated and recklessly violent movie to the high standard established by Starsky and Hutch".
Time criticized its "brutal, bloated car-chase sequence pilfered from Friedkin's nifty The French Connection", and called it "a fetid movie hybrid: Miami Vile"
So thats it from me, Bye
I come in peace, Shoot to kill!!!
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Oh boy, you know how to copy text from Wikipedia! You sure showed To Live and Die in L.A.!
Meanwhile, those reviews exist in a minority. Two of them don't even have real authors. On Rotten Tomatoes, To Live and Die in L.A. has 93% approval rating.
In the end, this is just another pitiful attempt to discredit To Live and Die in L.A. Not only do you lack the ability to admit you're wrong, you're a sore loser as well. For future reference, it takes more than repeatedly posting vague points and relying on other people's opinions to make a solid argument. But given your attitude in your final posts, it looks like you haven't learned anything. Eventually, you'll manage to push this conversation to the darkest corner of your mind and go back to showing off your "intellect" to others.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
This is coming from the guy who could have let this conversation end in February, but decided to resurrect it months later.
Even as you alter the term, your attempts at using narcissism fail due to your inability to acknowledge that you copied me. The reason why you worship me is because you've been repeating what I said. This includes you using the term "narcissism" right after I did. You have nothing left, so you resorted to imitating remarks from my posts. If you didn't think highly of what I've written, you wouldn't put it in your messages.
I don't know what would be more pathetic: if you're lying about reading over my posts with a "friends partner" or if you actually got so upset by my messages, you needed someone else to help you cope with them.
What's really funny is you previously told me to "have a little sook" to my mother about how nasty you were to me and now you're talking about how you cried to another person over what I've said to you. It's almost as if you're trying to make yourself look bad.
I have no interest in watching McQ since I'm not going to waste my time watching terrible movies. Anyways, there's only footage of two chase scenes on the internet; the one I linked and the truck sequence (where McQ is the pursuer). According to the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, the heroin gets confiscated by the bad guys and McQ chases them. Sleeping with an informer makes someone a bad cop? Do you ever think logically about the things you say? Once again, McQ's irrelevance is lost on you.
In other words, you didn't see the error. You went on moviemistakes.com, read the entry on To Live and Die in L.A., and figured talking about a goof related to the car chase would discredit the film. Instead, by being unable to provide concrete evidence, you made it clear that the mistake wasn't easy to spot.
Time for a reality check. Your claims of me boring you and being a waste of your time are contradicted by your constant replies to my messages. You've made 12 responses and they're not exactly short. Saying I'm getting too agitated doesn't hold up because I made the Michael Hutchence remark four days ago and only now are you reacting to it. The real reason why you don't want to continue is you don't like being proved wrong. Acting like you're smarter than everyone else is enjoyable at first, but once your arguments keep getting dismantled, the fun stops. Comparing your early posts to this one shows how many points you dropped after getting debunked.
The reviews could have easily been included in the post I'm replying to, not sure why you're putting them in a separate message. Not that it matters, it's just you being bitter about being wrong. Some things will never change.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Since when did two users equal everyone?
Although if you really want to be associated with someone who takes pride in not proofreading his comments, go ahead.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Putting aside the straw grasping and how the disagreements stemmed from different issues, there's one fatal flaw with your statement.
Online, people usually don't respond to the posts they agree with.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
12 years ago
Substituting Youtube links in place of written rebuttals certainly won't earn you the supporters you lack and are desperately yearning for.
The irony is that you could have communicated yourself in written fashion quicker than the time it took you to retrieve and post that link...and it would have actually gotten seen!
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Are you still going on with this? If you can't address my refutations, don't bother responding.
What I really like is it took you over a month to resume posting on this thread, but you're still not replying to the message directed at you. Maybe you thought Mr. "No use repeating arguments I've won already to someone sooooo mentaly below me" could shut me up.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
This is why people should not be given access to a computer when it's that time of the month.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
This is why people should not be given access to a computer when it's that time of the month.
This is why psychiatric centers should not grant internet privileges to patients.
Same theme, only some of the wording and subject have been changed.
So where are those refutations?
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
The theme was about how certain people should be denied access to computers. The only difference was the type of person, which you changed in a feeble attempt to be clever.
African Americans didn't get any support in the South for a very long time. Guess they must have been in the wrong too then.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
12 years ago
I am more clever than you, and only require feeble effort to be so.
African Americans also weren't wrong...unless of course we can add racism to your ever-increasing dossier of negative traits. Check one off for hubris, since you compared the personal problems of one insignificant person to an entire race's history of persecution.
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Once again...
http://i.qkme.me/3qpgjd.jpg
And the straw grasping returns. You equated support with being in the right, so by your own logic, the African Americans who got no support in the South were wrong.
This is all just a desperate attempt to steer away from the main subject at hand because you can't admit you're wrong.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
12 years ago
Once again, my link-clicking proclivity is dwarfed by your link-grabbing.
That is not "straw-grasping", jackass.
The plight of African Americans is literally the worst historical analogy (not to mention the most desperate) you could have conjured. You would have been better off invoking Copernicus, if not for the fact that he wasn't an idiot and your indefatigable persistence will fail to vindicate you.
I've defeated and humiliated you in regards to the "main subject at hand" (what a linguistic holocaust.) Rearranging one's points and dissecting it into insignificant minutia won't make you right, no matter how proficient you get with practice. I'm simply having my way with a bull-headed, cretinous dolt who doesn't know when it's time to saunter off. Your garrulous campaign has accomplished nothing but prove that IQ charts and medical records should be disclosed in the IMDb authentication process. What started off as a gripe by a tool has blown up into the parody of a quack. As much as you believe it, your tombstone epitaph will not read "he who much endured persecution in the endless fight for truth and justice"; rather, it will resemble something more along the lines of "a human cautionary tale".
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Just stop posting and learn to control your neurodevelopmental disorder already. As much as I'd like to keep dismantling your constant whining, it's pointless because I already refuted you thoroughly in April and you can't respond to one single thing I said back then.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
12 years ago
[augh] Your beginner's psychiatry degree needs some work; how many times in this thread have you arrived at that prognosis?
As much as I'd like to keep dismantling your constant whining, it's pointless because I already refuted you thoroughly in April
Aw, does that mean you're finally going away? Don't go away all mad, dumpy...just go away.
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
It took you ten days to come up with that? When you obsessively reply to me without acknowledging the points I've made, people are bound to question your mentality. As badly as you want it, you're not getting the last word here. Your inability to provide refutations confirms that you're wrong and you know it, but your ego won't let you admit it.
Just a reminder, you claimed having support means you're right, so your logic states African Americans who got no support in the South were wrong. Rather than respond to the main topic at the hand, you went after this little analogy- that's straw grasping for you. You know you'll get destroyed if you get back on topic, so you cling to your faulty logic to get an edge on me in at least one area.
Things that will never be refuted:
Ginette Vincendeau discussed how Le Samouraï and This Gun For Hire were different.
You destroyed your "You've literally not been right about one thing" remark by agreeing that The Driver was influenced by Le Samouraï.
Plot wise, Drive and The Driver have little in common.
Refn's influences didn't include The Driver.
All Gosling said about O'Neal (after being asked about him) was he's a great actor.
Gosling considered genres, not individual films, to be his influences.
The Superintendent is an officer of the law and gets certain privileges most people do not have, such as being able to intimidate and threaten others.
Blackmail is not a big part of Le Samouraï.
The mysterious female in Le Samouraï is only in a few scenes with the main character.
The female lead is This Gun For Hire really isn't that mysterious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7k1BhQ-X0M
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
That's what you were waiting for? Does this mean you won't return until another trailer for a film about slavery debuts?
In any case, add this to the things that will never be refuted:
You claimed having support means you're right, so your logic states African Americans who got no support in the South were wrong.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Things that will never be refuted:
Ginette Vincendeau discussed how Le Samouraï and This Gun For Hire were different.
You destroyed your "You've literally not been right about one thing" remark by agreeing that The Driver was influenced by Le Samouraï.
Plot wise, Drive and The Driver have little in common.
Refn's influences didn't include The Driver.
All Gosling said about O'Neal (after being asked about him) was he's a great actor.
Gosling considered genres, not individual films, to be his influences.
The Superintendent is an officer of the law and gets certain privileges most people do not have, such as being able to intimidate and threaten others.
Blackmail is not a big part of Le Samouraï.
The mysterious female in Le Samouraï is only in a few scenes with the main character.
The female lead is This Gun For Hire really isn't that mysterious.
You claimed having support means you're right, so your logic states African Americans who got no support in the South were wrong.
reply
share
TemporaryAgent
12 years ago
Check it out, Mr. "Your mom should be knighted annually and brass knuckle-sucker punched at the same coronation" is suddenly trying to be a humanitarian. Is it because he had a change of heart? No, it's the result of him trying to defend his terrible logic and desperately clinging to something so he can get the last word and will be able to convince himself that he's right.
Things that will never be refuted:
Ginette Vincendeau discussed how Le Samouraï and This Gun For Hire were different.
You destroyed your "You've literally not been right about one thing" remark by agreeing that The Driver was influenced by Le Samouraï.
Plot wise, Drive and The Driver have little in common.
Refn's influences didn't include The Driver.
All Gosling said about O'Neal (after being asked about him) was he's a great actor.
Gosling considered genres, not individual films, to be his influences.
The Superintendent is an officer of the law and gets certain privileges most people do not have, such as being able to intimidate and threaten others.
Blackmail is not a big part of Le Samouraï.
The mysterious female in Le Samouraï is only in a few scenes with the main character.
The female lead is This Gun For Hire really isn't that mysterious.
You claimed having support means you're right, so your logic states African Americans who got no support in the South were wrong.
reply
share
SeanJoyce
12 years ago
Michael B. Jordan has been getting raves for his work in Fruitvale Station, leading early Oscar prognosticators to believe that he is a shoe-in for a Best Actor nomination at next year's ceremony.
I'd be interested to hear the anticipation from somebody who, by nature of his IMDb activity, feels an intimate connection to African Americans.
http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned
reply
share