CensoredAlso
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Messages
- 13,453
- Reaction score
- 2,291
Ugh, good job, Sarge...You and your profoundness!Yes, so now the world's coming to an end.
Ugh, good job, Sarge...You and your profoundness!Yes, so now the world's coming to an end.
Lucas was always slightly racist, even when the first Star Wars was named Luke Starkiller something or other. The difference is, he willfully worked well with others who suggested different concepts that swayed him off those. C3-PO was dangerously close to being Watto. Too bad he became a perfectionist surrounded by Yesmen. All the best concepts in the original Star Wars trilogy weren't even his.Except when Lucas or Bay are in charge of a film apparently. But since those characters are no sane person's favorites perhaps we are getting better, lol.
There is a true non-conformity. It has something to do with being completely rejected from society and having no friends. It leads to great depression and later going completely insane. I'd rather just stick to similar aspects of a counter culture. It's not true non-conformity, but it's still rejecting what you're supposed to be.I always said there was no such thing as nonconformity. You may think you are trying to rebel against what society is throwing at you, but you are still conforming to yet another group's expectations.
I swear, I don't know if it's him, or his writers, or both, but someone there has the most low class, hideous sense of humor it has ever been my displeasure to experience, lol. Or at the very least, they think that's what their audience is like. I know there was a writer's strike and that can make things difficult, the same thing happened with Star Trek V, whose humor is also pretty sub par. But Star Trek V never gotten to the unspeakable depths of a Bay film. Congrats guys, you made Star Trek V look good!Bay's just terrible.
I think if anyone did they're in a very tiny minority. I know those films made a lot of money, but I doubt it was because of those characters.Wait... I said FAVORITE cartoon characters. Anyone like those guys either one created?
Yeah this is the dirty little secret about conformity/nonconformity that we don't like to talk about. True nonconformity should in theory leave a person bitter and angry and miserable, even if they're absolutely in the right. In Philosophy class we talked about the difference between living comfortably (conforming with society, having money, friends etc) and living well (suffering but being a good person).There is a true non-conformity. It has something to do with being completely rejected from society and having no friends. It leads to great depression and later going completely insane.
I say this all the time. Bay is only different from Uwe Bowl in box office numbers and Hollywood pull. They both have an Inspector Gadget/Hong Kong Phooey level of oblivious egotism. I'd like to see Bay do a movie with Mathew McCouneghey. That would be so awful, it would be weaponized.I swear, I don't know if it's him, or his writers, or both, but someone there has the most low class, hideous sense of humor it has ever been my displeasure to experience, lol. Or at the very least, they think that's what their audience is like.
Yeah, vs. the 30's where they had such a vague concept of humor in their cartoons that they had to do blackface and various racist bits... the untalented ones, anyway, to sell a character. And in the end, none of them are really that funny. But that's unfair, since we know that Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck exist now.I think if anyone did they're in a very tiny minority. I know those films made a lot of money, but I doubt it was because of those characters.
Pure conformity is when you lose the essence of what you want to be. That's what the 1950's were like. If you strayed too far from the norm, you were automatically suspicious or a J.D. Because, like I said, people love to whitewash the unmitigated fear that swept the nation at the time.Yeah this is the dirty little secret about conformity/nonconformity that we don't like to talk about. True nonconformity should in theory leave a person bitter and angry and miserable, even if they're absolutely in the right. In Philosophy class we talked about the difference between living comfortably (conforming with society, having money, friends etc) and living well (suffering but being a good person).
I think it's selfish how some people charge for their autographs... I don't know if it's to discourage people from asking for them, or if they figure some people actually would pay through the nose for one... either way, I just don't think it's right; autographs should be free. Besides, most of celebs are rich enough anyway, what do they need to squeeze extra cash out of their fans for anyway?And then, a discussion about buying an Autograph that I can't afford at the moment led to the other person saying:
Ouch. That's a very crude thing to say regardless of whatever the circumstances. I don't blame you for getting mad.And then, a discussion about buying an Autograph that I can't afford at the moment led to the other person saying:
"You're spending money on a guy sticking a hand up a Muppets a**"
This is someone I know who has an Autograph I was interested in buying off him, but due to my financial situation I cant commit to buy it at the moment. I then had to listen to what a terrible person I was for backing out of the agreement because its not as though I owe money to more people than I can even think about.I think it's selfish how some people charge for their autographs... I don't know if it's to discourage people from asking for them, or if they figure some people actually would pay through the nose for one... either way, I just don't think it's right; autographs should be free. Besides, most of celebs are rich enough anyway, what do they need to squeeze extra cash out of their fans for anyway?