Social WR Lounge v262: Pansy Division

What mini power do you choose?

  • You can always magically add 15 minutes to anything you're supposed to be on time to

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • In two conversations a day you can effortlessly make small talk that goes well

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Three times a month you can go an entire day without needing to use the bathroom

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • Four times a month you can feel completely full without needing to eat

    Votes: 5 12.5%

  • Five times a month you can fall asleep perfectly when you decide too

    Votes: 26 65.0%
  • Total voters
    40
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rebelfett said:
Everytime I see your av i do that thing with my arms
Click to expand...
essie said:
not anymore.
Click to expand...

oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

Khabib Khanate said:
Stand up comedians think that their lives are a lot more interesting than they actually are, especially the more degenerate ones. I'm sure you guys had tons of fun banging hookers while completely funked up on some cocktail of drugs but its really not that interesting to the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Chillin' Nuts said:
Good Lord could you imagine if someone like that posted here?
Click to expand...

You had the same thought I did. <45>

Shots Fired.
 
@Jack V Savage

You once posted a piece about how people take this weird, literal approach to artistic criticism that focuses on the details while completely missing the subtext and themes of the story and I ran into a good example of this. Couple years old but here's a terrible Jurassic Park fan theory

I'm not going to deal with all the stupid shit in this video but I will tackle a few details.

They mention that the Dilophosaurus having poison glands proves their point because there's no evidence in the fossil record that they had them. For one that actually undermines their point since elsewhere they claim that the dinos are engineered to look like what we imagine them to look like and not what they were but before JP no one had a conception of Dilos as having poison glands or being able to spit poison. And this completely misses the whole point of why Crichton wrote the Dilos this way. Its acknowledged in the book that there's no evidence in the fossil record of their having poison for the obvious reason that poison glands are soft tissue and wouldn't fossilize. Crichton doesn't think Dilos actually had poison glands, he includes this to make the point that if we could somehow revive dinosaurs we would suddenly learn a lot about them that would be impossible to know from the fossil record. This is done again in the second book in a scene where its revealed that Carnotaurus can camouflage.

It also leads to a second point which is a central theme of the book and movie, how an unrestrained profit motive can lead to bad decision making. When Muldoon, the game warden, finds out about the poison glands he asks Hammond if he can have one killed to be dissected so they can potentially find a way to surgically remove the glands from the other Dilos but Hammond refuses because each dinosaur costs tens of millions of dollars to create. Hammond makes many other decisions like that and its framed as part of the reason why the park fails. The point about how reviving dinosaurs from fossilized mosquitoes also seems to miss the obvious fact that Crichton isn't trying to suggest a way to actually recreate dinosaurs, he just needed a somewhat plausible idea to set up the impossible series of events that follows like many works of science fiction.

Its really strange because this is a mainstream work that critiques capitalism and specifically commodification but instead of having that interesting conversation people want to nitpick these details without understanding why they're there from a literary standpoint and so that they can create these dumb fan theories. Imagine if you told someone the story of The Scorpion and the Frog and their response was "but scorpions and frogs can't talk, least of all to each other. Is this taking place in a dream? Or maybe a post apocalypse where frogs and scorpions mutate the ability to talk?"
 
Last edited:
Chillin' Nuts said:
Good Lord could you imagine if someone like that posted here?
Click to expand...
Deorum said:
oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh




You had the same thought I did. <45>

Shots Fired.
Click to expand...
I thought about @AgonyandIrony and I was going to contrast those comedians to him but felt like I was trying too hard not to offend him.

Anyway at the expense of trying too hard not to offend him I don't think he's like them necessarily. He's unapologetic about his lifestyle but he's also seemingly ambivalent about it, aware of its downsides. He's not simply saying "look how cooool I am guys, I'm really cool right?".

Plus a lot of his personal stories are really about his life in the French Quarter so many don't center his experience necessarily, he's often more of an observer to the craziness. He also uses them to make some broader point. Not sure if this is intentional but a reoccurring theme I see in his posts is the tension between the tourist experience and its expectations with that of the messy life of those who live in the French Quarter. At times he laments how the purchasing of local apartments for short term tourist rentals prices out those who live there and a lot of his stories from his old job as a tour guide demonstrate the gap between the more sanitary experience that tourists expect and the messy reality of life in the French Quarter.

So I quite like his stories. He should write a collection of personal vignettes called Tales from the French Quarter or something like that. He likes Hemingway IIRC and that style would fit perfectly for a book like that.
 
Last edited:
Khabib Khanate said:
@Jack V Savage

You once posted a piece about how people take this weird, literal approach to artistic criticism that focuses on the details while completely missing the subtext and themes of the story and I ran into a good example of this. Couple years old but here's a terrible Jurassic Park fan theory

I'm not going to deal with all the stupid shit in this video but I will tackle a few details.

They mention that the Dilophosaurus having poison glands proves their point because there's no evidence in the fossil record that they had them. For one that actually undermines their point since elsewhere they claim that the dinos are engineered to look like what we imagine them to look like and not what they were but before JP no one had a conception of Dilos as having poison glands or being able to spit poison. And this completely misses the whole point of why Crichton wrote the Dilos this way. Its acknowledged in the book that there's no evidence in the fossil record of their having poison for the obvious reason that poison glands are soft tissue and wouldn't fossilize. Crichton doesn't think Dilos actually had poison glands, he includes this to make the point that if we could somehow revive dinosaurs we would suddenly learn a lot about them that would be impossible to know from the fossil record. This is done again in the second book in a scene where its revealed that Carnotaurus can camouflage.

It also leads to a second point which is a central theme of the book and movie, how an unrestrained profit motive can lead to bad decision making. When Muldoon, the game warden, finds out about the poison glands he asks Hammond if he can have one killed to be dissected so they can potentially find a way to surgically remove the glands from the other Dilos but Hammond refuses because each dinosaur costs tens of millions of dollars to create. Hammond makes many other decisions like that and its framed as part of the reason why the park fails. The point about how reviving dinosaurs from fossilized mosquitoes also seems to miss the obvious fact that Crichton isn't trying to suggest a way to actually recreate dinosaurs, he just needed a somewhat plausible idea to set up the impossible series of events that follows like many works of science fiction.

Its really strange because this is a mainstream work that critiques capitalism and specifically commodification but instead of having that interesting conversation people want to nitpick these details without understanding why they're there from a literary standpoint and so that they can create these dumb fan theories. Imagine if you told someone the story of The Scorpion and the Frog and their response was "but scorpions and frogs can't talk, least of all to each other. Is this taking place in a dream? Or maybe a post apocalypse where frogs and scorpions mutate the ability to talk?"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I am reacting to the same thing but one of my biggest pet peeves is the mistaking of nitpicking plot as film criticism. I think in a sense it dates back to Roger Ebert's television show that presented film criticism as a short form that boils down the substance of a film to thumbs up or thumbs down and since then it's gotten way worse.
 
essie said:
I'm not sure if I am reacting to the same thing but one of my biggest pet peeves is the mistaking of nitpicking plot as film criticism. I think in a sense it dates back to Roger Ebert's television show that presented film criticism as a short form that boils down the substance of a film to thumbs up or thumbs down and since then it's gotten way worse.
Click to expand...
Weirdos criticized Kong Vs Godzilla because it didn't focus enough on the human tragedy of two giant monsters battling each other in a crowded city.

Who the fuck is worried about that? You watch a movie with a giant lizard fighting a big monkey and you get Alan the shopkeeper that lost his wife and kids and worst of all his store?
 
Khabib Khanate said:
I thought about @AgonyandIrony and I was going to contrast those comedians to him but felt like I was trying too hard not to offend him.

Anyway at the expense of trying too hard not to offend him I don't think he's like them necessarily. He's unapologetic about his lifestyle but he's also seemingly ambivalent about it, aware of its downsides. He's not simply saying "look how cooool I am guys, I'm really cool right?".

Plus a lot of his personal stories are really about his life in the French Quarter so many don't center his experience necessarily, he's often more of an observer to the craziness. He also uses them to make some broader point. Not sure if this is intentional but a reoccurring theme I see in his posts is the tension between the tourist experience and its expectations with that of the messy life of those who live in the French Quarter. At times he laments how the purchasing of local apartments for short term tourist rentals prices out those who live there and a lot of his stories from his old job as a tour guide demonstrate the gap between the more sanitary experience that tourists expect and the messy reality of life in the French Quarter.

So I quite like his stories. He should write a collection of personal vignettes called Tales from the French Quarter or something like that. He likes Hemingway IIRC and that style would fit perfectly for a book like that.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah I agree with all of this, I look forward to the guy's posts, such an interesting mind and I dig the way he paints his thoughts.

I think it's amusing that I almost didn't post my quip because I didn't want him to take it wrong and you gave some thought to how much you might offend him when he's probably one of the last motherfuckers out there to worry about offending.
 
tonni said:
Weirdos criticized Kong Vs Godzilla because it didn't focus enough on the human tragedy of two giant monsters battling each other in a crowded city.

Who the fuck is worried about that? You watch a movie with a giant lizard fighting a big monkey and you get Alan the shopkeeper that lost his wife and kids and worst of all his store?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it yet but I love Godzilla.
 
essie said:
I'm not sure if I am reacting to the same thing but one of my biggest pet peeves is the mistaking of nitpicking plot as film criticism. I think in a sense it dates back to Roger Ebert's television show that presented film criticism as a short form that boils down the substance of a film to thumbs up or thumbs down and since then it's gotten way worse.
Click to expand...
That's very similar to what I am talking about here. I blame materialism, people are so obsessed with the "what" of the thing that they have stopped considering the "why" of the thing. The people who take this nitpick approach of plot details don't seem to care at all about the meaning of the film.
tonni said:
Weirdos criticized Kong Vs Godzilla because it didn't focus enough on the human tragedy of two giant monsters battling each other in a crowded city.

Who the fuck is worried about that? You watch a movie with a giant lizard fighting a big monkey and you get Alan the shopkeeper that lost his wife and kids and worst of all his store?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it yet but in general I disagree. Jurassic Park is adored for its awe inspiring special effects and the dinosaurs have a whopping...17 minutes of screen time. The monster scenes have a lot more punch to them when you use them sparingly and time them well and when you are invested in the story and survival of the human characters.

Barely anyone will care about Godzilla vs Kong in ten years but they'll still be talking about Jurassic Park.
 
Last edited:
@Ruprecht I have no clue if the Aussie version is good, but based on what you wrote, you should check out LOL. The humor there is less from the sketches & stuff participants deliver and much more from the attempts of the others to avoid laughing (it seems like torture).

Also I was super reluctant at first, but people kept telling me to watch it.
 
Ysteix4.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,633
Messages
55,641,842
Members
174,868
Latest member
mezgomg

Share this page

Back
Top