Off Topic Thread 3.0

b.gud

Trump supporters have got to be some of the dumbest people on the planet

sullivlo

https://www.aldi.ie/specialbuys/dates/thursday-29th-september/c/2016-09-29/?q=%3Apopular&page=1

Aldi cycling gear!

molloyjh

b.gud wrote: »

Trump supporters have got to be some of the dumbest people on the planet

There's a part of me that reckons this is all staged. There couldn't possibly be adult human beings that are this stupid out there? Could there?

Podge_irl

molloyjh wrote: »

There's a part of me that reckons this is all staged. There couldn't possibly be adult human beings that are this stupid out there? Could there?

Yes there can but they are certainly not restricted to Trump supporters.

Interview enough people at most events and you could probably fashion something like this out.

b.gud

molloyjh wrote: »

There's a part of me that reckons this is all staged. There couldn't possibly be adult human beings that are this stupid out there? Could there?

I don't know 8 years working in bars and shops makes me think it is possible

Yeah I agree that there probably is a certain amount of staging but I wouldn't be surprised if some a good portion of it was real. The more interesting aspect would be to have access to the full unedited video to see how many reasonable people were interviewd

molloyjh

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes there can but they are certainly not restricted to Trump supporters.

Interview enough people at most events and you could probably fashion something like this out.

I dunno. On some of it maybe. Like that one who was talking about getting her info from Facebook and Twitter. We probably all know people like that. But that guy asking why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office doing his job as President on 9/11? I mean that's a defining moment in American history (in global history really, but for the purposes of this discussion let's stick with American). It was in GWBs first year in office and was over 7 years before Obama took office. Given how big a deal that was, how big a deal the following 7 years were, how big a deal it was that a black man became President in 2009 and the fact that it was clearly 15 years ago that it happened (meaning the same person could not be President now as then) I struggle to understand how anyone, especially an American, could have difficulty with that.

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

I dunno. On some of it maybe. Like that one who was talking about getting her info from Facebook and Twitter. We probably all know people like that. But that guy asking why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office doing his job as President on 9/11? I mean that's a defining moment in American history (in global history really, but for the purposes of this discussion let's stick with American). It was in GWBs first year in office and was over 7 years before Obama took office. Given how big a deal that was, how big a deal the following 7 years were, how big a deal it was that a black man became President in 2009 and the fact that it was clearly 15 years ago that it happened (meaning the same person could not be President now as then) I struggle to understand how anyone, especially an American, could have difficulty with that.

Murica

DGRulz

b.gud wrote: »

I don't know 8 years working in bars and shops makes me think it is possible

Yeah I agree that there probably is a certain amount of staging but I wouldn't be surprised if some a good portion of it was real. The more interesting aspect would be to have access to the full unedited video to see how many reasonable people were interviewd

This. For about every two people they show who come across as complete morons, there's probably (hopefully :P) 8 others that would have come across as "normal" but it doesn't suit the narrative they're going with.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

I dunno. On some of it maybe. Like that one who was talking about getting her info from Facebook and Twitter. We probably all know people like that. But that guy asking why Obama wasn't in the Oval Office doing his job as President on 9/11? I mean that's a defining moment in American history (in global history really, but for the purposes of this discussion let's stick with American). It was in GWBs first year in office and was over 7 years before Obama took office. Given how big a deal that was, how big a deal the following 7 years were, how big a deal it was that a black man became President in 2009 and the fact that it was clearly 15 years ago that it happened (meaning the same person could not be President now as then) I struggle to understand how anyone, especially an American, could have difficulty with that.

A Trump spokesperson has been blaming Obama for all sorts of stuff from before when he was in office, e.g:

http://www.thewrap.com/trump-spokesperson-blames-obama-khan-death/

Don't think the video is available anymore but all the details are there.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes there can but they are certainly not restricted to Trump supporters.

Interview enough people at most events and you could probably fashion something like this out.

That's exactly how it works. It's all about reducing hours and hours of footage down to a few minutes and making interviewees look as stupid as possible. You could very easily do the same thing on the streets of Dublin or London.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's exactly how it works. It's all about reducing hours and hours of footage down to a few minutes and making interviewees look as stupid as possible. You could very easily do the same thing on the streets of Dublin or London.

The thing is, it's not a news piece it's a comedy segment in a comedic show and their take on the news. So obviously they'll want the more stupider people because it suits their narrative and what they think is funny.

If it was a news piece the legitimacy of it would definitely need to be questioned

I got my hands on a decent copy of the new Ghostbusters film. I know it's been slammed but it was 5.5 on IMDB and I figured a lot of the hate for the film was probably reactionary because the original is so loved. I decided to give it a fair go with an open mind.

It's absolutely terrible. Turned it off before the half hour, it's embarrassingly awful with nothing even remotely redeemable. Terrible writing, terrible acting and no plot. It has gone straight to the top of my worst films of all time. Maybe it get's incredibly good after that first 30 minutes, I'll never find out. Avoid if you were even remotely considering watching.

kuang1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I got my hands on a decent copy of the new Ghostbusters film. I know it's been slammed but it was 5.5 on IMDB and I figured a lot of the hate for the film was probably reactionary because the original is so loved. I decided to give it a fair go with an open mind.

It's absolutely terrible. Turned it off before the half hour, it's embarrassingly awful with nothing even remotely redeemable. Terrible writing, terrible acting and no plot. It has gone straight to the top of my worst films of all time. Maybe it get's incredibly good after that first 30 minutes, I'll never find out. Avoid if you were even remotely considering watching.

I know I'm running the risk of sounding incredibly sexist now, but the only positive review I heard of for that movie was from a woman. Yer wan on Moncrieff's movie's and booze slot on a Friday. She rubs me the wrong way at the best of times and the few times I have tuned into the show (I'm usually working then) I've ended up disagreeing with what she considers good or bad movies.

Thanks Venjur. I was highly unlikely to ever watch it up til now, but that's changed to absolute certainty!!

I saw it and had extremely low expectations so I got pleasantly surprised.

If it wasn't a ghostbusters reboot it would have been a received a bit warmer. It has its flaws like a lot of them but Chris Hemsworth and Kate McKinnon shone in it. It's a watch when it gets to Netflix job really

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

I was worried about Ghostbusters when the casting was announced. It just seemed very lazy. Feig's BFF McCarthy and 3 people off SNL. It screams "IMPROV" which can sometimes work but sometimes it's just weird and awkward. I remember reading something where Tina Fey was talking about 30 Rock and she said that they always always had a very tight script and they always stuck to it first. If someone had an idea or a different take on a line they would do a few extra takes but there was always the tight structure of the script to work with. Paul Feig's films, and especially those with McCarthy, always seem like there's a very basic outline of a story and he just lets people shout whatever they want most of the time.

The Heat with Sandra Bullock is the perfect example of this. Bullock is a great comedy actress, but she's not an improv person. So many awkward scenes where Bullock is clearly delivering the script and McCarthy is just saying random things. I feel the same way about a lot of these kinds of films though, Will Ferrell being a prime example. Sometimes it works and sometimes you're just left scratching your head wondering why the director didn't call cut 2 minutes ago and why the editor left this stuff in.

wp_rathead

I actually enjoyed Ghostbusters- very similar humor to Spy
Didn't expect to like it but found myself laughing a good bit when I saw it which is what ya want

Probably helped that I wasn't a big fan of the original - like it's graaaaaaand but I don't really get the cult following for it.

That said - I wish Hollywood would f**k of with their reboots

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

wp_rathead wrote: »

That said - I wish Hollywood would f**k of with their reboots

Yeah, it's getting a bit ridiculous now, Spiderman, for example is on the 3rd reboot in my lifetime.

DGRulz

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah, it's getting a bit ridiculous now, Spiderman, for example is on the 3rd reboot in my lifetime.

There's a whole bunch of different reasons for that but it's in the right hands and with right people now and I'd be extremely surprised if it was rebooted again. I'd go as far as to say it'll probably never be rebooted again.

molloyjh

DGRulz wrote: »

There's a whole bunch of different reasons for that but it's in the right hands and with right people now and I'd be extremely surprised if it was rebooted again. I'd go as far as to say it'll probably never be rebooted again.

Ever? I really doubt that.

DGRulz

molloyjh wrote: »

Ever? I really doubt that.

Forever is a very long time Lets say quite a while, at most there'll be a soft reboot where a different character takes up he mantle, when Tom Holland gets too old/ doesn't want to do it anymore.

Unless of course Marvel's deal with Sony completely disintegrates, then you'll get a new reboot every 5-10 years :P

DGRulz

DGRulz wrote: »

where a different character takes up he mantle, when Tom Holland gets too old/ doesn't want to do it anymore.

That sounds an awful lot like a reboot.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

That sounds an awful lot like a reboot.

It's only technically a reboot if they wipe the canon of the previous films. They could obviously do some kind of "new" spiderman living in the same universe as the current one. Happens in comics a lot.

Of course I doubt that would happen.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

It's only technically a reboot if they wipe the canon of the previous films. They could obviously do some kind of "new" spiderman living in the same universe as the current one. Happens in comics a lot.

Of course I doubt that would happen.

Ah ok, so instead of rebooting it, they're just rebooting it. /s

Joking aside, it does happen in comics (has been done in Spiderman) but that's usually because they've run out of ideas and need to change the series up a bit. Spiderman keeps getting rebooted because they have a contractual obligation to continue making films or lose the IP. The Andrew Garfield spiderman films had some good elements but for the most part shouldn't have happened. I'm excited to see what Marvel do with him, his cameo in Civil War was handled perfectly (and it was an incredibly good film too).

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Didn't they change who Spiderman is in the comics recently? I think I remember reading something about that, like he's not Peter Parker anymore?

DGRulz

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Didn't they change who Spiderman is in the comics recently? I think I remember reading something about that, like he's not Peter Parker anymore?

Yup, that's what I was getting at above. Miles Morales is the new Spider-Man and then theres a bunch of off-shoots..

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

DGRulz wrote: »

Yup, Miles Morales is the new Spider-Man and then theres a bunch of off-shoots..

You'd think they could have gone with that for the new films then instead of telling us Peter Parker's origin story for the millionth time.

DGRulz

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

You'd think they could have gone with that for the new films then instead of telling us Peter Parker's origin story for the millionth time.

My understanding is they're, almost, completely skipping his origin this time. So Uncle Ben doesn't need to die for the billionth time this century. Civil War gave the impression he'd been doing it a while and it was just him and Aunt May living in the apartment.

wp_rathead

I love Michael D Higgins

wp_rathead

wp_rathead wrote: »

I love Michael D Higgins

What he done now?

DGRulz

Assume it's something to do with his Late Late appearance.