McQualude's Replies


Jeff Bridges in Iron Man That seems strange to me. People touching is normal, terms of endearment are normal. Were you socially isolated as a child? His self centeredness may have nothing to do with autism. Plenty of people are. I use a 4 point system and generally consider 5 attributes: 1) technical (which I know the least about but enough to know when something is well made, or not), 2) writing, 3) acting, 4) entertainment, 5) level of success at what it wants to be (if it wants to be a horror film, is it scary? if it's a love story, do I identify with the characters emotionally?) 1. Sucks, all attributes fail, probably will not finish the movie. 2. Works on some levels, some attributes are successful. Not likely to recommend the movie. If genre, only the most hardcore fans will appreciate. (most remakes) 3. Most attributes are competently achieved. The film is entertaining but for most people a one time viewing, except to fans of the genre or franchise. 4. All attributes are adequate or better, some are above average. The film will be influential. It appeals to it's intended audience and is likely to get repeat viewings. So while I'm considering the overall objective quality, I'm also considering if the film is successful and appealing to it's intended audience, so it's a relative score, not an absolute. Movies that hold themselves as high art will be judged more critically. A low budget movie that is competently but simply shot with enthusiastic but unskilled actors and has an interesting story may score a 3. And if I were actually reviewing movies in some form that mattered, I would use a 2 part rating system that would first give a score based on technical merits and second score based on its subjective effectiveness with intended audience. The aforementioned B movie might get a score of 2|3, below average technically, above average in entertaining to its intended audience. This show keeps getting better. You're giving it way too much credit, it's just a meandering mess. I can link to 3 blog sites with absolutely true statistics I just made up, that prove it's at least 89.85% which rounds to 90% !!!!!! Any data refuting my claims is just the lamestream media and their fake scientists pushing some agenda that makes no sense if you think about it but nevertheless is definitely true. Too big for what? The politics forum is linked in 2 places, one is right under General Discussion. There isn't a movie or TV forum linked prominently. Most posts on actor pages are politically motivated, many are outright hateful, some even use slurs. There are plenty of politically motivated posts in GD. So yeah, it's a high percentage. 4 makes more sense than 10, there is no need to have such a wide span. Few people, myself included, have the technical expertise to use a 10 point or 100 point scale. The difference between 6.9 and 6.2, or even 6 and 7 is negligible for the average viewer. I rate movies 1-4 for personal use. 1-5 would be fine too but I like that 1-4 forces hard choices. It's been too long since I've seen The Mummy for me to call this and while Frankenstein is among my favorite old horror films, Karloff had better performances like The Body Snatcher. But now I have to go watch The Mummy. Not the most active for movies and tv, this site is about 90% politics. Which is a shame because it has a nice UI. The law is fixated on transfer of title, I'm just extrapolating from the reality of everyday life. Interesting point about forgery, which opens a legal quagmire which I'm sure was never considered by writers who really have only began to explore ideas beyond violence. You're arguing with a political bot. First episode was good, I liked it more than S1ep1. Setting a trap and killing someone should be separate crimes. The trap would likely fall under something like menacing, public endangerment, or reckless endangerment; of that you would be free and clear. The resulting death after the siren would IMO be a separate charge and you could be arrested. It's all hypothetical of course, and tv writers are often dumb as bricks so who knows how it might go on the show. The owner of a car is the owner on the title not the person who possesses it, otherwise every time I park my car on private property I would risk losing ownership. If possession were ownership, banks couldn't legally repossess a vehicle. If you park your car on the street and go into a store, the car is still yours when you come out. If you leave $1000 on the side walk and go into a store, the money belongs to whoever picks it up. You certainly have the hostility and persecution complex down pat. There is evidence for a religious leader, Christus, in a blurb by Tacitus, that is probably the New Testament Christ. But there is no evidence he was anything other than a man and no evidence he returned from the dead. You see, I have done the research. Now for the rest of the Bible... Back to you. You are religious, not a religion, and I think you know the difference. As for most of the Bible being proved scientifically, that must be very recent, perhaps you have articles to share? Money is not property in the same sense as a car, building, or land. A car is private property, you get a title and pay taxes on it. Transferring ownership is a legal process, not just a matter of possession.