Chairchucker

Saw The Amazing Maurice yesterday. Overall I enjoyed it. One of the better Pratchett adaptations I've seen. Helps that the most recent one I saw was The Watch, which was fairly mediocre.

Well that's just, like, your opinion man

My brother went on a huge Coen Brothers kick back in the day, so I've seen: Miller's Crossing (loved it) The Hudsucker Proxy (loved it also) Fargo (excellent) The Big Lebowski (excellent) O Brother, Where Art Thou? (fantastic and I love the soundtrack) The Man Who Wasn't There (I get that it's probs good but it didn't really grab me) Intolerable Cruelty (not particularly amazing, but kinda fun) The Ladykillers (kinda dumb) No Country for Old Men (didn't really enjoy it very much) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (so depressing)

Wow, George Pell dead, and Andrew Tate loses his appeal. Rough day for sex offenders.

I like spreadsheets so I kept a spreadsheet of 2022 films I saw in 2022, so here is the list of 2022 films I saw in 2022 in the order in which I am ranking them. Everything Everywhere All at Once Prey The Valet Weird: the Al Yankovic Story Thor: Love and Thunder Dr Strange and the Multiverse of Madness Turning Red The French Dispatch of the Liberty, Kansas Evening Sun See How They Run The Princess Bullet Train Rosaline Disenchanted Hocus Pocus 2 Better Nate Than Ever Chip n Dale Rescue Rangers Strange World Lightyear Sneakerella Hollywood Stargirl Eternals The King's Man The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild Pinocchio There is probs a bit of flexibility in the 'soggy middle', like IDK that The Princess is necessarily better than Bullet Train, everything from Weird: the Al Yankovic Story down to, IDK, Strange World, was kinda dumb and fun which is a good time imo. Top 3 and bottom 3 are pretty set in stone for me, though. Also I have, since making this list, seen Glass Onion, and kinda enjoyed it, but since I didn't see it in 2022 it doesn't make the list soz.

I remember the 90s Musketeers movie being beautiful and perfect and I have no interest in rewatching it to see if I have to revise that position.

Hot take: Indy 4 was better than Indy 2 on the whole.

Friendly Jordies kinda sucks tbh. Anyway here's a very normal Coloradan speaking about how relieved he is that his child, who murdered people in a gay bar, is not gay.

OK you are still extremely not getting it, I'll try to break it down into components. First, he makes fun of lifestyle gurus. Second, he is a lifestyle guru. What I'm trying to draw the reader towards here, is the implication that as well as being unfunny and a moronic antivaxxer, he's a hypocrite. This is lampshaded by my sarcastic suggestion that he is trying to indicate that he is not a big fraud like the lifestyle gurus he makes fun of. (The implication is that, in fact, he IS a big freaking fraud.) And no, I have not watched the video from earlier because it has been my experience that they are terrible, much like he, as a person, is terrible. EDIT: What's the gif from/about?

lol what? Read what I wrote again, because this absolutely does not relate to the post you're quoting.

My favourite JP Sears fact is that he's a lifestyle guru and also makes videos mocking lifestyle gurus to show he's 'self aware' or whatever and not a big freaking fraud like the ones he's making fun of.

JP Sears sucks. I've never loved his heavy handed videos in any case, but add in things like being an antivaxxer and... well it's kind of on brand for you I guess, Bruce

Phrases like 'blue lives matter' and 'all lives matter' didn't exist until the phrase 'black lives matter' started to be used to talk about how black people were frequently killed by police without repercussions. Both phrases are intended not to try to highlight the plight of 'all' or 'blue' lives, but as a direct reaction against a group of people grieving that their lives are seemingly not valued as much as others around them. One key difference between Pedro's comments and Gina's is that Trump is a racist person who made a number of racist remarks and attracted a disproportionately large number of racist followers. Among his supporters were: Two men who beat up a Latino immigrant while saying 'Donald Trump was right.' https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/16/us/trump-supporters-immigrant-beating/index.html (Trump's response was that his supporters were very passionate.) Men who rallied shouting 'Jews will not replace us.' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/us/charlottesville-protest-white-nationalist.html (Trump said there were very fine people on both sides.) David Duke https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/1/31/neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-celebrate-trumps-sotu The Daily Stormer https://www.salon.com/2018/01/16/white-supremacists-to-trump-welcome-back-we-still-love-you/ Usually when people talk about conservative viewpoint being 'persecuted', it means something like 'when I express my horrible opinions, people criticise me.' Pedro's comparison is apt, Gina's is misguided at best, intentionally dishonest at worst. Side note, and I am relatively confident that this will have been explained to you in detail before, but the concept of 'freedom of speech' refers only to the freedom from legal consequences from your speech. It has nothing to do with how a private company reacts to what you choose to say. A private company is allowed to use what you say to determine if your values align with their own, and that is as it should be. If someone decided to express their 'political opinion' that vaccines are a conspiracy run by a cabal of evil Jews who also control the weather, it should be totally fine to fire that person. (And it is.)

I suppose it's possible, but as I've grown older I've found I don't have the patience to wade through your tiresome gimmick to get to whatever the point is.

To dredge up a page or so old conversation I can't be bothered finding and quoting, when I saw the comment about the USA not being allowed to have more than two parties I assumed it was referring not to there being some law against other parties existing, but about how the voting system and whatever else effectively prevents them from ever gaining any support. The reply where someone agreed and also mentioned being a member of the libertarian party seemed like it could only possibly be confirmation of that interpretation, because how could you possibly claim membership of a party that you agree has been legally prevented from existing. Was surprised to then see the multiple paragraphs that I did not read all of that seemed to be talking about how ACTUALLY, there's no law about there being more than two parties.

Avatar (blue alien edition) was a largely forgettable story propped up by impressive visuals and the first ever use of whatever the heck James Cameron did to make the 3D look impressive. It wasn't bad, but it wouldn't have been the success it was if it weren't for the visual effects. I think the world has largely moved on from 3D films, and from this franchise in particular, but perhaps I'll be proven wrong.

The complaints, I suspect, were a mix of concerns, some valid, some... well... The show has a female lead and a lot of overtly feminist messaging. The MCU has a largely male audience, many of whom also got very mad when Brie Larson noted that the media at a junket were overwhelmingly white men, and suggested it would be nice if women or people of colour were also afforded opportunities in that space. The show has a very different tone and structure to a lot of the MCU. It is, as Jen puts it, a fun comedy lawyer show, and some members of the fanbase would prefer it not to be. I think some people were put off by what they saw as disjointed continuity, by the fourth wall breaking humour, and by the last episode maybe doing a bit too much. I didn't have a problem with any of these complaints, but I don't fault people for having them, whereas I definitely fault people for having the other complaints.

There's money in it.

MEANWHILE IN AUSTRALIA Probs no one else has been following the Australian netball squad story; the Diamonds were sponsored by Han**** (I think that's what they're called) which is owned by Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest woman and one of the worst living Australians. Their business is, generally speaking, destroying the earth. Anyway, the founder, for whom the company is named, once suggested aboriginal Australians should be sterilised, amongst other things, so one of the Diamonds, who would've been the first aboriginal player on the team in 22 years, was hesitant to wear his name on her uniform. There was some back and forth, with the other Diamonds backing her, but also kinda needing the money because women's sport doesn't tend to make much money. Eventually Han**** withdrew their 15 million sponsorship while saying something passive aggressive about virtue signalling or whatever. Anyway, Victoria tourism is now sponsoring them, which is much less awful as they only have to sell the lie that Victoria is a good place to visit, rather than wear the name of a dude who expressed genocidal views about aboriginal Australians, and support a company that seeks to destroy the earth and lie about it. EDIT: oh dammit the overzealous censor strikes again.

Season finale of She-Hulk went some interesting places. Enjoyed it, but after the second last episode, I was kinda hoping for a little more violence if I'm honest. I get it, though.

Would like to see this movie, but what the hell is Roku?

Disclaimer: I don't know who the people in question are or even what country this is. But the idea of waiting for someone to proclaim they are a Nazi before describing them as such is a bit laughable.

Does this count as politics? Let's find out! https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-21/alastair-clarkson-and-chris-fagan-named-in-hawks-review/101452320 Yes it's sports but it's also politics, looks like our biggest sporting league may have a wee problem with systemic racism. OF NOTE: It is believed the review was similar in scope to Collingwood's 'Do Better' review of 2021 and will have similarly dramatic ramifications. (Almost nothing came of that review, but this one sounds like it turned up some even worse stuff, so maybe things will be different. Or maybe it will all be rugswept and in a few years time the men who bullied young recruits into breaking up with partners or having pregnancies terminated will be welcomed back with open arms because 'everybody deserves a second chance'.)

In this case presumably they've ruined a woman by having her be associated with Hellraiser.

I believe the plan is to just rebadge it to 'King's Birthday' holiday and carry on. I was, for a moment, hopeful we might get a double dip by moving it to a King's Birthday on King Charles' actual birthday in November. Ah well. I shall be spending my 'day of mourning' sleeping in and playing video games, most likely. Someone obviously hasn't seen The Wizard of Oz. (To be fair, neither have I.)