To the AK haters

[JAZZFAN_2814]

I don't lack the knowledge anymore, so feel free to use the term all you want in discussions with me.

So, I'm supposed to consider your feelings? Or know your knowledge?

Communication seems to be a concept you either fail to grasp,

Do you have a concept of etymology, environment and demographics?

I'm a film person. I hang out with people that study metaphysics, polymaths and artistic ways to explore these subjects.

A lot of people wouldn't know what a 2-3 zone is or a pick & roll, either. Does it make you a prick if you mention these things in their presence?

Enough.

or much more likely, you fail to attempt because your using the medium to be a prick.

So anyone who uses a term you don't understand, is a prick?

Even as you learn something from me, you deride me.

What the **** ever, man. It's simply an inferiority complex, at some point. Yet we also have people pumping their chests about that selfsame factor.

I thought the movie was pretty good, btw. Took my kid to see it at the theater. Only movie I've gone to a theater to see in years. My kid really liked it. He must understand mise en scene better than I do.

I thought it worked much better than the first, which kind of makes the first work for me: it's the sense of a meta-analysis of filmmaking and the history these films -- as design and tech -- are approaching. As the programming becomes more complex, so do the themes, their exploration visually and aurally, as well as the tonal value becoming more acute and striking.

It was a great mood movie. And I liked the way it bookended itself, showing the father sacrificing himself for the son, so the child could finally become a man. Tied off with the visual metaphors of getting the girl and riding off while the sun(!) rises.

That's a simplistic evaluation that doesn't really deal with some of its more intriguing ideas as far as godhood, religion and more general or specific metaphysics.

 

[GVC]

The whole thing would have worked better if they included a few scenes with topless chicks jumping on trampolines, triumphant man-hugs and poop jokes.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Olivia Wilde looks way better in those pictures than she actually is.

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

The whole thing would have worked better if they included a few scenes with topless chicks jumping on trampolines, triumphant man-hugs and poop jokes.

Well, I don't know if I can deny that.

 

[GVC]

Well, I don't know if I can deny that.

Winning formula.

 

[oldtimer]

sorry but i dont really care who is smarter than whom. the longer i'm alive the more i realize i perfer good people.

back to the point of the thread. i absolutely want ak back at 4-5 million a year. he has unique skills and i even like his new tatoo. please come back AK.

 

[LogGrad98]

Wow from the basic "AK sucks" to metaphysics and ****, this thread has it all.

 

[freakazoid]

 

[JAZZFAN_2814]

Winning formula.

In 3D.

 

[NUMBERICA]

i even like his new tatoo.

Holy ****.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

IMHO, he screwed up by not taking Chris Paul although I suspect Sloan had a lot to do with it as well. Hayward - jury still out. Kanter - again, I think there were better players available - will see how it will turn out. Point is - none of his picks from first round except Hayward who is still on rookie contract are with the Jazz - that tells he drafted poorly in first round, there is nothing to argue about it.

What do you know that no one else does to justify saying that Williams over Paul qualifies as a screw up? Who specifically do you think he should have taken over Kanter. Who do you think should have been taken over Hayward?

 

[GVC]

In 3D.

You just blew my mind.

 

[NAOS]

You act as if it's a handicap or pox on my house simply because I understand these cinematic standards: how they apply and why.

The idea that actually having superior knowledge makes me a "prick" is laughably dim. Or painfully typical.

This is a very ungenerous reading of what I said (typical of you). What I said was the fact that you or anyone can explain or appreciate a film because its 'achievements' vis-a-vis established film techniques doesn't make it a good film (or even a compelling analysis). If I understand the process of historical change by mastering Hegel's dialectics, and proceed to tell everybody what IS, that doesn't make me an accurate or compelling historian. It makes me wrong (and an *******). Hmmm.

As for the "prick" part, well, I think your record stands for itself. But, let's take just one example:

Quite the insult, coming from a guy who has managed 6,000 posts in just over a year.

Irony's a bitch.

But if you want an in-depth discussion on mise en scene, tableau, slanted angles, design-as-statement, pre and post-Gibson cyberpunk or modern expressionism, well, be sure to learn something about them before you say anything more.

6,000? Christ, it's almost Biblical. Or even Talmudic.

Are people lording their ignorance over you, or is something else happening? By the way, I have a Bachelor's degree in film studies and have continued to engage with film in my PhD work and beyond. Don't be a tool and suspect that because I (and others) don't drag that sh*t in here that we don't know anything.

What you don't seem to understand is that understanding film techniques is often the way to truly evaluate their content -- execution through tone, that communicates ideas and overall thematic structure.

I don't fail to understand this. My point was that a film's content is not reducible to techniques, and therefore methods of analysis should cultivate a healthy suspicion of established concepts.

To say that the film does these things, while you don't notice them or know of them, but that it somehow or necessarily fails is to confuse your own lack with the film's.

Please point out where I made a judgment about TRON. I made a logical comment about how skillful execution of techniques does not, by definition, produce a good film. I'll stand by that 110%

Does that mean you have to like the film? No. That's subjective. But skill as far as production procedure and design are issues related to technical analysis.

If you can't grasp or appreciate film as a visual medium? Well, par for the course.

I guess this is prick example number 2 for this post.

Your own rhetoric appears to be little more than pretense, however. And not very good pretense, as it's clearly lacking in content. How ironic and hypocritical.

Actually, my post delivered some rich content that beat your *** pretty thoroughly for the minimal time and words I devoted to it, if I do say so myself.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So, I'm supposed to consider your feelings? Or know your knowledge?



Do you have a concept of etymology, environment and demographics?

I'm a film person. I hang out with people that study metaphysics, polymaths and artistic ways to explore these subjects.

A lot of people wouldn't know what a 2-3 zone is or a pick & roll, either. Does it make you a prick if you mention these things in their presence?

Enough.



So anyone who uses a term you don't understand, is a prick?

Even as you learn something from me, you deride me.

What the **** ever, man. It's simply an inferiority complex, at some point. Yet we also have people pumping their chests about that selfsame factor.



I thought it worked much better than the first, which kind of makes the first work for me: it's the sense of a meta-analysis of filmmaking and the history these films -- as design and tech -- are approaching. As the programming becomes more complex, so do the themes, their exploration visually and aurally, as well as the tonal value becoming more acute and striking.

It was a great mood movie. And I liked the way it bookended itself, showing the father sacrificing himself for the son, so the child could finally become a man. Tied off with the visual metaphors of getting the girl and riding off while the sun(!) rises.

That's a simplistic evaluation that doesn't really deal with some of its more intriguing ideas as far as godhood, religion and more general or specific metaphysics.

If you seriously can read through this post and not even consider it to have the most condescending of tones, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Notice that he brought up the subject.

You act as if it's a handicap or pox on my house simply because I understand these cinematic standards: how they apply and why.

The idea that actually having superior knowledge makes me a "prick" is laughably dim. Or painfully typical.



What you don't seem to understand is that understanding film techniques is often the way to truly evaluate their content -- execution through tone, that communicates ideas and overall thematic structure.

To say that the film does these things, while you don't notice them or know of them, but that it somehow or necessarily fails is to confuse your own lack with the film's.

Does that mean you have to like the film? No. That's subjective. But skill as far as production procedure and design are issues related to technical analysis.

If you can't grasp or appreciate film as a visual medium? Well, par for the course.

Your own rhetoric appears to be little more than pretense, however. And not very good pretense, as it's clearly lacking in content. How ironic and hypocritical.




So your opinions are to be confused with fact. Which is another way of saying that ignorance is bliss.

I doubt you could even pronounce 'mise en scene'. And I'm sure that would be a source of pride for you.

The facts? Well they seem to point to your foolishness.

You're very good at insulting things that are above your pay grade. I look forward to more.



Split hairs? Would those be above or below your belt? The interior or exterior of your skull?



Yes, what an embarrassment, clearly, for me.

Boy is my face red. You've only managed 6,000 posts in a year and a half.

The fact that you want to belabor this point tells me all I need to know about room temp and IQ in this case.

Vous êtes une telle piqûre au.

 

[moevillini]

La Cage aux Folles?

 

[Gameface]

La Cage aux Folles?

Ugh Google doesn't translate!

Oh, wait. The Cage of Crazy, or The Cage of Madwomen, or using the slang meaning The Cage of Queens.

Man the internet is cool.

 

[MVP]

Who specifically do you think he should have taken over Kanter. Who do you think should have been taken over Hayward?

Valanciunas was the best big man available so if they were looking for true center with highest ceiling he should have been the pick. If they wanted to get backup for Harris - there were couple potential great PG's available as well. Drafting Kanter when you have Al, Millsap and Favors - made no sense to me. I already posted numerous players drafted after Gordon who had better rookie season - but as I said it is to early to judge on that - lets wait for couple more years. Even if Hayward turns out to be a good player - still his record of drafting in first round is horrible.

 

[MVP]

https://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/johnson/2011/12/04/the-top-10-free-agent-small-forwards/

There you go.

 

[kwb]

that must be the most idiotic and bold statement. lets see...Hayward last season vs Oklahoma in March - 1-10 FG, 4-6 FT...I do not even need to look for AK games to show utter stupidity of this post.

Hook, line and sinker.