well

This is fake

Swatting absolutely should be strictly prosecuted, but holy fuck can the police please not shoot some random dude whose only crime was opening his front door?

I don't fuck with speculative memes

Puke + gatorade before bed, gatorade when you wake up

Hangovers are almost entirely due to dehydration, so just drink more water

Adam Driver really is my favorite part of the film. Dude's got range. I'm hoping he continues to be more than a just a villain.

Quote from: Turkey on December 25, 2017, 10:27:27 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 25, 2017, 07:57:15 PM

Quote from: Turkey on December 18, 2017, 06:51:47 AM

Spoiler

]Also, ships can just track other ships through hyperspace, which is all sorts of dumb

Spoiler

lmao

why

It was a contrived, unprecedented plot device that undermines the continuity of the series.

That said, apparently it wasn't some magic tracking device, but was a massive supercomputer calculating possible destinations the same way it was done in the OT multiple times, but a lot faster. So basically all the technobabble Finn and Rose spat out to justify its existence was just nonsense.

contrived, maybe (welcome to star wars)

unprecedented, no, because rogue one foreshadowed it

It's an obvious retcon; a throwaway line isn't a precedent for anything.

But I do rescind my complaint, knowing that the explanation in the movie was bullshit. And hopefully it's never used again.

http://www.wsmh19.com/fire-alarm-shots-fired-at-nakatomi-plaza/

I just wanted the same Luke that I saw in the OT. A Luke that developed more, not regressed and threw away everything he learned.

He's 30 years older, and had failed as a jedi, leading to disaster; it's almost exactly the same character arc as Obi Wan. Why would you want to see a flawless character with nothing to overcome? That's all he ever was in the EU, and it's good TLJ changed that.

like, i heard someone try to tell me "it's like saying fire can burn itself," and i didn't quite know how to respond to that, even though it viscerally seems like a stupid comparison

That one's even worse than this, because a 'burn' can be considered two very distinct things: the physical injury that occurs when an organism touches a flame, and the chemical process between a material and oxygen at high heat. So if someone asked, "does fire burn (injure) itself", you'd probably just ignore them for asking a dumb question. But if they asked if a flame -- the visible light and heat emitted from the chemical reaction of fire -- can burn itself, then the answer is no, because the heat from the flame is not sparking a reaction in other parts of the flame. But on the other hand, maybe you would now say it sort of is "burning/injuring" itself, because the flame perpetuates itself just by being hot, allowing the reaction to spread to other material.

I still have no problem saying that the question is fundamentally dumb, and not really analogous to "is water wet?".

Yeah this has been done to death but Serious needs some activity.

IMO, 'wetness' is the state of being soaked/covered/in contact with water. Water sticks to people and objects because of its high cohesive property, and it also sticks to itself for the same reason, resulting in having the highest surface tension of any non-metallic chemical. So unless we're talking about a single molecule of H2O, then water is wet, because it is in physical contact with water. A single molecule of water would not be wet, because it is not in contact with other water.

But somewhat on the contrary, the way surface tension works is that because the molecules on the surface of the water are exposed to air and not more water, they adhere to their adjacent molecules stronger, meaning that the molecules on the surface are quantifiably more wet than the water surrounded on all sides by other water molecules. If that's confusing, imagine you're at the bottom of a pool versus covered head to toe in something like glue. You'd probably say you're more "wet" with glue because of how sticky it is, than if you were deep underwater -- i.e., the 'wetness' is due to the strength of the cohesion and thus the perceived affect of the liquid, not the amount/mass of liquid around you.

You can name him after a mountain range or something. Alp, Jura, Atlas, Andes, Pyre...

That's what I was thinking, too. Atlas is pretty good; I think we'll have to see his personality a bit more before deciding.

Damn, she'd kill it at a piano bar.

Quote from: Turkey on December 22, 2017, 12:58:05 AM

Ranking an entire genre of film is kind of pointless, but some of my favorites are Unbreakable, Dredd, Hellboy, and The Incredibles.

i can think of several purposes

comparing tastes being one of the more obvious ones

It's pointless to me because the genre is so broad that I would barely be able to scratch the surface -- even your list is far from exhaustive. This thread seems more like, "rank Marvel/DC/unaffiliated blockbusters", which is fine, too.

But can we all at least agree that despite whatever problems this new 'trilogy' has, Kylo Ren is the best part of it? I never get bored watching him.

Adam Driver is the saving grace of the new trilogy.

Baby Driver

The Shape of Water

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Honorable mentions to Mother!, Get Out, and Blade Runner. Still have a bunch to catch up on since getting back.