MTG Salvation

Don't know if this has been asked before, but who, in your opinion of course, is the most talented Beatle?

Is it John? Ringo (...)? George? or Paul?

Discuss.

Me? I go with George. Love his songwriting, especially is solo work post-Beatles. Underrated songwriter imo. Stuff like "Something" and "Blow Away" resonates with me on a whole 'notha level.

Yeah, I can totally see the correlation.

A ton of "geekier" folks I've met definitely have a superiority complex. It comes with the belief that intelligence somehow means they are greater people.

I'll respond to your arguments when you respond to my question regarding your logic in relation to the prequel movies.

I'm not biting until then.

Quote from Highroller »

Quote from LuckNorris »

I'm speaking English, aren't I?

Yes, but what you're saying isn't correct.

I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.

In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.

Ok, well to clarify, you'll notice I cropped out some of your statement, because its plot, I'll agree, is a rehash of Hidden Fortress (I'm pretty sure this is by Lucas' own admission, even) and the sequels weren't exactly groundbreaking in terms of plot either.

However, in terms of its visuals? No, I completely disagree with you. Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in terms of its visuals. Even the prequels, for all of their faults, managed to do that too.

So no, in terms of cinematic scope and innovation, you're wrong. Star Wars has definitely proven a landmark film series in that regard.

And as for the idea that people had unrealistic expectations going in, no. The prequels, maybe, but this Star Wars is a post-Episodes 1-3 installment. The bar was set quite low. Indeed, how much you liked it is really based on how much good will you're willing to give to it just by virtue of it not being a bad Star Wars film. Even people who liked it acknowledged it didn't really add anything to the franchise in its own right.

No, what I'm saying is quite correct, when you actually study cinema.

Visuals are not what defines cinematic scope (Enter the Void is a perfect example...), it's pushing the medium forward in some way. You admit that the prequels were visually impressive. Would you say that the prequels, by the same logic, provided innovation in terms of cinematic scope?

Take any of Yasujiro Ozu's movies, for example. Visually, do they provide the same spectacle as Star Wars? No. But in terms of cinematic scope, they blow the Star Wars series' out of the water. The techniques that Ozu employed actually drove the medium forward, something I don't really believe Star Wars did. Movies like Citizen Kane do this. Movies like The Searchers and Rear Window do this. Star Wars doesn't.

You say that expectations were dampened by the prequels. But the prequels actually heightened the expectations for this film, as this was supposed to be the one that supposedly rights the wrongs of the prequels. Hiring J.J. Abrams to direct, having Lawrence right the script again, all of these decisions were made to distance this sequel from the prequels. It being a sequel in and of itself causes it to be an entirely different entity. Many fans were expecting something on the same level, or even greater, than the originals. You can't really believe that the expectations for this movie were low, you must be playing devil's advocate here. The hype surrounding this movie was greater than Phantom Menace, because the expectation was that the filmmakers would not make the same mistakes as the prequels. The box office gross is indicative of this.

Avatar. Visually innovative? Yes. Pushed the medium forward? Nope.

Quote from Highroller »

Quote from LuckNorris »

Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope

What?

I'm speaking English, aren't I?

I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.

In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.

For the comment stating that Star Wars isn't science fiction... you're wrong. There really isn't much more too it. Star Wars takes certain queues from a wide variety of genres (Jidai-geki films, and western films), but it's most certainly an example of science fiction. Space Opera, if you want to be more specific. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than willing to.

In terms of the movie, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's not a perfect film by any means, but it's definitely a solid Hollywood action/sci-fi film. I have a couple of gripes about the movie, however:


Besides these very minor issues, the film was very solid. Everything I would have expected from a Star Wars movie. The problem is, I think a lot of fans expected way too much from this movie. Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope or revolutionary ideas. It's always been a fun sci-fi Hollywood franchise. Nothing more.

The original Star Wars movies are good films, but they aren't among the greatest films of all time. I think a lot of fans fail to realize the purpose of Star Wars. It only became a cultural phenomenon through other materials (books, video games, etc..), and fans coveting the films. The Force Awakens follows that trend, it's a solid piece of science fiction but not anything that will change the face of cinema forever. It's better than something like Avatar, but never reaches the depth of something like Blade Runner, for example.

Thank you for the responses guys, just wanted to post saying that I've read what you've all said and it's definitely helped me out.

Hey guys, recently I've been trying to make strides in my self esteem and view of life, but every now and again I have relapses and recently one has really got me feeling like crap.

Let me preface this by saying that recently (the last two months) I've cut a lot of crap out of my life. I used to smoke a lot, but I totally cut that out of my life in order to improve my happiness. I started to go to the gym as well, and I have been seeing some great results. I've been writing more music lately, and I'm liking the results with that too.

Despite all of these things there are still times (like now) where I feel absolutely worthless. All it takes is a catalyst and I'll be right at rock bottom again. Today my car broke down on the side of the road. I don't know whats wrong with it, but I don't have the money to fix it, and I need it to get to school and the gym. Suddenly I feel like a piece of ***** again. There's also a girl I'm talking to a lot and I know damn well I don't have a lick of a chance with her, which is screwing my head as well.

I don't know how to properly define my mental state without writing a novel here, but I have really bad mood swings. Sometimes I'm totally satisfied with life and I'll be happy, but then I feel so down that I can barely function. I've been suicidal in the past and sometimes I think about it now and again, only fleeting. There are too many things I love about this world that keep me from doing it, but there's also too many things that make me loathe myself.

Sorry if this was a lengthy post, it's been something I've been meaning to ask anybody at this point.

Change the World - Mac Demarco cover of Eric Clapton

Love Clapton's voice on the original, but damn does Mac ever do a good cover of this. The guitar tones are on point and the chorus is just so damn uplifting.

Work hard, and if you really think that the environment is toxic to you then get the hell out of there. Take odd jobs. Scrounge up enough money to travel. See the world if you really want to leave home. Live in hostels for a bit if you have to, maybe get a working visa and work at another country and live there.

That being said, you have to be sure that the issues you face aren't within yourself, but are in your environment. Because if your problems concern your own personal feelings, then travelling won't do a damn thing. You can't run from issues like that.

For now, find your niche. I'm sure the entirety of the country isn't starkly different from you. You can definitely find like-minded people. You just have to look. Where do you buy your cards? Maybe hang out there for a bit and find some players to play with. Sure there are some aspects of everyone's culture that they don't enjoy (I love my Italian roots, but not everything about them), but you can find aspects of the culture that you do enjoy!

In flights i've been on, there are two carts that move from opposite ends of the row. So if a patron from one end wants alcohol, they would have to wait until the other cart comes all the way down from the other end of the row to get it. Not a "trivial" loss of efficiency at all. Regardless, the law does not state "A non-trivial loss of efficiency", it simply states "A loss of efficiency". If it's trivial (which it isn't), that's irrelevant to the discussion here.

Also, a swap between food and drink service is not feasible, as they are done at different points during the flight, and they both require two flight attendants to complete.

There just isn't a scenario where this flight attendant would not cause a loss of efficiency.

Don't know what the process was, but I'll say I've never seen what Tiax is describing in any flight i've been on in my entire life.

Perhaps Tiax is from another continent? I'd like to know which airline you used where such a system was utilized. But I'll play along. Even in those systems, the other attendant has to fulfill the duties of another attendant. What if both patrons being served at the front and back of the cart need alcohol? One must have to wait. Which is a decrease in efficiency.

Usually when i'm drinking during the summer my repitoire consists of Stella Artois, Mill St. Organic, Asahi Super Dry or Tsing Tao.

When im in the mood for something a little fuller (and pricier), I reach for Chimay Red, Hobgoblin, and Creemore Springs.

Quote from Tiax »

Quote from LuckNorris »

Are you serious? Have you never been in a flight? Sometimes many patrons want drinks, and I've seen flight attendants have to move quickly in order to serve everyone. If one person isn't willing to serve alcohol, then it absolutely diminishes the efficiency of other employees, and it is a burden on the other flight attendants, hence burdensome work.

I think it's easy for you to say it isn't (burdensome work) if you aren't in the actual workplace, having to work harder to compensate for the religious needs of another worker.

This is not what burdensome means. Let's look at the court case that is the source for the rule:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1011250.html

You can see that what the rule means is that if one particular aspect of the job is more dangerous, difficult, or unpleasant, a religious accommodation cannot unfairly exempt a worker from that aspect at the expense of the others. Drink service is not a burdensome aspect of being a flight attendant. A burdensome aspect of the job would be, for example, staying behind to ensure all passengers are safely off the plane in the event of a crash or emergency landing. It would be manifestly unfair if one attendant got to leave first due to some religious exemption.

Fair enough. How the U.S. Law interprets burdensome is different than my interpretation.

However you continously ignore the "diminishes efficiency in other jobs" portion of the law. Which this case does as other attendants have to compensate for her lack of serving alcohol, which makes them less effeciant. I don't see how you'd be able to argue against this.

Quote from Tiax »

Quote from LuckNorris »

They are not "legally required to" if the accomodation causes the employer and "undue hardship". According to the EEOC, an "undue hardship" Is anything that incurs more than ordinary administrative costs (this case admittedly doesn't), diminishes efficiency in other job's (I'd argue it does), or causes the coworker to carry the share of potentially burdensome work (I'd definately argue that it does)

So if we are going by the law, then the air line legally fired the worker. Did they handle it the best way? Perhaps not. But that does not mean that they were not obliged and allowed to fire her.

There are people in the workforce that have the ability to fulfill all aspects of this job. Why should a company accommodate someone who is not willing to? How far is too far when it comes to accomodation? When someone isnt able to do their job I believe the accomodation has gone too far.

In what world is serving alcohol "burdensome" work?

Are you serious? Have you never been in a flight? Sometimes many patrons want drinks, and I've seen flight attendants have to move quickly in order to serve everyone. If one person isn't willing to serve alcohol, then it absolutely diminishes the efficiency of other employees, and it is a burden on the other flight attendants, hence burdensome work.

I think it's easy for you to say it isn't (burdensome work) if you aren't in the actual workplace, having to work harder to compensate for the religious needs of another worker.