Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sheeeit

  1. Talk about revisionist history. You are such an unbelievably dishonest poster. The email in question came out March 17. According to you, by that point everyone knew that elderly people were much more susceptible to the virus. You seem to be trying to say that by that point special guidance had been given regarding the elderly population. Yet, Cuomo sent out his directive to have infected people transferred to nursing homes on March 25. further, on March 26 Cuomo told the media that he had been consulting with Fauci daily on the best way to handle the response. So how is it possible that, according to you, Fauci knew that the virus was extremely dangerous to elderly people in mid March and was consulting with Cuomo and Cuomo sent out a directive to have elderly infected people put into nursing homes with other elderly people, the absolute most vulnerable group of people to the virus, in late March?
  2. I fucking love it that this topic has garnered so much attention. If you really want to get into what I was trying to do, watch some of these movies when you are stoned. It makes the wooden actors stand out like sore thumbs. On someone like Clint Eastwood, he certainly has played a ton of roles that are similar. However, the criteria for this particular thread is famous actors that can’t really act. The only way we really know that they can’t act is when they take on a roll and they’re acting is poor in it. I don’t think I have ever seen a Clint Eastwood film where I thought, wow he really just doesn’t have the ability to pull off this particular role. Based on that, I don’t think he is a good fit for this topic. we have all seen movies where the acting is cringe worthy. And I’m not talking about bad movies or bad screenwriting or bad directing or anything else. You can just tell when someone can’t act in a particular role. but the great ones can be in bad movies with bad directing and bad screenwriting and yet their performance is still solid. I keep going back to Mark Wahlberg and I apologize to him and his family for it, but he was in a movie called the Gambler. It is actually a pretty solid movie but he is just fucking awful in it. Go watch a clip of it. There is a scene where he is a college professor talking to his class that is dialogue heavy and it is absolutely cringe worthy.
  3. If anyone wants to really see who the racist is here, all they have to do is go back to the eyes of Texas thread. in that thread, our man BT, has the following: 1) Started off by saying that the eyes of Texas was racist because our black football players thought it was. 2) Said that the singing of the eyes was white people forcing a black players to stand and listen to them sing a racist song. 3) Then, after being questioned, admitted that he personally did not think that the song was racist but that he could understand how someone might think that way and so we shouldn’t be singing it. 4) Then after further being pressed, he admitted that he still sings the song at birthday parties and gatherings with his friends. He said he sings it at weddings and that it will be played at his funeral. I think he even admitted that if and when it is played next season he will sing along. So who exactly is the racist? I would contend that someone like BT is the actual racist and even more sinister. He has absolutely no character or conviction. What a fabulous generalization. He says that our black players have every right to be offended by the song and that we must acknowledge that if they think this song is racist then it must be while at the same time fully admitting that he is going to continue singing the song any chance he gets with his friends. Closeted racists are way more troublesome and sinister than the open ones.
  4. The quote attributed to Jordan is actually that he said “Republicans buy sneakers too”. Like everything in our world of soundbites, no one actually took the time to listen to his actual answer. The writer who claimed that Jordan said that to him now admits that Jordan said it completely in jest and that his actual statement was actually pretty damn smart. Essentially, Jordan said that he was singularly focused on his career and that he didn’t endorse particular candidates or weigh in on particular political issues because he had not personally studied the issues so he wasn’t going to give an opinion on some thing that he didn’t really know anything about. Our world would be so much better if other people would refrain from speaking out on issues that they do not actually know the truth about. You seem to think it was a mistake for Jordan not to become more political. I would say that by him not becoming political that he was able to do incredibly well in business and allow him the opportunity to be the majority owner of an NBA franchise. It would be extremely difficult for him to have become the owner of that team if he was more of a political activist. But now that he is the owner he has hired many, many poc in positions of leader ship within the organization and he has mandated that many poc be on his Jordan brand team with Nike. He has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to black causes over the last 10 years or so. In the end, I think his efforts have done way more for the advancement of blacks than those people that just spouted off nonsense. Tiger Woods is another example of this. He is notoriously guarded about making any type of political statements and he is often criticized for it. However, he realized early on that being a loudmouth doesn’t really get anything done. The majority of the time those people that spout off frequently are just being purely self-indulgent and not really advancing the cause. Tiger worked with all kinds of companies that might not have worked with him if he was more political and, as a result, was able to fund his Tiger Woods foundation which has helped tens of thousands of poc all around the world. obviously those guys also became personally fabulously wealthy. But they are adults that realized that ultimately they could do way more actual good if they resisted the temptation to knee jerk react.
  5. I agree that this is a tough issue and states are really over reacting. It is brutal enough being trans And we should all be mindful of making their lives easier not harder. I also can see the argument purely from a girl athletes perspective. No amount of training and hard work and dedication can overcome the inherent physical advantages a trans woman has. The science on this is still rather new but, at least preliminarily, the studies show that trans Women on average are taller and have much more muscle mass than cis women. Much of the solution, like that of the NCAA, is to allow trans women to participate after a year of testosterone suppression therapy. The problem with this, again at least preliminarily, is that the science says that even with testosterone suppression, trans women have a physical advantage over cis women. The thing that we don’t know at this point is how big is the advantage. I have seen a lot of people here making an argument that more people playing sports is better and I agree. The thing that I have trouble agreeing on is why is it so important for a trans woman to compete against other women as opposed to competing against men? Is it a potential bullying situation that people are worried about? Because if it is just a spirit of competition argument then I see no difference in a trans woman finishing ninth in the men’s division versus first in the women’s.
  6. I agree that this is a stupid issue. Life is brutal enough being trans. I also can see the argument purely from a girl athletes perspective. No amount of training and hard work and dedication can overcome the inherent physical advantages a trans woman has. i
  7. A better way to look at this is to ask yourself if you have ever seen Denzel in a movie and thought boy his acting was really not up to par for that role. I would say that I have never seen him in some thing where I thought his acting was poor. He has been in some movies that I thought were clunkers but it certainly wasn’t because of his performance. I never cringed when watching him on screen because he just can’t handle what is required of the role. Plus, as I have mentioned about many of the other actors we are talking about, Denzel has actually played a lot of different types of roles and played them all very well. Movies ike Fences or Philadelphia or even the Great Debaters showed tremendous range. You put Stallone or Wahlberg in any of those roles and it would be comical. But you could put Gary Oldman or Cruise or Hanks or any number of great actors in them and they would do a fantastic job. And we know that because all of those other actors have actually been in similar type movies and similar type roles and done well.
  8. I will apologize for the snarky comment but based on your latest post it really is clear that you are not understanding the discussion here. Your Tom Brady analogy is silly and actually kind of proves the point that I am making.Brady is one of the all-time great football players because he is arguably the greatest quarterback. We compare what he does to his peers, other quarterbacks, not positions that he doesn’t play. But as a quarterback he has amazing “range“in that he has a good arm strength great accuracy, great reading defenses, great at preparation, great at inspiring his teammates to work hard, mentally tough etc. He has all of the tools required to be a great quarterback. The actors we are talking about here, like Mark Wahlberg or Stallone, Have very specific roles that they can play and they play those roles well. If Stallone had never acted in another movie after Rocky then we might all think he is a very good actor. He was really good in that role. But he did make other movies and in those movies where he had to play a different type of role it was obvious that he wasn’t very good at it. You put Stallone and Wahlberg in movies where there is heavy dialogue and they are quickly out of their depth. An actors range is really what we use to distinguish them from their peers. The whole point of this topic is that there are huge movie stars that are not great actors just like there are great actors that are not movie stars. There are also movie stars that are great actors. All we are doing is picking apart the movie stars that we actually do not think are very good actors But that we fully admit are movie stars and we enjoy some of the films that they have been in.
  9. I think you might want to research this a bit more.
  10. I think this discussion might be over your head.
  11. Agreed. Guys like Sandler have at least shown that hey do possess range as an actor but they often choose to take lucrative roles that require less effort. The actors I am talking about are the ones that also have become big stars and made lots of money by taking safe/easy acting roles. But unlike guys like Cruise and Sandler, these other guys have never shown any ability to act in difficult roles that require larger ranges. They have tried and the results are bad.
  12. I was recently on a very looooong multi day road trip and listened to a lot of talk radio and a lot of political talk radio. I really never listened very much previously so I have no idea what these shows were like in the past or anything like that. I just based my opinion on the few hours or so over a few days that I listened to a lot of it. 1) Rush- Well he's dead and it appears his show is now guest hosts that are ultra conservative and they constantly play old clips of Rush. Hardly listenable. D 2) Hannity- Not very smart. Relentless repeating. I actually found some of his guests interesting but he is basically unlistenable. D 3) Shapiro- I actually enjoyed a lot of his show. He is certainly smart. My guess is that he is often mis-quoted or mis-understood because nothing he said was too controversial but you have to listen carefully to what he actually says. I'd give him a B. 3) Glenn Beck- Hardly listenable. I think he must be bipolar or something. Not nearly as funny/witty as he thinks. Did have a few guests that were interesting. C- 4) Mark Levin- Brutally bad. I honestly think guys like Glenn Beck are at least genuine in their beliefs but I can not believe this guy actually believes what he says. F 5) NPR- Pretty good mostly. They seem to slant liberal but not too much from what I heard. Hosts are smart and content pretty interesting. B 6) Al Sharpton- Had no idea he had a show and now I know why. He is not very smart or very good at radio. Unlistenable. D 7) Joe Pags- Another I had never heard of. OK guests but he thinks he is very funny/witty and he is not. C- 😎 POTUS- Decent. I liked Dan Abrams and Julie Mason. Chris Cuomo is unlistenable. B- 9) Urban View- Pretty much unlistenable. Not very smart. Wildly hypocritical. Someone named Joe Madison seemed to be on when we were driving a lot. He was shockingly hypocritical and bad. D 10) Progress- It actually had potential but just kept coming back to stupid, tired retread gotchas. C- I am sure there are many I missed. I have decided that political talk radio is designed for stupid/idealogues on both sides of the aisle. I am truly surprised they make any money. Very, very few of them are smart. Edit- I suppose they make money because it seems like 20 minutes out of every hour is commercials.
  13. Do you know how we know you are a soccer dork? Kidding. Great show and can not wait.
  14. I noticed I messed up my post. Was going to say that all of those other folks in Boogie Nights are better actors and it showed when they were in scenes together but he is arguably the biggest "star" of all of them.
  15. Tough one because I have never really seen him go to a deep level. Maybe All the Presidents Men. It is old but he was OK in the Candidate.
  16. Excellent list.
  17. This is also close to what I am using as a barometer of acting ability. Stallone can be good in very, very simple roles with limited dialogue and limited range. So when he is in those roles he does well. But watch him in roles where he actually tries to act and he sucks. Really sucks. he is a bona fide movie star for certain but not a great actor by any stretch.
  18. Redford is a perfect example. he is not a terrible actor and he has been in tons of great films. But he just cant quite get there to the level of the greats.
  19. I get this and somewhat agree. He has been in some big productions and he does have a certain charisma and screen presence in those movies. But those movies are designed to highlight his presence and minimize his acting range. Like the Italian Job. I think it is a really fun movie but out of all of the actors in that movie, he is the worst. Ed Norton, Sutherland, Charlize. They dominated him from an acting standpoint. I think of Entourage and when he does a cameo. He seems just like an athlete or similar that they stick in there who do not know anything about acting. His acting is similar.
  20. Cruise is an interesting one. I actually think he is a very solid to great actor. Obviously a number of his roles are cheesy and campy and he does cheesy and campy really well, but he also has some great roles where he is very good and he holds his own with some of the all time greats. Color of Money was excellent and he showed great range and went toe to toe with Paul Newman. Days of Thunder was as cheesy and campy as you get but he acted one on one in many scenes with Robert Duval and held his won easily. It is hard to think of a movie he wasnt pretty good in. Unlike Walhberg where he just flat out sucks in certain roles.
  21. To me, this is a perfect example of what I see in Walhberg. He was OK in Boogie Nights primarily because his role had little or no range and he could just be this mousy, soft spoken do gooder type role that he is good in. But watch it critically when he is on screen with other great actors (and Boogie Nights had a shitload of great actors). Seymour Hoffman, Julienne Moore, Ed Macy, John Reilly, Don Cheadle- I would consider all of them to be much better actors than Wahlberg but he is a bigger "movie star". If you watch him in movies like Ted, The Gambler, Planet of the Apes, Italian Job, Daddys Home etc. his acting is pitiful. Some of those movies were good and some were bad but his personal performance in them was almost cartoonish. I think part of it is that he just isnt that intelligent. But like I said, he is a bona fide movie star and I enjoy some of his movies. He just is not a great actor.
  22. Did not expect this many replies. To make it more objective (which is really hard- thats what she said) I look at actors specific performance based on the role they are cast. Every actor has made a bad movie but that doesn't mean their acting was bad in it. I also like to watch 2 actors together and it becomes apparent when one is better than the other. Agreed on Cage and Stallone and Segal just isnt what I would call a great "movie star". Sandler is a bit of an outlier. It takes real acting chops to make it on SNL. Plus he writes so many of his own movies and is clearly playing to a base. He was pretty solid in Hidden Gems and he never gets over shadowed by other actors.
  23. Was having this discussion with a group the other night. We were talking about truly big time, bankable actors (even some Oscar nominees/winners) that are really just not very good at acting. Of course, acting can be quite subjective. My contributions: Mark Wahlberg- He is basically rangeless. In The Fighter, it is almost comical how much better of an actor Christian Bale and Amy Adams are compared to him. Also, he received a lot of critical Acclaim for his role in The Departed. I watched it agin recently, admittedly I was high so the good was really good and the bad was really bad, but his scenes were almost comically bad. His range is so small it is amazing he is as successful as he is. And seems like a genuinely good guy. Scarlett Johansson- She is certainly a bona fide movie star and incredibly attractive. But, like above, her range is very limited. I do think she is getting better.
×
×
  • Create New...