Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Teproc

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:06:12 am »
Alright I just watched it. The Russian dude jumps into some caviar to avoid the blades flying towards him from a helicopter Bond blows up. Bond doesn't help him out until he gives him information.

Ah-ha ! I'm not crazy ! Thank you.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: December 05, 2017, 01:38:09 pm »
Doing some googling, it's definitely The World Is Not Enough, but it might only be that Bond threatens to throw him in the caviar and doesn't actually do it ? I couldn't find a clip. The villain in question was played by Robbie Coltrane, aka Hagrid, which, ok.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: December 05, 2017, 05:59:07 am »
Which one has the Russian villain who falls into a vat of caviar ? That happened right, I didn't imagine it ?

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: December 04, 2017, 04:50:47 pm »
I remember the Brosnan Bonds fondly, but it might have to do with the fact that I was somewhere between 5 and 10 when they were coming out (and have not seen them since).

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 14, 2017, 04:01:27 pm »
I don't disagree that the things that are valued in a work of art evolve over time. They also evolve over... space ? What I mean is that I don't believe in the objective value of art (well, art in general maybe, but I don't believe any individual work of art is intrisically good or bad). The distinction I'm putting forward is there, between the purely subjective (what one's individual reaction to an individual work of art is at a given time) and the (pseudo-)objective, which includes the context in which it was made and the context in which it was and is received by the public at large.

Think of it this way: when I watch something like Citizen Kane, I can appreciate it for its historical value, in particular in terms of what its influence was, but that has no bearing on my appreciation of it as a work of art I'm interacting with. That is, if someone tells you "I don't like Citizen Kane because X and Y", responding "but it's important and it invented such and such" is completely missing the point. It's also interesting and also relevant and worth dicsussing, but these are two different discussions.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 10, 2017, 09:31:04 am »
Right, well the way I see it is that there are two ways to approach a work of art

a) Historically, where one considers the context it was made in and the influence it had. This actually has little to do with the work itself, it's just about how it was perceived and what it meants to people at the time.
b) Artistically, where one considers it for itself, independent of its context.

Blade Runner is undoubtely major in the first approach, but I'd argue it's minor in the second approach. I don't doubt many people watching Blade Runner still find it great though, so that's just me. My "wasn't that great to begin with" was a bit of a flippant generalization to the Seinfeld thing, because I think it's not super productive to say "well, you should find it good because they did it first"... I mean by that metric, the Lumière shorts are the greatest movies of all time, they invented the whole thing !

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 10, 2017, 07:38:36 am »
The Lord of the Rings was genre-defining and it's still a great read. To me, that Blade Runner was influential is interesting and a testimony to its place in the history of cinema/art in general, but completely irrelevant as far as it concerns what it is now, and I'd say what is is now is a very flawed film with great design.

I do like Akira more, FWIW. It actually has characters I can care about as well as visual style.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Official Dominion Strategy Podcast
« on: October 10, 2017, 07:19:54 am »
Have you guys made any more moves towards getting the podcast up on the iTunes store (where basically all podcast apps can get it from?) I love podcasts to listen to on commutes and in the lab off of my phone but I'm never going to sit in front of a computer and listen to an hour+ podcast on youtube.

This. As an avid podcast listener and sometimes Dominion player, I'm very much in the market for this, but not if I have to go on Youtube for it.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 10, 2017, 07:14:10 am »
Anything that suffers from SeinfeldIsUnfunny wasn't that great in the first place. Many great works have transcended their time period you know. The original Blade Runner is a great achievment in design and mood, in the service of a poor story with a checked-out actor playing an uninteresting actor, which is all the more evident when a much more interesting character comes in and gives a great monologue about how you'd have had a much better time watching the movie about him.

To mitigate the above; art is subjective in nature so I'm not saying Blade Runner is "dated" or anything silly like that, but I personally was very underwhelmed by it. Looking forward to 2049 though.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 10, 2017, 07:11:26 am »
Have you guys seen the new Star Wars trailer.

It still puzzles me why anyone watches trailers of films they already know they're going to see, so no.

Dominion General Discussion / Re: Which Removed Cards Do You Use IRL?
« on: September 12, 2017, 11:32:39 am »
All of them. Why should I not ? I don't own 2ed, not going to exclude cards just because they were replaced in it.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 21, 2017, 07:10:16 pm »
"the problem is that they didn't explain"

That's where you're wrong, I think. As much as I love them, the books have their logic problems, and the show was always going to be much worse, especially with the accelerated narrative now. Overexplaining is the worst thing they can do, it would make the gaps in logic unforgivable.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 21, 2017, 07:11:01 am »
Messy as always, but spectacular enough that it doesn't sour it. Wyrms have been anticipated for so long in the ASoIaF, glad to see it coming to bear (hah).

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 07, 2017, 09:01:04 am »
Brienne's sword clearly seemed blunted to me, though I was surprised at the violence with which she was wielding it. Never crossed my mind that Arya might inadvertently cross the line, I basically assume she has super-human control.

Dany turning back would have been the best move strategically, assuming no survivors. It does look better to stay and win - thereby confirming dragons are the real deal - but less safe. Suits Dany pretty well though.

I do think Jaime survives this, unfortunately. Nothing against him, and I can see how there is a lot of unresolved business that warrants having him around for story/character reasons, but it was shaping up to be a memorable death.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 07, 2017, 08:38:53 am »
This episode was already very good before the battle: The Winterfell Starks stuff was very strong, the Jon/Dany scenes actually felt like two characters speaking to each other (as opposed to the naked plot machinations earlier), and then GoT got to do what it does best, which is terrifying and awesome battle sequences.

Best episode of GoT in years.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 03, 2017, 06:12:52 am »
Well, it's certainly hard to defend accumulating wealth as a Catholic, but as a Protestant you're fine.

WHat I'm saying is that the Iron Bank wouldn't have qualms about slavery because they'd think they'd get in trouble for it, but because they'd been conditionned to see it as absolute evil, since it's the very thing their society was built against. And certainly if they did profit off it nevertheless, they wouldn't be open about it.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:46:47 am »
It's not about being unethical... it's about going against everything their society is built open. Casually, since he doesn't mind admitting it to Cersei.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: August 02, 2017, 06:22:11 am »
I was mildly irritated that the Iron Bank, located in the free city of Braavos which was founded by runaway slaves, apparently had a lot of money invested in slave trade.

This. I've grown to accept stuff like Littlefinger's teleporting device which he's apparently given a copy of to everyone in the show now, but this ? Ugh.

Pretty good episode though. I liked Olenna's last scene a lot.

General Discussion / Re: Game of Thrones (show) [spoiler warning]
« on: July 25, 2017, 07:03:16 am »

And why can't GRRM finish the books already?
This. So much this.

And even more this.

I have read yesterday that he's planning to publish the Winds of Winter AND the prequel (Blood and Fire or something, it's about Targaryens) in 2018. Then I suppose, the last book will see the light in 2094.

I take it you're new to the ASoIaF thing ? The books will come out when they come out, and no one (not even GRRM most likely) knows when that is. It's better not to expect anything.

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: July 18, 2017, 05:40:01 am »
Tip of the iceberg: there is a bridge currently in the process of collapsing, and legolas jumps ON THE PIECES as they break away and makes it back to safety.

I think the movies have lost any claim to be taken seriously.

Haven't seen The Hobbit movies, but the LOTR movies do feature Legolas surfing on oliphants, so...

General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: June 20, 2017, 05:01:43 am »
I think we've had this discussion before pac, but yes, the boy is responsible for everything bad that happens. He's, what, 15 ? Maybe a bit older ? In any case, he's rather young, he just lost his mother in a horrific manner and his aunt - while justified in some ways - doesn't handle the situation well at all.

The key point in the film is when he decides not to tell his sister about the mom's death. This is what guides all his actions in the rest of the film: he just lost his innoncence, lost his childhood, and he refuses to let it happen to his sister. Everything he does, he does it to allow his sister to remain in the garden of Eden that is childhood. But of course, that can only exist if responsible adults take care of everything, and he's not able to do that, so he fails.

The film constantly pushes and pull in that way, with moments of bliss and innocence contrasted with both the overall context and where it actually ends. That is the power of the film: it evokes that longing to stay carefree, but the impossibility to do so.

The novel might be about war, but Takahata made a film about the tragic but necessary loss of innocence that comes with adulthood.

General Discussion / Re: Song of the day
« on: June 14, 2017, 04:07:45 pm »
Caravan Palace is great.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: June 04, 2016, 07:12:46 am »
I just realized that newspapers are unbelievably boring

I can't believe people read them every day.

They're not.

They don't.

General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: May 24, 2016, 03:34:35 am »
Can't go wrong with an Opinel.

« on: May 21, 2016, 07:57:56 am »
They didn't forget, it's just very hard to do. Ithink it's absolutely worth it, making combat actually engaging rather than smashy smashy... I know I found war incredibly tedious in IV, love playing Domination in V. But yes, the AI is not very good at it, and you need to go high in difficulty to have some challenge there through sheer numbers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28

Page created in 0.585 seconds with 18 queries.