Happy Face

What's wrong with it Sloopie? i think that counter-argument summed up quite nicely. what I find particuarly shallow about all of Tarantino's work is how he lies to the audience by portraying violence as entertainment. it's absurd and shallow, and even though it's usually in a hyper-stylised way, he is portraying acts, that in reality have unfathomable emotional resonance, as something to find glee over. Do you have the same problem with the Coens putting people through a wood chipping machine, or shooting someone in the head who mistakes the gun for an inhaler? completely. Hmm. I'm just wondering at what point the line is drawn for you between acceptable violence (in something you've said you like such as The Godfather) which while thrilling has a cost amply shown, and violence as shallow entertainment. I believe the Coen examples above (and the Godfather) punish the perpetrators of violence which lets the audience of the hook for enjoying it. There's a catharsis for the viewer when characters are punished for their acts. Tarantino follows this model too in my opinion (on the simplest level, of the two hitmen, only the one that repents survives). Why does Copolla get off the hook for you, but not the Coens or Taranteeny?

I think if the poll was ran before Saturdays game (which was in April, remember), Owen would have walked it.

What's wrong with it Sloopie? i think that counter-argument summed up quite nicely. what I find particuarly shallow about all of Tarantino's work is how he lies to the audience by portraying violence as entertainment. it's absurd and shallow, and even though it's usually in a hyper-stylised way, he is portraying acts, that in reality have unfathomable emotional resonance, as something to find glee over. Do you have the same problem with the Coens putting people through a wood chipping machine, or shooting someone in the head who mistakes the gun for an inhaler?

The counter claim.... http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/pulp-fiction-counter/

http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/pulp_fiction/

2 http://fantasy.premierleague.com/M/stats.m...lter=&view=

I agree, I thought it was absolute dung. If you're going to talk about Fight Club, then you're not going to enjoy it's benefits. It's the first rule man!

You're all stars in my eyes. "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony...."

Poor little lass.

Beye does deserve extra votes for the throw in fight against Blackburn though.

Beye's impressed, but giving it to a defender when we've not really had our backs to the wall this month doesn't sit right with me.

http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsD...1282318,00.html I'm going with Owen.

Either way, it looks like contract renewals are up for grabs now we're safe. Let the comedy ensue from Taylor.

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way). I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention? Because it clearly wasn't. As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things. Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum. Yup, who'd ever have thought that the world and situations can slowly change with time. Clearly only snap "u-turns" exist and are "rightfully" portrayed as such. You'd almost think that Stalin could have been a deadly enemy and then a bosom ally, before being a deadly yet enemy again - absolutely ludicrous of course, clearly anyone involved in something like that would be castigated for their monstrous "u-turns" for all time. I've never had a qualm with his "U-turn" whatever it's pace. Nor do I think, have the media. As I said it's not actually a u-turn, no matter how it's portrayed as such. I think you need to look up the definition of u-turn before you read anything else.

I don't really think he is. But winning a trophy season one in the PL carries some merit surely? I don't place too much stock in trophy's. Those kind of things tend to cloud the issue, for example you could make an argument for Souness being a good manager based on trophies.

Still yet to see why Ramos is so much better.

Are any of the Bond's or Potter films considered 'great' by anyone?

I think the portrayal that he did that was yes (what actually he did do was a bit different to that, although it is almost always portrayed in that very simple way). I'd agree the media portrayal of his U-turn was a media portrayal . The question was, are you saying the act itself was a media invention? Because it clearly wasn't. As I said it wasn't really a "u-turn" though (although it is clearly portrayed and swallowed as such) it was more a long curving arch driven from the same direction as earlier things. Who'd have thought a man taking the opposing view to the one he previously held would have to put up with such devious portrayals of his viewpoint. The media are scum. Yup, who'd ever have thought that the world and situations can slowly change with time. Clearly only snap "u-turns" exist and are "rightfully" portrayed as such. You'd almost think that Stalin could have been a deadly enemy and then a bosom ally, before being a deadly yet enemy again - absolutely ludicrous of course, clearly anyone involved in something like that would be castigated for their monstrous "u-turns" for all time. I've never had a qualm with his "U-turn" whatever it's pace. Nor do I think, have the media. As I said it's not actually a u-turn, no matter how it's portrayed as such.

Champion. Anyone else considering a phone might want to consider the F700. Doesn't seem to be getting advertyised anywhere, but better than the Iphone in many respects, most importantly free on 12 month contracts. Camera and memory are still shite compared to non touch screen phones though.

Don't want to be the one to break this to you, but...

Aye, it's the sort of film you just have to 'get', if like me you don't get it then you wonder what all the fuss is about. "Obviously you're not a golfer" etc.

Hardly suprising like. Didn't you think Lebowski was shite too? Aye but tbf Lebowski was absolute shite. I've never met anyone that really rated it, more of a cult following I'd say. That explains why your taste is shite, you're mixing in the wrong circles. TBL was a 6.5/10 sort of film. You often find low budget films can be some of the best, and seeing as though Ewerk's posting, I will mention one such example. "The Van" was absolutely superb, I bet they put it together for less than 3m. Never seen The Van, but Lebowski cost $15M and barely made the money back. There's some big song and dance numbers in there remember.

Hardly suprising like. Didn't you think Lebowski was shite too? Aye but tbf Lebowski was absolute shite. I've never met anyone that really rated it, more of a cult following I'd say. That explains why your taste is shite, you're mixing in the wrong circles.

Stevie's grip on reality weakens with every post.