Even if they get Kawhi, they still lose to GS in conference finals.
He’s got 2 houses there, a production company, a bigger stage to talk about social issues, and his oldest boy will start high school the next year. This is the start of retirement, while hilariously crippling LA’s salary cap like Kobe did his final years.
Ok I went and listened to 6ix9ine’s most listened to stuff on Apple Music and it’s straight garbage. Terrible flow, bad writing, no depth at all.
Why do we keep making untalented, unintelligent people popular and rich in this country smh
I believe in organized religion. I bring my family to church. We donate to our church. I believe the church does a lot of great things. I didn’t mean for it to come across as anti-church. And I do think there are many people and churches that would see this scenario as a huge problem.
I just think identifying the church or religion as authoritarian empowers humans to abuse that position and actually keeps people from pursuing their own relationship with God. Jesus encouraged people to pursue a relationship with God, and I don’t understand how that gets missed. For a very obvious example, a priest is not your authority. A priest can provide guidance. If my children, wife, or I encounter a priest that encourages us to sin, we know they have no authority over us and their guidance is not God’s will or with God’s blessing. That does not mean a priest cannot be a great guide toward developing a relationship with God. It just means you should learn to trust your faith over your institution.
Saw it last night in an awesome theater. I really enjoyed it. It was better than I expected, actually, and given some of the flaws in the original (in part due to the many iterations of it), I might even say it's a better overall movie (though certainly it won't be as important of a movie). I need to let it marinate for awhile and see it again before I go that far, though. After all, it was missing a certain batty element:
Ok, Sean. I don't know about you, but I'm already tired of arguing with Redditors on the "logic" issues of this season. How do you really feel about the vagueness of time in Beyond The Wall? Your voice seems to be in the minority with regards to the enthusiasm for the season. Personally, I think the pedants are overstating their case. As a long time watcher, this season is the first to feel truly epic from its start which I'm enjoying. What's your take on the whole Snag-A-Wight scenario, anyway?
Oh gosh. Back on July 31 I tweeted “Game of Thrones criticism will get more picayune, joyless, and uncompromising the closer we get to the ending & the bigger it becomes,” and I think that’s definitely turned out to be the case. There are many reasons for that — not all of them organic. For example, this week in particular, Game of Thrones is the biggest business going on any pop-culture website; there’s literally nothing you can write about the show that won’t do huge numbers for the site, so the sites keep cranking them out, about every conceivable bone of contention or crackpot theory one could have. I’m in a position where I don’t have to participate, fortunately. (I actually turned down a paid gig to avoid being part of the problem.)
But it’s also a case of a pernicious tendency in TV criticism, which is the way so many critics (professional and amateur) line up behind a single idea and run with it as the conventional wisdom about a show. It’s much easier to regurgitate a complaint or plaudit you’ve heard elsewhere than to dig into a work yourself and see what you come up with – the template’s been established, you know there’s a readymade network of support for your idea, etc etc. Again, this isn’t entirely organic: TV critics are exposed to so much TV that they tend to overreact to novelty, which leads them to look for reasons to reject whatever the last big thing was and latch on to the new one. The problem with GoT is that it’s so unbelievably popular that they can’t quite quit it, which is a reason why the time-frame criticism has caught on. “Game of Thrones is misogynist” didn’t manage to dent the show’s viewership or that viewership’s interest in reading anything you can type about it, which means TV critics and pop-culture journalists have to keep covering it, which means they have to think of a new reason why it’s bad. (I know, I know, these are all generalizations, but they’re hard-earned through years in the field; I know I’m considered a GoT stan now lol, but I could make similar arguments about many, many other shows.)
Anyway, I also wrote on twitter about the timeframe issue in particular. Here’s how I see it.
The snarky, grumpy response is that people who complain about raven/dragon speed in Game of Thrones should spend their days calculating Santa Claus’s mph and leave art to adults. "By making me guess how long everything took to happen, the filmmakers violated their prime obligation: mileage.“ Go edit a wiki, you rubes.
Ah, I kid because I love. Now for the less rude answer:
The end of the kind of story Game of Thrones is telling requires massive, effects-heavy battles with zombies, dragons, huge armies, et cetera. The time and money required to pull this off in anything even close to a TV-show format and schedule means fewer episodes per year. Once that decision’s made, you have to prioritize how you spend your ever more precious screentime, especially when certain big points must be hit. So the creators chose to deemphasize the slog ‘n’ grind of travel and the remoteness of characters’ goals. (Which I loved! But oh well.) They’ve switched to time jumps that make travel look relatively quick & easy, which both saves screentime and builds up a sense of momentum and urgency—all equally valuable as we head to the climax.
Is the transition from the status quo ante inelegant at times? Yes, obviously. But the logic behind it and the value of it seem easy to grasp, to me. So when I sit down to write about an Game of Thrones now, it’s hard for me, personally, to imagine focusing on the speed/time issue. It’s a rich set of images, ideas, and characters on a literally unprecedented scale for TV. There’s plenty else to like or dislike there.
That said, I share some complaints, to be honest. Regarding the time issue specifically: Simply for dramatic purposes, I would have liked the show to have emphasized how long Jon & company were stranded on that island—some fades to show passage of time, dialogue about how cold & hungry they are, make ‘em look extra haggard, that kind of thing. But to me that’s about one sentence’s worth of criticism (I just wrote it), not an essay, let alone the main thrust of how I interact with the show now.
As for the snag-a-wight plan…I mean, look, that’s not a great plan. Nor is having a summit, or any kind of meeting at all, like brunch, with Cersei Lannister in King’s Landing. But y’know, Luke was more upset about Obi-Wan than Leia was about her entire planet, The Godfather’s baptism montage only showed Moe Greene and three of the rival family heads rather than four, you can’t blow up an oxygen tank in a shark’s mouth with a rifle, the Woodsmen look totally different in Fire Walk With Me and Twin Peaks Season Three, radioactive spiders give you cancer not spider-powers, yadda yadda yadda. The point is that if a work of narrative fiction is providing enough compensatory value, you can overlook any number of plot holes or storytelling fumbles. I get that Game of Thrones is not doing that for some people, but that’s been the case since literally day one. The idea that it’s suddenly crossed some Rubicon into **** Land may be true for some, but it is not a truth universally acknowledged.