Jump to content

The Great Cornholio

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,517

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by The Great Cornholio

  2. Posted

    10 hours ago, mymango said:

    Maybe, though the fact his tribute site is being prepared could mean he's at the end.

    Mymango is actually 100% correct here. I also hear the Carter Foundation have events where a Jimmy Carter dummy gets thrown into traffic, just so the public are prepared for his passing

    • Haha 6

  3. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

    You genuinely might be the first person in history to call Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and Kevin Hart some of the world's greatest actors. That's probably the worst opinion shared in this thread so far.

    Lmao I was going by how well perceived they are generally - imo those two always play the same characters for every movie they're in. Same goes for Seth Rogan and Jack Black.

  4. Posted

    42 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

    I have been thinking about the "Woke" casting complaints and I think that the more people try to put rules around it the more it is going to struggle

     

    Theatre, TV and Film are all forms of art and by saying - you must cast accurately or you must cast colour blind or gender blind is basically hampering the creative decisions of the creator before the start

     

    There were complaints about the casting of a Black Anne Boleyn in a TV drama but the musical Six has been an enormous success and when my wife and daughter saw it at least three of the wives were played by actresses of colour. 

     

    Therefore my opinion is that casting is an artistic decision that the director needs to stand by. There have been many experimental productions which have played about with casting that have been enormous successes (Matthew Bourne's all male Swan Lake or Hamilton for that matter)

     

    It would take a brave director to cast Zac Efron as Martin Luther King but a really creative director could make it work without seeming too crass.

     

    Someone on Twitter refused to go and see the new Indiana Jones movie for the sole reason that Phoebe Waller-Bridge was in it and they were expecting two hours of feminist propeganda

     

    I would rather judge a production on how it tells the story and the story it has to tell rather than inflict my own opinions on something before I have even seen it

    The rule I would put in would be to cast someone on merit. Dont hire someone solely because of their skin colour.

     

    There are plenty of diverse actors, like The Rock, Samuel L Jackson, Kevin Hart, Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Ice Cube etc who are some of the world's greatest actors. They dont need diversity quotas in order to get them into films.

     

    Lets say you are a director and you want to make a film that appeals to black audiences, as well as white, then naturally you'll want to represent them - especially if you're making a film for typically younger audiences. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this but your film shouldn't revolve around how diverse it is - as it just seems patronising, not to mention that it'll become obvious that you've clearly hired someone to be the token black person in your film. Usually the blame is shared between hiring bad actors because you have a quota to fill and overall bad writing/storytelling.

     

    If I'm watching a film, I like the characters to be multi-dimensional. They need a good backstory, motivations, challenges and subtleties that help you identify with the character and make him/her feel real (like a favourite colour, interest, consistency in clothing style, bodily habit eg: thumb twiddling, wrist scratching, ear picking or telling signs when the character is lying etc etc).

     

    A diverse character only feels like a diversity quota filler when the character is bad IMO. Its the same feeling when a big celebrity is shoehorned into a film/tv show, you just know that they're only there because its Stephan Colbert/Donald Trump/whoever.

     

     

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    4 minutes ago, TQR said:


    Which isn’t fighting injustice, so that’s not what we’re talking about.

    I think she means positive discrimination - eg: Police only offering jobs to minority/non-white applicants

  6. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Sinbabad said:

    I post a wiktionary link earlier with a definition which seems quite correct to me : "Holding progressive views or attitudes, principally with regard to social justice."

     

    I’m not  against fighting injustice, but  I hold conservative views and disagree with progressive ways to fight injustice.

    Thats probably the biggest nothing answer I've seen on this site lmao

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    14 hours ago, An Fear Beag said:

     

    Like Claire Danes, you mean? She doesn't look remotely Italian, and yet no-one batted an eyelid. Why is it that people will accept pale white actors/actresses playing characters that should have darker skin (Glenda Jackson, Helen Mirren and Judy Dench all played the Egyptian Cleopatra on stage, and no-one cared), but have trouble accepting black actors/actresses playing the same characters?

    And why are people obsessed that the actor/actress looks authentic? I have never seen an actress playing Juliet who sounded Italian (they all spoke English for a start!), and yet people suspended belief and accepted that they were Italian. So why is it so essential that they look a certain way?

     

     

    Except it isn't. It would be the very opposite of diversity, given the relative number of parts available to actors of different ethnic backgrounds.

     

    One big difference between The Jungle Book and Romeo and Juliet, is that while the jungle setting is essential to the story of the former, Italy is really not essential to the plot of Romeo and Juliet, in the same way that Denmark is not really essential to the plot of Hamlet. It is a play about star-crossed lovers, not about Verona. It could be set in Verona, Mississippi and the story would work just as well. So for the purpose of the play, it really does not matter what colour skin Romeo or Juliet have.

     

     

    Well, I'm guessing it's helping the actress who got to play the iconic role

     

     

    I will hold my hands up here and admit that I am not familiar with the version that you are referring to here - I have been speaking more generally. So if the director has come out and said that they gave the role to an actress purely because she black, then I will happily say that I disagree with that. However, more generally, I have an issue with people assuming that a role has been given to an actor/actress purely for the sake of diversity. Have you considered the possibility that he/she got the role because they are a bloody good actor/actress who deserved a shot at playing the part, despite peoples pre-conceived ideas of what the character should look like? How is giving good roles to good black actors/actresses patronising? Should we ban all non-white actors from doing Shakespeare (except Othello), because that is not how Shakespeare envisaged the characters 400 years ago?

    I mean if the actress has hired on her merit as an actress then yeah there's no problem there. Only thing is that often diversity casting feels forced. Star Wars being a good example, although you could put some of it down to the terrible writing. I was very excited for the Obi Wan Kenobi series but the writing wasn't good and the Reva character was badly acted and was terribly written - but the story was praised for its diversity. The story should matter WAY more than how diverse the cast is.

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    My opinion is that we can live in a world where we fight prominent injustices yet keep everyone's right to say what they want. Tolerance being mandatory, but you can have your opinions.

     

    The way my own life has most been affected by the censorship caused from the woke ideology would be the change in rules in comedy. I love off-colour humour, be it memes, stand-up, youtube or whatever. I can understand why people don't like dark humour - but if you don't like something then don't watch it. Don't ruin it for everyone else. The new GTA is a good example. The GTA series is full of controversial jokes and missions etc. Its supposed to be, its a game for mature audiences that promotes all immoral things. Now GTA is being watered down to make it PC, like who asked for that? Its an 18+ game. You dont need to be politically correct in a game you kill hookers and work for bad people.

     

    I also dont like the idea that people are cancelled for their opinions, be it fired from their jobs or banned from social media. Unless they want to cause physical harm to someone or believe in some extremist cause, like ISIS or BNP, then I dont think we should be cancelling people. As far as those people go, we should open a dialogue and debate those beliefs - instead of just being afraid of them. Otherwise a 'forbidden fruit' effect happens where those people feel like they are being censored because they know the truth - which is probably why the far right is currently on the rise worldwide.

     

    I think thats why the term 'woke' is so hated by so many. When created, being woke (as aforementioned) meant being aware of injustices that do not directly affect you but affects others. It took compassionate people to promote this mindset but it also took totalitarian idiots to later ruin it by enforcing censorship, being condescending about how self-righteous they are and seeking out injustice where it doesnt exist (like with the scone thing or Henry VIII being disabled). Also maybe it would not has escalated to this extent had it not been for President Trump on the other end of the pendulum, so its not like the blame is all on one side.

  9. Posted

    12 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

    I'm not sure that I see what the problem is with giving the role of Juliet to a black woman, provided she is a good enough actress for the role. It is a fair while since I read or saw the play, but I don't recall anything in it that would make it essential that she is white. Juliet is a fictional part - she can be anything you want her to be. It's just that people are so used to seeing her played by white actresses that they cannot imagine her as anything else. You could argue that it is based in Italy, and therefore Juliet would not have been black (had she existed!). But I don't think she would have looked like Claire Danes either, and people seemed to accept that okay.

     

    Juliet isn't black though, she is Italian. So it would make sense for her to be (or look) Italian. Otherwise its like making Mogli from the Jungle Book Swedish, deliberate inaccuracy for the sake of diversity. Also who exactly is this helping? All black people? Seems kinda patronising tbh. 

    • Like 4

  11. Posted

    Woke is good when it comes to fighting injustices like modern day slavery, sexual harassment, gay rights in 3rd world countries and police brutality. Its good to have awareness about stuff like that, which is what the term 'woke' is supposed to mean.

     

    The biggest problem is that people are digging for injustices in things when there isnt any there (eg dressing as Hitler at a costume party or saying milk/scones are racist). That and extreme pandering, like making Juliet black in the new Romeo and Juliet. At that point its just showing off how 'not racist' you are - which counterintuitively makes people question if you'd done something racist/dangerously unwoke in the past which you are trying to overcompensate for.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    17 minutes ago, RetroGamer47 said:

    Jimmy Carter is like Mongo, "invincible" until the day he dies and posting about him before then just means he hasn't died.

     

    I too am invincible until the day I die

    • Like 1

  20. Posted

    59 minutes ago, lay_kulast95 said:

    Researchers had not been able to find a source for her death. I was the first one who found it today. 

    Because Facebook is such a credible source...

    • Facepalm 1

  21. Posted

    7 minutes ago, lay_kulast95 said:

    The biggest pain on these forums is YOU. I'm sure your mommy and poppy must be verrrrry proud of the types of comments you post here, sweetheart. I think it's time for baby to grow up and get a REAL job:clap:*smooch smooch smooch*

    He's got a point though. Also why are you posting links from Facebook? Even if what your posting were relevant, it would've been posted 4 months ago :blink:

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    7 hours ago, arrowsmith said:


    I’d be better if there weren’t people like you on here who quoted an entire nine hundred word post to say they didn’t read it. You’re the forum equivalent of the morons who reply all to a listserv email. 

    Imagine getting triggered over a such a small thing that has literally nothing to do with you, you must live a super boring existence if thats your big complaint in life.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  24. Posted

    1 minute ago, Doc said:

    Big Update guys, the Carter Family has decided for Carter to undergo experimental treatment in secret. They know he has only weeks if not days left, but they got word a Turkish Doctor who has a highly experimental highly risky treatment method, but the upside is that this could prolong  his life for up to several years. While it is true that he is in hospice meaning he would no longer be seeking treatment, this decision to enter hospice was made before this experimental treatment option was known to the family. The possibility of prolonging his life for up to a few years is too good of an opportunity for them to pass up. There is further motivation for him to want to continue life if he feels he has a chance to make it to the 2024 election, as he would feel much more at peach in accepting death if he knew Trump would never be president again. I do not have a medical degree but do have a masters in molecular biology and have somewhat of an understanding of how this treatment works based off of the details I have been given, though much of it is far too advanced for me to understand. In the intricate realm of neurobiological transference, a revolutionary procedure unfolds at the cellular level. Within the confines of our understanding of cellular structures, we delve into the intricacies of synaptic connections and neural networks. Imagine a meticulous process where the very essence of cognition is delicately encoded into the synaptic patterns of individual neurons. Through an advanced form of quantum neuro-cognitive mapping, we embark on a journey at the subatomic scale, manipulating the quantum states of electrons within the synapses. These minute particles dance in orchestrated patterns, forming a tapestry of cognitive information. Concurrently, the cellular membrane acts as a gatekeeper, facilitating the transfer of quantum-encoded consciousness across the neural pathways. As the quantum states harmonize, a symphony of neurological data resonates, transcending the conventional boundaries of cellular communication. This orchestration of quantum cognition reaches a crescendo, breaching the limitations of traditional neuroscience. The neural pathways, now imprinted with the quintessence of consciousness, bear the signature of an individual's thoughts, memories, and self-awareness. Unbeknownst to the observer, the grand finale of this scientific odyssey unveils itself as the culmination of all efforts materializes within the unsuspecting vessel—a humble peanut. In a twist that defies conventional understanding, the quantum-mapped consciousness seamlessly integrates with the peanut's cellular matrix. The peanut, once a mundane legume, now houses the complex tapestry of a sentient mind, forever altering the paradigm of neuroscientific possibilities. This groundbreaking revelation challenges the very fabric of our comprehension, inviting us to reconsider the boundaries between the tangible and the abstract. The peanut, now an unlikely host to the essence of cognition, stands as a testament to the enigmatic possibilities that lie at the intersection of science and imagination. To explain this in more simple terms, they are going to attempt Jimmy's consciousness into a peanut plant. As we have all seen recently his mind is still in great shape for someone his age and it is merely his body which is failing him. If they can plant Jimmy's conciseness into a healthy host body then he can continue to live on with the lifespan of the new host body. One might ask why they can not transfer his conciseness into something with more physical capabilities such as a human body, robot, or even animal, instead of something so limiting as a peanut plant. The problem is that the cellular makeup of these larger beings are far too complex to be able to even dream about a successful conscious swap into. A peanut starts out as a single seed with an extremely simple cellular structure and thus makes for one of the best chances for a successful consciousness transfer. A further benefit to selecting a peanut is that Jimmy can then be planted back at his old peanut farm which he loves so dearly and isn where he wishes he could spend his remaining days. There is already some talk within the family of then turning the Carter Peanut farm into a massive Graceland/Dollywood like theme park attraction where people can take photos with Jimmy in his peanut form. Furthermore they believe that they will be able use electrode placement to read the electrical signals from his Peanut Plant host and be able to understand whatever thoughts he is trying to communicate by interpretation of the electrical readings. With a potential from him to be able to communicate in his new host body Jimmy is considering joining CNN as a 2024 election analyst. They figure it would be a huge ratings draw to have a plant as an on air talent especially considering the plant would be the beloved former president. It would also be seen as a boon for CNN as they would have a leg up in the diversity equity and inclusion arms race with the other news networks by being the first network to hire the underrepresented legume community. Hopefully for Jimmy and for the rest of humanity this procedure is successful since this technology if functional could be used to extend the lives of millions. 

    Fuck me I'm not reading all that...

  25. Posted

    4 hours ago, mymango said:

    I'm still subscribed for obvious reasons, I just can't be bothered as much with reactions and the like.

     

    @TQR can't you fuck off already? Guy keeps facepalming every single one of my posts.

    I mean on one hand, yeah this forum can be kinda toxic. But on the other hand a lot of these legacy members have to witness a lot of the same bs when it comes to newbies posting the same recycled stuff over and over. Like 'I predict that so and so wont outlive 2024' or 'this person will be dead within the month' and these predictions are usually based on nothing and are usually wrong - granted I've posted a lot of stupid stuff myself in the past that falls into this category.

    • Like 2
×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use

  I accept