Posts by Walter Grant5

Wait, since when is it off-limits to talk about the biggest club game of the season the day after it happens?

Patrick Wright2 said:I definitely caught Walter Grant5's scalp. Haugh.

That would be a hell of a trophy. If you actually owned it, obviously. ☕

So that's the problem?

Don't have time for a series right now. Just watching one episode of Game of Thrones a week. That's about all my schedule can handle.

Why is the Pope heading to Ottawa when there aren't even many Americans there? 🙂

mwuahahaha some kind of plan

p.s. got 2 tickets for Deicide waiting for me and Father Fran 👋

you gotta screw up the whole scheme. that's the only damn scheme you actually need to mess up.

Look, I haven't even read the books. I was just messing around on another PDF. Comparing a book to a TV show is a lost cause anyway. They're two totally different mediums built for completely different vibes.

Man, it’s not even just that. They’ve been watching since season one and they find something to whine about in basically every single episode. Like, what the hell? If everything was perfect all the time, then nothing would actually be good.

I honestly wish all their favorite versions would just crash and burn, leaving them with nothing but the stuff they hate. I’d get a real kick out of watching that.

God, these kids are pathetic. They sit there watching Game of Thrones and whining about every single episode from day one, constantly comparing it to the books and acting like everything is wrong. Just stop watching, for Christ's sake.

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess the Republican Party really shot themselves in the foot with this whole veteran situation.

Just business as usual.

Sadly, masochists love celebrating self-inflicted wounds.

Voting for the Republican Party is basically intellectual suicide

she isn't done yet

Basically, me and Matthew Anderson4 were the only ones keeping this thread alive while all those supposedly "high-quality" and "hilarious" posts were nowhere to be found. ☕

They tried to sell us a load of crap, and I felt it right in my gut. ☕

brightpilot6 said:Either show some actual proof or just go retire to a monastery.

You aren't the first one here. You're tenth.

brightpilot6 said:But you still ended up watching it. He isn't being himself.

How does he not check what he was supposed to? Seriously.

brightpilot6 said:If we’re taking a trip back to the Middle Ages, we might just find ourselves seeking refuge in a cathedral 🤦

🤣

brightpilot6 said:Honestly, this entire debate feels like one of the most pointless things I've ever seen online 🙏

Look, does anyone actually believe these "must-have" lists carry any real weight, or are we all just pretending they matter? 🙏🤣

Don't act all high and mighty, kid. You were the first one jumping in with that "must" nonsense... ☕

Matthew Anderson4 said:Fair point. But does that actually change the impact—you know, the only thing that really matters—of a movie? Does some little clique of hipsters making fun of people for missing certain flicks actually affect cinema as an art form? Honestly, if some random guy can ruin everything just by mentioning it, then I don't know, chill out with the pointless rebellion. Meditate on it. Who cares. Next time you're stuck in that spot, just say you haven't seen The Godfather and watch them scramble to try and outsmart you.

It matters if "must-see" lists are what we use as a guide. Otherwise, people just shove junk in your face and you waste your damn time.

we get it already. We've dumped ten posts too many here.

Whatever. People can say whatever they want, just like I do. I’m just calling it like I see it with these "must-watch" lists flying around. I don't listen to them even 2% of the time. Doesn't mean I won't check out a movie eventually, obviously. But when a group gets all worked up over some title and you feel like an idiot just because you haven't seen it yet... it's like watching toddlers brag about some new toy. Guidelines are fine and all, but they don't mean squat when people start getting aggressive about it. It's basically just a way to talk trash.

Peter Thompson4 said:Look, there’s absolutely a "must-see" category for a reason, and it’s not some elitist way to mock you or whatever, it’s just meant to be a roadmap.
It’s honestly no different than if you didn't know your basic geography, like which major US cities are capitals or even where the continents are located.

And honestly, trying to compare us to people living thousands of years ago is just plain ridiculous; obviously, our general knowledge base is massive compared to them, and having some fundamental baseline is important, but just because you haven't seen *The Godfather* doesn't mean you're uncultured or haven't watched a ton of great cinema, it just means you haven't seen that specific movie yet.

Matthew Anderson4 said:It wasn't meant to be one big analogy, just a pile of examples of things you "have" to do. Some hit closer to the mark than others—like the professor or the bard. It’s like saying a lemon is a better example of yellow than a banana; they're both yellow, regardless. Anyway, for anyone even slightly curious about cinema as an art form, there are definitely essentials. You really should see *Citizen Kane*. Not like, right this second, but eventually. That's what a "must see" means.

What I was actually getting at is this stupid phenomenon where people constantly point at "must-sees." You follow all these guides and realize they're useless because everyone just points at their own favorites until the list is bloated and meaningless. For one person, *The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari* is essential; for another, it's *The Dark Knight*. If everything is a "must," then nothing is, and the whole concept falls apart. And no, it’s not like knowing the capital cities of major countries.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Look, I already said there’s no such thing as a "must-do" in general. But things change when you get into the weeds. Terms like "must-do" or "must-see" are pretty abstract anyway—if they weren't, skipping them would literally kill you, which isn't how language works. They're just colloquialisms. Take an English professor, for example. You could totally be one without ever touching Shakespeare. It's doable. But for a professor of English lit, Shakespeare is still a must-read, even if that specific guy never actually cracked the book. He didn't drop dead from it, so it's still a must-read.

Fair point. Still a pretty extreme analogy, though. Comparing a literature professor to someone who just likes movies—it's a stretch.

And "must-read" or "must-see" is basically just some sacred cow. Like, "you're a loser if you haven't seen this..." Well, newsflash, maybe I haven't. So what if I haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption? No big deal.