Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

that's basically a superpower

boldfox88 said:I stumbled upon a random fact on Facebook the other day about how some Frenchman supposedly held an insurance policy that allowed him to buy stocks at last year's prices.🙏

And get this—he's still tied up in court over it!

AA and Aviva? They’re dead to me.

Walter Grant5 said:

If this turns out to be true, they deserve to be packed into one first-class jet and tossed out at whatever altitude keeps them breathing until they hit the pavement. No parachutes, obviously.

I'm not so sure. That would mean he averaged over one flight every single day for more than 27 years.
It seems possible, I suppose, though it feels like anyone would eventually get tired of that routine.

So, if they pulled that lifetime pass from him back when he was 21 in 2008...

I honestly think people are blowing this way out of proportion—doubt he ever saw more than a thousand years tops.

I was just reading up on him. It doesn't actually list his total flight count, just the mileage. Apparently, he clocked in at over 30 million miles.
http://alumni.brown.edu/classes/1972...Rothstein.html

Of course they're blowing this out of proportion. I was just pointing out that they revoked his lifetime pass, which the guy paid good money for.

Walter Grant5 said:Of course they're blowing this out of proportion. I was just pointing out that they revoked his lifetime pass, which the guy paid good money for.

I agree, they really aren't being fair here.

Walter Grant5 said:AA and Aviva? They’re dead to me.

And what about Greece? They certainly haven't exactly set the standard for integrity lately, have they?☕

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess Alfred Hitchcock was on a whole different level back in his day. Honestly, he probably holds up just as well by today's standards, too.

Well, he was making movies for fifty years straight. He started way back during the silent era and wrapped things up in the 70s. But the biggest thing is, his best stuff just isn't boring to watch, even now.

Samuel Scott54 said:Well, he was making movies for fifty years straight. He started way back during the silent era and wrapped things up in the 70s. But the biggest thing is, his best stuff just isn't boring to watch, even now.

I guess it's hard to call him boring when he's such a timeless creator. Maybe it's like how Mozart's compositions stay classic forever; his films seem to feel the same way.

It’s actually quite nice, feels genuinely warm

Since we're already talking about site invites, does anyone happen to have an invite for Crowarez?

Anthony Jackson2 said:Since we're already talking about site invites, does anyone happen to have an invite for Crowarez?

Man, what do you even need that for?

graniteheron132 said:Man, what do you even need that for?

He really just needs to go listen to the entire Adaress discography.😒>

A guy could easily just download a pirated version of Ubuntu.

Following that recent debate about Interstellar—specifically those arguments regarding "head and tail" structures versus the "superior storytelling" found in other films—I felt somewhat compelled to revisit Kubrick’s Odyssey. My god 🤦

It seems to consist of ten static shots lasting five minutes each, serving absolutely no purpose because there isn't a single thing to actually process; the "plot" is frustratingly vague, filled with such murky details and loose ends that trying to dissect the film's logic feels entirely futile, not to mention that not a single character possesses any depth beyond being paper-thin, with motivations either non-existent or left completely unexplained.

Aliens leave behind monoliths that supposedly help amoebas evolve into cats. Or maybe they don't. Wow.

It is just a classic case of "the emperor has no clothes," a Rorschachian image of a film where a simple pipe against a white wall becomes the subject of novellas written by wannabe connoisseurs. After all, it's Kubrick, so one assumes they won't look foolish for suggesting it isn't a masterpiece. Of course, Kubrick anticipated all these debates and carefully planted the triggers for them, yet directors of Interstellar and similar flicks don't spend even a second considering the things we are actually discussing here.

graniteheron132 said:Man, what do you even need that for?

I heard it wasn't anything special—but I found something there I couldn't snag on other trackers, so I figured I'd check if anyone was around. Ended up scoring an invite in the meantime.

brightpilot6 said:Following that recent debate about Interstellar—specifically those arguments regarding "head and tail" structures versus the "superior storytelling" found in other films—I felt somewhat compelled to revisit Kubrick’s Odyssey. My god 🤦

It seems to consist of ten static shots lasting five minutes each, serving absolutely no purpose because there isn't a single thing to actually process; the "plot" is frustratingly vague, filled with such murky details and loose ends that trying to dissect the film's logic feels entirely futile, not to mention that not a single character possesses any depth beyond being paper-thin, with motivations either non-existent or left completely unexplained.

Aliens leave behind monoliths that supposedly help amoebas evolve into cats. Or maybe they don't. Wow.

It is just a classic case of "the emperor has no clothes," a Rorschachian image of a film where a simple pipe against a white wall becomes the subject of novellas written by wannabe connoisseurs. After all, it's Kubrick, so one assumes they won't look foolish for suggesting it isn't a masterpiece. Of course, Kubrick anticipated all these debates and carefully planted the triggers for them, yet directors of Interstellar and similar flicks don't spend even a second considering the things we are actually discussing here.

Look, the issue with "canonical" films is that they were unique in their own era and influenced a massive wave of subsequent movies. So, when you watch them fifty years later, you can't really see what made them original anymore.

That Kubrick film came out in 1968, and it was the first big-budget sci-fi that wasn't just a mindless blend of action and horror; instead, it tackled higher philosophical questions. I suspect the length, the pacing, and the ambiguity were intentional choices meant to break away from the dominant sci-fi trends of the time—a way of signaling that space isn't some neon action circus, but an vast, incomprehensible void.

By defying convention, that slow pace demonstrates just how long it takes for humans to make any meaningful move in space. Those sudden temporal jumps—like the one with the bone on the spacecraft—show just how minor our sense of time is within the cosmos. It’s not accidental.

We can compare it to Interstellar all day, but without Kubrick, the works of Nolan and that whole constellation of filmmakers wouldn't even exist. Interstellar was built on the themes and style established by Kubrick.

Sure, someone will argue that truly great films stay fresh even fifty years later, but I beg to differ. If we’ve already watched fifty movies heavily influenced by Odyssey before finally sitting down to watch Odyssey itself, then obviously Kubrick is going to feel derivative. People don't watch movies chronologically, nor should they have to. That’s why you shouldn't equate a film's historical significance with its impact on an individual viewer.

boldfox88 said:I stumbled upon a random fact on Facebook the other day about how some Frenchman supposedly held an insurance policy that allowed him to buy stocks at last year's prices.🙏

Oh yeah, he signed a contract with some elderly lady promising to take care of her for the rest of her life, and then he gets her apartment... except the lady ends up becoming the oldest person in history! 🤣