Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

Cameron H.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    7731

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    471

Posts posted by Cameron H.

  1. Posted

    I meant you were a nice guy, not a "nice guy."

     

    No worries! I didn't really take offense. I was more or less using it as an excuse to hammer home my own point. :) I probably shouldn't have said anything...

     

    By the way, congrats on your C&O win! That puts you at four wins since The Holiday Special! That's a very impressive record.

    • Like 2

  3. Posted

    Easily the worst dating advice I've heard recently. Paul was saying everything I hated about the game. "Just ask for coffee, it's so low stakes" Sure it is, now I don't know if you're actually interested in me or this was super easy for you and there's no commitment. I do appreciate that every time Paul gave some advice, he immediately realized that "No, that's actually not a good thing to do." I like to see that people everywhere understand how bizarre dating "advice" is. We're all afraid of putting ourselves out there, in case we get rejected, but wishy-washy nonsense literally gets nobody nowhere.

     

    I met my partner at a Christmas party. We got super drunk and somehow decided to leave together at 3:45 am. He tells me as we were figuring out who's place to go to, I said something along the lines of "Are you too drunk to do this?"

     

    Been together ever since but I wouldn't recommend people to try out what worked for me.

     

     

    As I said before, I'm on the "ask for coffee/low stakes" end of things, but I just want to clarify as to why. I say "low stakes" not in a "this doesn't mean anything kind of way," but because it helps put the ask-ee at ease. If you don't really know each other that well, coming in too hot and asking them out to a super romantic dinner or elaborate date is going to probably put them on the defensive. For example, "Why do you want to do all that when all you know about me is that you think I look hot in my Wal-Mart smock?" Instead, you go for coffee or whatever. You talk. Get to know each other a little bit, and if it seems right to both people, then you can follow that up with something a bit bigger. If the ask-ee still isn't comfortable with that, you can maybe try to set up a couple more smaller meet ups. If they still aren't interested, no big deal.

     

    The thing is, you can literally ask anyone out to coffee. The worst thing they can say is "no," and at least then you have your answer and you're not forced into a situation where you feel the need to call in to a comedian's podcast to ask him whether or not this person likes you. Have some Goddamn confidence! It will take you a lot further.

     

    But I agree with you, the best relationships I've been in always occurred when they just evolved naturally and weren't forced. Shit, I never even asked my wife out. She had a paper due and her computer wasn't working. I offered to let her come to my place and use mine and that was pretty much it. She officially moved in a few days later and we've been together ever since. You and I have special circumstances though. My advice is strictly for the people out there trying to make something happen. :)

     

    My other bit of advice (and kind of ties into my "be interesting" thing I said above) is this: do stuff you like to do. Don't expect to find a love connection at the Buffalo Wild Wings down the street--especially if you don't particularly like wings or sports. If you like Art, go to museums. If you like music, go to shows. If you like wrestling robotic bulls on a zesty bed of guacamole--by God, you fucking DO THAT! If you just do the things you like to do anyway, you're not only enriching your own life and gaining experience, you're far more likely to meet someone who shares your same interests.

     

    At least, that's my take on the matter...

     

    Youre-welcome_zps3737cc66.gif#you%27re%20welcome%20200x124

    • Like 4

  4. Posted

    No disrespect to the caller, but I was kind of thrown for a loop that grown man was actually asking whether or not someone "liked" him and I'm kind of glad that Paul called it out as "12 year old bullshit." The best advice I can give is to just ask them out on a real low stakes type outing (e.g. coffee or "stalk them to their car"). If the person says "yes," then they at least like you enough to not be repelled by the very idea of spending 30 mins with you drinking coffee. Again, this doesn't mean that they're "into" you, it just means they aren't disgusted by the mere thought of you. No one can "like" anyone unless they've actually spent time together getting to know each other as people. He seems to be confusing mild interest with something more.

     

    I'm always weary of questions like this since it always comes off like "nice guy" validation. You know, the idea of "she's not into me because I'm a nice guy" why doesn't she "like nice guys." But are you a "nice guy?" If you're only being nice to her to get into her pants, then you're not really being nice, are you? Also, since I'm on the topic, I have a little free advice. Being "nice" isn't enough, people! Being "nice" should be everyone's baseline all the time. If all you are is "nice," then you don't have a whole lot to offer do you? Be nice, yes, but also be interesting. You have to bring something else to the table.

    • Like 4

  5. Posted

    I have also just finished watching The Phantom and would someone please explain to me, of all the terrible movies in the world, why we're doing this one? I thought it was pretty fucking rad. Kind of how I would expect a movie in the 90's about a Pulp Comic hero from the 30's should be. Am I missing something?

     

    Oh, and the answer can't be "Because he looks like he's wrapped in a giant purple condom" that's way too easy.

     

    be37e91751e2de2d5c653f697931eded.jpg

  10. Posted

    Regarding WW and the DCU:

     

    I have to say that the whole "slavery" line didn't work for me as well. First of all, I didn't like it because it wasn't a joke so much as it was a "Joke." Not only was it weird to compare a decent job (that she gets paid to do) to something as horrific as slavery, but it seemed to be completely out of touch from a feminist perspective. Diana almost seems like she's tearing this woman down for not being ambitious enough or living up to her potential. In the early 20th Century (when this movie is set) being a secretary was a very feminist move. It meant that instead of relying on a man to provide for her income, she could--based on her own hard work and talent--provide for herself. Not only is being a secretary or administrative assistant not something she should be ashamed of (or, in this case, shamed for being) back in 1914, it's not something people should be ashamed of now. It just seems incredibly reductive. It makes me worried for the movie as it seems to suggest that while the screenwriters (all dudes) recognize that WW is a feminist icon, they don't really understand what that means. Instead it comes off as pandering and insubstantial.

     

    As far as some of the casting choices, I think I want to stay out of that. I wouldn't want to judge a person for who they are any more than I would want to judge them for who they aren't. Hopefully (*fingers crossed*), these women were cast for no other reason than they were the best person for the part.

     

    This all being said, based solely on the trailers, I have zero interest in seeing Suicide Squad, Justice League looks like everyone's trying too hard, and Wonder Woman looks like it might (maybe? possibly?) be okay--especially if they ditch her annoying theme music. Oh! And I also really, really wish that WW wasn't a prequel. It just makes its job that much harder when we already know how it's going to end.

    • Like 3

  13. Posted

    When Baldwin is brought to the temple, The Master tells him, "You watched your spirit, your very face, change as the beast claws its way out from within you." Hair and fingernails aside, if the cost of being evil is that my face may transform into something resembling mid-nineties Alec Baldwin, I might just have to recalibrate my moral barometer. Like, seriously, do we actually need all these puppies and kittens in the world when I can look like this:

     

    alec-baldwin321.jpg

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    Considering Lamont's insouciant attitude when he mind flays his uncle into forgetting about the Shadow, it makes me feel like he's had to do that a lot. Was anyone else worried that he might be causing irreparable neurological damage?

     

    Also, what do you think the Master's recidivism rate is for his training? Better or worse than the 50% shown in the film?

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    For my money, Shiwan Khan is the absolute highlight of this movie. He was charming and had a delightful sense of humor. I mean, how can you really hate a guy who has at his disposal all the telepathic, hypnotizing powers in the world, not to mention a sentient floating demon knife, but still chooses to pull the old hide-among-the-mannequins-by-standing-really-still ploy just to allude a couple of feeble old men?

    • Like 4

  16. Posted

    Just one more post about this.

     

    Ah, don't make promises you may have to break :)

     

    The Shadow doesn't have any guarantees that the people he rescues will accept the ring and become a Shadow Bro or change their minds later though. If a superhero offered me a chance to be included in his gang, I'm not sure that I would jump at that chance.

     

    That's not quite the same thing as whether or not he's heroic, but you're right, he doesn't threaten them--he just waits until they're about to die, rescues them, and makes sure they recognize that he's the only reason they're still alive. I'm not saying they can't turn him down, but I think if someone legitimately saved my life, I would be so thankful I would do just about anything for that person. What I'm saying is, The Shadow seems to be manufacturing a feeling of gratitude in people to get what he wants.

     

    I dunno...he cleaned up nicely. How much more attractive does he need to be? Was he clouding my mind with formal wear?

     

    I'm not talking about physical attractiveness. I'm saying he reads her mind and acts upon that knowledge. It's not like he's walking up to a stranger, striking up a conversation, and hoping against hope that he says the right things to keep the conversation going. He knows what she's thinking, so he knows exactly what to say to keep her interest piqued. He's manipulating the odds. And if he's willing to do that to her, a beautiful woman he's never met before, I have no doubt that he's probably done it before. The catch is, with Margo, she's able to do it right back to him--which, of course, he doesn't like at all.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

     

    Isn't this the same motive for a lot of other heroes/superheros though? Don't destroy Earth, I keep my stuff there.

     

    At least The Shadow didn't abuse his powers to pull a Mel Gibson from "What Women Want" to manipulate women into sleeping with him? My hero!

     

    To your first point, yes, that's true, but we also see superheroes rescuing people from burning buildings and stopping bank robberies. What they don't do is save people specifically for their own gain. We usually get a, "No need to thank me. Just doing my job." So when other superheroes save the Earth, we already know they are doing it because they are genuinely good. Had The Shadow just rescued that guy and asked for nothing, then yes, I'd say that was Heroic. But of course, that's not what happened. The Shadow had obviously been keeping tabs on Dr. Tam and the situation. He could have stopped the bad guys at anytime without the the doctor ever knowing and could have been somewhere else that night rescuing another person from a mugger or something. No, instead, he waited until this poor guy's life was in immediate peril! As presented in the film, the only reason he was there to rescue Dr. Tam in the first place was because he knew who he was and he knew what he could get from him.

     

    Look, I love a little moral ambiguity, and if done well, it can be very interesting. Like I said, had The Shadow just rescued him, I wouldn't have had a problem. But, since this was the only "heroic" feat performed by him in the movie (that didn't directly involve the main plot), I think it's fair to question his motives.

     

    And to your second point...we don't know that. He definitely uses his powers to appear more attractive and interesting to her.

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

     

    Er, didn't he prevent Shiwan Khan from conquering the world?

     

    I have four responses to that:

     

    1) Not until the end of the movie. "Saving the Cat" typically occurs in the First Act.

     

    2) He lives on Earth so it is in his best interest to keep Kahn from ruling it.

     

    3) Kahn is already trying to kill him. He could just be trying to save his own skin.

     

    4) Think of the social cachet he can get from rescuing New York City! You're kidding yourself if you don't think the next day everyone in the city didn't receive a red ring in the mail with a note that reads, "You owe me--The Shadow."

  19. Posted

    Throughout the episode, The Shadow is repeatedly referred to as being a "hero" or "superhero," but is he though? It is certainly implied in the movie that he is, but we are never really shown that. There's never a "save the cat" moment or just a scene of him doing something good for the sake of doing good. In the movie, we only see The Shadow rescue one person, and immediately afterward, we find out that it's not because he was doing it out of altruism, but because the man he was saving held a position that could perhaps be beneficial to him. How do we know The Shadow isn't fabricating some of these situations just to enlist people? How do we know he didn't invisibly push Peter Boyle in front of an oncoming truck, quickly become corporeal in time to snatch him from the jaws of death, and then say, "I guess I get free cab rides for life now, huh?"

     

    And while I think the idea of a true anti-hero is interesting, I think it ultimately hurts this movie that we never really see him realize the latter part of that word. He just comes off as some spoiled douchebag who is just fighting crime for shits and giggles and accruing a network of followers like they're points in a shitty, single-player arcade game.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    I would like to take a stab at giving a "succinct explanation" for this movie (Ha! This is me we're talking about! There won't be anything "succinct" about it).

     

    What I think was going on is that Lamont's powers, just like Margo's, were always inherent. What the Master did was help him hone those powers for good. I'm not familiar with the original radio series, but if I were to guess, Baldwin's character started off as a good man and a soldier during the first World War. Having had first hand experience of the horrors of war, and having this experience amplified by his ability to see "the evil that lurks inside of man," it literally drives him crazy. At this point, he has come to believe that all men are evil, and gives himself over to that darkness.

     

    After the war, he travels to Tibet, and using his latent hypnotic abilities (perhaps unknowingly), he becomes an opium kingpin. He isn't able to do this because he's a great drug dealer, he's able to do this because he's using his power to make it happen (btw-is there where his wealth comes from?). The Master, sensing his power, calls upon him and shows him a better way--that he can use his powers for good. That's why Baldwin is chosen over the multitude of other evildoers in the area. The power he has is not taught to him by the Master, just given direction. However, after seven years of training, Baldwin does something unexpected. If I were to guess, I'd say the Master always intended for Lamont to stay in Tibet and fight evil there. Instead, Baldwin--now fully trained--abandons his adopted country and returns to America. Perhaps a little disappointed that his disciple has left, The Master finds the only other psychically sensitive person in the area (Kahn) in the hopes of guiding him the same way he guided Lamont. However, Kahn, who was never a good man, perverts those teachings and uses them to further his own evil agenda.

     

    Kahn, having knowledge of Lamont's evil past (he only refers to him by his drug dealer name), simply wants to rule the world. He comes to America specifically to join forces with Baldwin as he's the only other person he knows of with the same abilities. He doesn't necessarily want to share power with Lamont, but he knows that he's is the only person who can challenge him. He also doesn't really know what the outcome of such a confrontation would be. So instead of coming in hot, he comes with an air of cordiality, hoping to convert Lamont back to his evil ways--which I think might have been possible if not for Lamont's timely meeting with Margo. She is a sensitive, full of pure good. Her dreams, unlike his, are untroubled. Through her, Lamont realizes that evil is not alone in the heart's of man--there is also love.

     

    I think it's tempting to say that Margo should have been the true disciple of The Master--she's just as powerful and her innocence would guarantee that she would never be corrupted by that power. However, I think it's this same innocence that would prevent from being as effective as Lamont. Bereft of the first hand experience of evil in her own heart, she might have been incapable of seeing that evil in others. Lamont, therefore, is the perfect medium between Margo and Kahn--both of which are extremes in opposite directions: good and evil. Since he has personal experience with the evil in his heart, as well as the goodness, he can effectively punch Darkness in the cock, cloak himself in the loving arms of the Shadows that threaten to smother him each and every day, and disappear without a trace into the night.

     

    At least, that's my theory. It would have been nice if the movie gave us a couple more details to go on.

    • Like 7

  22. Posted

    I believe Kevin Conroy is the definitive Batman. I loved The Dark Knight trilogy and I really enjoyed Batffleck but I have to agree that none of them are my batman. At least not like Conroy.

     

    And while I understand why this movie could blow Wonder Woman for us, I still really have hope for it. Mostly since Zack Snyder doesn't actually have a hand in the writing or the directing, and sweet babies it's finally be given to a female director. Then again it's DC and their history leads me to be more of a realist and say it'll probably be shit too.

     

    I digress but speaking who is our definitive "actor" in a role, I am 100% sick and fucking tired of Jared Leto as Joker and the damn movie hasn't even come out yet. He keeps going on and on about how the role is bringing darkness into his head and in order to channel that he leaves used condoms around set and harasses his coworkers when they're not even filming? That's some shit to the bull right there. Heath Ledger didn't harass anyone on set and even though he was "method" acting he was still reportedly the nicest guy around and would hang out with everyone without acting like a complete tool. Not to mention that Mark Hamill has been the Joker for 20 years now and hasn't let any kind of darkness effect anything in life at all.

     

    tl;dr but basically fuck Jared Leto he will never be my Joker. /rant over

     

    On top of the other "alleged" things I've heard about Leto recently, that dude can go straight fuck himself.

    • Like 3

  23. Posted

    OH! And before I have to get back to work. I LOVED Batman's super dramatic email to Wonder Woman and how she would scroll the page perfectly to emphasize his point.

     

    I have something of yours.

     

    [Double space] *scroll, scroll*

     

    It's not someone that looks like you...

     

    [double space] *scroll, scroll*

     

    It IS you!

     

    [double space] *scroll, scroll*

     

    Who ARE you?

     

     

    This was around midnight in my house last night, everyone else was fast asleep, and I laughed out loud. Hard.

    • Like 4

  24. Posted

    I genuinely didn't understand what the big deal about that really was... Maybe I'm just a horrible human being but legit he was saying to the world that these people were horrible and were caught by the Bat and what happens after that is on the people who act on those things. I don't believe this is the same as Superman running into a village full of innocent civilians or having buildings fall on top of thousands of people in Metropolis...

     

    Yeah, that was one of things I heard about before seeing the movie, and thought I'd have a bigger problem with than I did. I believe they said the guy was a sex trafficker or something, and I was like, "Oh, yeah! Fuck that guy!" I don't think he was branding, like, jaywalkers or anything.

     

    Now something that was somehow worse than imagined was the whole "Martha" thing. That blew my fucking mind!

     

    Honestly, Alfred was my favourite performance. I want more sassy Jeremy Irons in my life.

     

    Out of all the performances in the movie? I'd probably agree. However, on one point in which I think I'm in the minority, I wasn't thrilled by Affleck's Batman. Which isn't to say I loved Bale (I'm not a huge fan of his movies either), I just feel like I haven't seen "my" Batman yet--closest would be The Animated Series Batman.

     

    Also, and I was surprised by this, I am less confident about the Wonder Woman movie after watching this than before. Gadot was fine, but I'm really on the fence now. It could really go either way I think...

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

     

    But anytime you start a topic people will join in. Anywhere Cam goes, people follow.

     

    Forgive me if this question is too personal, but how come you don't watch movies during their first run?

     

    To your first point...

     

    2035_disney-cute-flower-bambi-blush.gif

     

    To your second, it's partially because of my son (who's four) and wasn't the greatest (but not terrible) the one time we've taken him to the movies; partially because my wife is currently pregnant; and partially because I don't mind waiting. I find that it's cheaper just to buy a movie, even if I don't really like it, than going to the theater. I mean, I guess we could get a sitter, but it's just not worth it to either my wife or myself. And honestly, I like hanging out with my kid.

     

    The only exception to all of this would be if it's like a really big deal movie (e.g. Star Wars), which we'd do our best to go see while it's out. And the only exception to the "just buy it" rule would be if I'm relatively sure I'm not going to like it, but want to see what the fuss is about, or if by watching it, it's something that might ruin my son's perception of his two favorite superheroes (see: Batman v Superman)

    • Like 2
×