hopesdead
2d ago
•
100%
Well we are both wrong. I should have said ethnicity.
hopesdead
2d ago
•
100%
Excuse me?! Um, Japanese that got sent to internment camps run by the United States (I’m saying it this way because I learned from George Takei interviews it can be easily mislabeled and her takes great criticism to people that say it wrong), were all grouped together as one nationality accused of possibly being on the side of the Japanese military.
Does Trump think the people at the Capital were all rounded up for being his supporters? These things are not the same. It is insulting to Japanese living in the United States to compare them.
hopesdead
3d ago
•
100%
Does he mean the poor that are educated or people who have a lack of education?
hopesdead
3d ago
•
100%
He’s gonna say they aren’t “big tech”.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
100%
He discovered hair dye and had it replicated.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
80%
I thought we were comparing the quality for a moment. Cause Brooklyn Nine-Nine season 8 is good.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
100%
If someone falsely accuses you of anything, assume they did that first. Investigate the accuser.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
89%
I like to point to Idiocracy (a movie you couldn’t make today but I saw for the first time in 2024; I think it was good) which Crocs are used as shoes for the future because they were not widely available and the costume designer said “There's no way people will wear them.”
I stand vindicated that Crocs are idiotic.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
100%
This is a dude who thinks he can get a national broadcast network taken off the air for simply asking the FCC. Someone in his campaign is going to say something that questions the validity of this doctor and call for petitions to get their medical license revoked. I appreciate they are making an effort to appeal to the uncommitted voter, but sadly Trump is surrounded by people who understand what will make his base angry.
hopesdead
1w ago
•
60%
I’m not speaking from a place of facts, but I think the sentiment is if you don’t purposefully vote for someone within the two-party system that isn’t Trump, your vote will mathematically be a negative towards votes against Trump.
Not voting/third-party vote = one less vote against Trump/more possible votes for Trump
hopesdead
1w ago
•
100%
I’m pretty sure this is in response to a recent California bill that forces digital storefronts to disclose if it is a license you are getting. Otherwise the storefront is not allowed to use words like “buy” or “purchase”.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/26/24254922/california-digital-purchase-disclosure-law-ab-2426
hopesdead
1w ago
•
100%
Maybe all the tragedies and accidents associated with the trilogy have influenced how people view it?
**Hi there. I was told to share this here. Hope you enjoy.** cross-posted from: https://startrek.website/post/15311216 >Hello. Every year I enjoy watching The Birds directed by Alfred Hitchcock on Halloween. So I decided to expand my watchlist and checkout movies I had never seen. So I am doing a 30 day marathon from October 1-30, watching only horror movies I have not seen. The only qualifier is that I haven’t seen them. My list may change for whatever reason. Since it is now October 11, I have seen ten movies. I’ll post them with my reviews (not all are intensive) and update two more times with 11-20 and 21-30. Hope you enjoy reading about my marathon. > > 30 for 31 > > 1. Ring directed by Hideo Nakata (1998) ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ > *A straightforward supernatural story. The American remake in contrast is flashy in comparison, utilizing more graphic imagery than this adaption (it’s based on a novel)* > > 2. Evil Dead directed by Fede Álvarez (2013) ⭐️⭐️⭐️ > *What if The Evil Dead was redone without Ash and all the continuity connecting it to the previous movies had to be explained by the director because textually none of it is in the movie?* > > 3. Jennifer’s Body directed by Karyn Kusama (2009) ⭐️⭐️ > *I don’t think due to the dialogue that this movie wouldn’t get made today. Overall this is a product of its time. Couldn’t imagine such a movie being made without going hard on a satirical angle. Would teenagers want to watch this? The soundtrack itself even is from a decade of music that just gets seen as cringe.* > > 4. Poltergeist directed by Tobe Hooper (1982) ⭐️½ > *I fell asleep. Less than amusing. Might as well have been a weird rendition of Bedknobs and Broomsticks.* > > 5. Martyrs directed by Pascal Laugier (2008) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ > *A deeply violent story with little in terms of a plot. However, the plot that is present does take time to reveal itself. The disjointed two halves make you unprepared. The first half is a rough tale of revenge that leads to a second half that is a polished approach to what the story is trying (or possibly succeeds) in > accomplishing. A hard movie to recommend, but certainly a provocative one. Many people who can handle the gore might be unsettled by the philosophical horror. At times I kept wondering what the endgame was. The graphical display of violence is purposeful. It doesn’t try to upset you for the sake of scarring you. It goes deeper. But does it adequately achieve that goal? Maybe the audience is meant to question what it all was? Maybe we are meant to question existence as a whole? Maybe the violence itself was the only way to manifest that goal? What was the goal? Without spoiling it, you have to be prepared for something grounded in reality but very unexpected.* > > 6. We're All Going to the World's Fair directed by Jane Schoenburn (2021) ⭐️⭐️ > *A atmospheric dud. Nothing innovative or truly substantive occurs. The plot feels like a mental body horror mixed with found footage/web cam story telling. By the end you feel like the tropes of genre have been done better before this. At some point I wondered if the actual horror part was not seeing anything really occur. Felt like over the course of the plot, I had to take for granted by on limited dialogue that something was progressing. The indie rock vibe eluded the climax of an actual narrative. Or maybe I did not understand the type of movie this was trying to be.* > > 7. Event Horizon directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (1997) ⭐️⭐️½ > *A bland but visually decent space horror. The one big flaw is the graphic intensity of story never last long enough to sink in. From moment to moment you want the visuals to be on screen longer. Much of the acting fails to sound more than simple line reading. The only time I truly had a sense of scare, it was taken away almost as fast. The story has an unbalanced pace with a rush to meet an arbitrary plot deadline. It was like being told to expect the tone of Alien but given the speed of Apollo 11.* > > 8. The Fog directed by John Carpenter (1980) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ > *A campy ghost story mixed with collective fear. A wonderful movie.* > 9. Carnival of Souls directed by Herk Harvey (1962) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ ½ > *A errie score with an atmosphere of an unknown force make for a spooky time.* > 10. Skinamarink directed by Kyle Edward Ball (2023) ⭐️⭐️½ > *A visual unorthodox movie that works better as an art piece than truly a horror movie. Unconventional angles, unconventional plot structure, unconventional use of actors (you rarely saw more than someone from the waist down) can be frightening to those unprepared for what I would considered very experimental. At times I wasn’t sure if the plot was advancing. Other times you have to trust what is on screen is from the prospective of the characters. Other times you just take in an abstract lack of visuals. If anything is truly horrifying, it would be not getting a clear understanding of what is being shown. Feels like someone trying to explain the plot of a movie they experienced within a dream and trying to explain that plot from the perspective of that dream, being very disjointed and twisted.*
Hello. Every year I enjoy watching The Birds directed by Alfred Hitchcock on Halloween. So I decided to expand my watchlist and checkout movies I had never seen. So I am doing a 30 day marathon from October 1-30, watching only horror movies I have not seen. The only qualifier is that I haven’t seen them. My list may change for whatever reason. Since it is now October 11, I have seen ten movies. I’ll post them with my reviews (not all are intensive) and update two more times with 11-20 and 21-30. Hope you enjoy reading about my marathon. 30 for 31 1. Ring directed by Hideo Nakata (1998) ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ *A straightforward supernatural story. The American remake in contrast is flashy in comparison, utilizing more graphic imagery than this adaption (it’s based on a novel)* 2. Evil Dead directed by Fede Álvarez (2013) ⭐️⭐️⭐️ *What if The Evil Dead was redone without Ash and all the continuity connecting it to the previous movies had to be explained by the director because textually none of it is in the movie?* 3. Jennifer’s Body directed by Karyn Kusama (2009) ⭐️⭐️ *I don’t think due to the dialogue that this movie wouldn’t get made today. Overall this is a product of its time. Couldn’t imagine such a movie being made without going hard on a satirical angle. Would teenagers want to watch this? The soundtrack itself even is from a decade of music that just gets seen as cringe.* 4. Poltergeist directed by Tobe Hooper (1982) ⭐️½ *I fell asleep. Less than amusing. Might as well have been a weird rendition of Bedknobs and Broomsticks.* 5. Martyrs directed by Pascal Laugier (2008) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ *A deeply violent story with little in terms of a plot. However, the plot that is present does take time to reveal itself. The disjointed two halves make you unprepared. The first half is a rough tale of revenge that leads to a second half that is a polished approach to what the story is trying (or possibly succeeds) in accomplishing. A hard movie to recommend, but certainly a provocative one. Many people who can handle the gore might be unsettled by the philosophical horror. At times I kept wondering what the endgame was. The graphical display of violence is purposeful. It doesn’t try to upset you for the sake of scarring you. It goes deeper. But does it adequately achieve that goal? Maybe the audience is meant to question what it all was? Maybe we are meant to question existence as a whole? Maybe the violence itself was the only way to manifest that goal? What was the goal? Without spoiling it, you have to be prepared for something grounded in reality but very unexpected.* 6. We're All Going to the World's Fair directed by Jane Schoenburn (2021) ⭐️⭐️ *A atmospheric dud. Nothing innovative or truly substantive occurs. The plot feels like a mental body horror mixed with found footage/web cam story telling. By the end you feel like the tropes of genre have been done better before this. At some point I wondered if the actual horror part was not seeing anything really occur. Felt like over the course of the plot, I had to take for granted by on limited dialogue that something was progressing. The indie rock vibe eluded the climax of an actual narrative. Or maybe I did not understand the type of movie this was trying to be.* 7. Event Horizon directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (1997) ⭐️⭐️½ *A bland but visually decent space horror. The one big flaw is the graphic intensity of story never last long enough to sink in. From moment to moment you want the visuals to be on screen longer. Much of the acting fails to sound more than simple line reading. The only time I truly had a sense of scare, it was taken away almost as fast. The story has an unbalanced pace with a rush to meet an arbitrary plot deadline. It was like being told to expect the tone of Alien but given the speed of Apollo 11.* 8. The Fog directed by John Carpenter (1980) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ *A campy ghost story mixed with collective fear. A wonderful movie.* 9. Carnival of Souls directed by Herk Harvey (1962) ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ ½ *A errie score with an atmosphere of an unknown force make for a spooky time.* 10. Skinamarink directed by Kyle Edward Ball (2023) ⭐️⭐️½ *A visual unorthodox movie that works better as an art piece than truly a horror movie. Unconventional angles, unconventional plot structure, unconventional use of actors (you rarely saw more than someone from the waist down) can be frightening to those unprepared for what I would considered very experimental. At times I wasn’t sure if the plot was advancing. Other times you have to trust what is on screen is from the prospective of the characters. Other times you just take in an abstract lack of visuals. If anything is truly horrifying, it would be not getting a clear understanding of what is being shown. Feels like someone trying to explain the plot of a movie they experienced within a dream and trying to explain that plot from the perspective of that dream, being very disjointed and twisted.*
hopesdead
2w ago
•
100%
Then there are Ezri and Nog who suspiciously look out of place.
hopesdead
2w ago
•
100%
65 sounds correct since it aired only between 1999-2001.
hopesdead
2w ago
•
100%
I swear my first cousin, once removed was in a episode. I have a memory of her showing it off to me.
hopesdead
2w ago
•
100%
I once got a wrong text from someone identifying themselves as a person named Sky. I proceeded to try to act like I thought they were Sky Tate from Power Rangers S.P.D.
hopesdead
2w ago
•
92%
The whole meme and the title are references to “Sugar We’re Goin Down” by Fall Out Boy.
The chorus: 🎵 We're going down, down in an earlier round/And sugar, we're going down swinging/ I'll be your number one with a bullet/ A loaded God complex, cock it and pull it🎵
I saw this question posed on Mastodon. If you got lost in space and rescued by aliens who made you live in a simulation for the next 40 years based on a book, what would it be? For me: The Great Gatsby. I would have to play the part of Nick and just get drunk all the time.
I guess the only case we can examine is The Doctor. Whenever The Doctor uses a transporter, what traveling: the lights or the mobile emitter? There have been many cases which The Doctor has become solid so other solid objects can no longer pass through them. If the object we are seeing being beamed is the mobile emitter, then is it necessary for them to be on a separate pad? I imagine the person accompanying The Doctor could just hold the emitter instead.
Did Captain Janeway do the morally right or morally wrong thing refusing to let Seven of Nine return to The Collective?
**EDIT**: I just want to make clear this is sarcasm.
On version 1.3.3, when adding an image to a comment without any existing text, the app crashes. If text is placed in the comment field, image being added will upload successfully with no crash.
The url links to the same press announcement from back in August. According to the post on the franchise’s official Facebook page, the event will in some way involve the U.S.S. Enterprise-D that will be unlike any other.
“What is a deuterium-antimatter reaction regulated by a dilithium matrix — or in the case of Romulans, a quantum singularity; or quantum slipstream which utilizes benamite crystals, though whether it is a fuel source is ambiguous and the subject of much speculation…?” https://mastodon.social/@GoodAaron/113094587011145568
On the left, a Federation conference in 2372, which Dominion set off a bomb. In center, a conference of various Kazon sects, Trabe and Voyager discussing possible alliances. On the right is Kelvin Khan attacking a security meeting of high ranking Starfleet officers, whom include Kelvin Pike and Kelvin Kirk.
https://trekmovie.com/2024/09/06/podcast-all-access-star-trek-and-robert-hewitt-wolfe-revisit-the-sept-2024-bell-riots-of-ds9s-past-tense/ I am personally annoyed. The “Past Tenese” panel at STLV, did not happen at the scheduled time. I was at the convention, very excited for the panel. Anyways, Wolfe mentions being at STLV, so clearly it happened earlier in the day. Apparently the panel was pushed up and there was no announcement of the change.