The Folk Prophet

Rey is significantly less annoying as a character than Helena Shaw.

Of course it's an important distinction. One that he isn't making in his argument. He's saying no one would ever choose pain, rejection, or mental anguish -- ergo -- no one would choose LGBTQRSTUV-dom. Since people clearly, often, choose things that lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish, the ergo here doesn't work. Like I said, I'm not commenting on the gay and trans stuff as relating to choice. But the argument he's making isn't a sound one. And claiming that any right thinking individual would accept that falsehood is wrongheaded.

I'm not commenting on gay or trans of it all...but..... A lifelong member, but you don't understand that wrong choices lead to pain, rejection, and mental anguish?

Yeah. It's worth a watch if it's on someone else's dime and you have nothing better to do.

Sounds about right to me.

So I just saw it. My overall response.... Sure. It's fine. On a scale of cold to hot it was bit tepid. But not terrible. @Carborendum I haven't watched that yet, but was the Elaina Shaw character insufferable? Why yes, yes she was. But she was kind of written to be that way. And it was...fine...ish. I mean I think they could have done it better, cast it better, etc., The biggest complaint I had about her is she's this buck-ten scrawny female punching people and knocking them out. Yeah right! Shad from Knights Watch is, himself, insufferable sometimes. He's SO nit-picky about every little thing. I mean that video you posted is over an hour and a half! Which is typical. I don't think I've ever finished a full video of his. Ripping every little imperfection apart, I'm sure. It's just a movie man! I get sick of the complaining when watching his stuff. I have a few criticisms of the movie. Overall it was...what you might call an expected letdown. But it was better than Crystal Skull. Not as good as any of the others though. All the youtube haters calling it terrible though? Nah. It wasn't terrible. It was fine. My wife enjoyed it, I think, even more than I did. And I enjoyed it okay. The other biggest thing I'd say as a critique is how humorless it was. I kind of expect laughs at an Indiana Jones movie. I think there was one or two semi-chuckles that were undeserved. It was pretty humorless overall.

Sound of Freedom was also showed on 1750 fewer screens. Obviously in overall numbers Indiana Jones will sell more tickets. But come on.

He clearly read the Rolling Stone article on it.

That's your bar???

Wow. I have entirely lost all respect for your movie assessment prowess.

So apathy, apathy, apathy, and apathy. So far doesn't speak well for Disney's hopes.

Indiana Jones is being reported by all the fandom menace crowd and like commentators as being dreadful. I've seen a lot of negativity surrounding it. The inclusion of Phoebe Waller-Bridge and the terrible CGI in the previews has me feeling it will stink. And I'm highly uninterested in giving Disney any money...so I won't see it in theaters. But I must admit that I secretly hope it's good. As I was reading through some reviews by lay-folk many thought it was great. But I don't trust those. So who know. What say ye all? Will you see it? Uninterested? Excited?

He can't trump Trump.

Well, there might "only" be seven "basic" plots, but there are unlimited plots.

Another thought to add to this... everyone copies. Everyone. You build on what you understand and like, and then change it up. That's kind of the way it works. Sometimes you're just using general knowledge that's gleaned from the history of it all...and sometimes you're taking a specific idea or song and using it as a base, changing it up to not actually be plagiarism. Accordingly, I think it would be very strange for a composer to copy something and be dumb enough to not change it up where it wasn't plagiarism. That's partly why I don't think Ed Sheeran stole anything. He doesn't seem that dumb. If he was using Let's Get It On as the basis of his song he would have likely made it different enough to be safer. When a song sounds "the same" as another there's always the possibility that the composer straight up copied it and thought no one would notice...but I think that's probably typically less common (though I'm sure it happens). It's more likely coincidence. But who's to say? Law suits against stealing music should be based on one thing and one thing alone....loss. That's it. The idea that Ed Sheeran's song made less people buy Marvin Gaye's song is RIDICULOUS. What loss were they suing against? It's so dumb. If your write something and someone else does something similar and thereby steals your thunder, and thereby you lose sales potential, then there's harm, and then a suit can be meaningful. Otherwise it's just someone taking an opportunity to try and take advantage of another and it's scummy. Which is most lawsuit's

You don't. You do make sure you aren't purposefully copying. But there's no mitigation for unknowingly being similar. You can't know what you don't know.

I hope he counter sues.

Nah. I'm just glad to hear you realize there are some. I think the lawsuit is beyond stupid. But there are also clear similarities. I mean the first line (four or five notes) of both songs is like one note (interval) difference, (keyed differently though), if I recall. Still not enough to justify the suit.

You can't hear the similarity between the melody lines?

Really? I'm shocked.

I do all my apostasy naked.

Apparently I ruined the joke by...not getting it.

Can you explain?

It strikes me the distinction is tremendous. But there is a link to the two ideas related to infidelity that have meaning. That being said, I remember when I was younger having two friends, good people, but who had to marry outside the temple because they got caught up in fornication temptations. Ultimately, after many failures to avoid it for the required amount of time to become worthy to marry in the temple, the decision was made to marry civilly so they didn't have to avoid it, and then be sealed in the temple a year later. They did so, and have been happily, faithfully, eternally married for decades since. They raised their family in the gospel, serve faithfully, have been true, etc., etc. Obviously it would have been better to have done it right. I remember attending their non temple wedding and feeling like it was such a terrible thing. Now I look back at it.... differently. In the end...due to the choices they made moving forward...it can be argued that ultimately no harm was really done*. But it cannot be argued that the potential for harm was huge. But I just don't know if the same can ever be said of the theoretical adulterous situation. *I'm not sure this argument would be correct. I'm just positing that the argument could be made. But either way, I'd say the harm from this situation was distinctly lesser than what would come from an adulterous foray.