re: "The Odyssey" Discussion Thread: News, Reviews, Box Office, etc. $639 Mil WW Total

quote:

---

Yeah, but that wasn’t in question. The question is whether you really want it to stop.

---

I answered that. What do you think my white flag comment meant?

It’s been way over a year since I and some others asked for some rules to be abided on this forum. Almost nothing was done. CP3 still runs through 3 alters per month, etc. with no f’s given.

quote:

---

You can't say, for example, Critical Drinker is weaponizing his audience to tank a movie and "review bomb©" it. . .and also say they don't matter for the success or failure of a movie.

But the media, and several on this board will hold both these opinions simultaneously.

Because of course they will.

Easier than thinking

---

I would say you are stuck in first order thinking.

While not arguing for either side the two of those things can absolutely be true.

Will could absolutely be edging his audience that way and at the same time The Odyssey could be a movie big enough and good enough to overcome any efforts.

Again not arguing the correctness of either viewpoint just that both things can be true.

I posted about methods to remove anti/review bombing from the numbers using IMBD's data. I explained how to see the impact of those over time as the n grows larger over time. The data is showing some classic signs of the impact on both ends. I will make a post about it when I have some time.

quote:

---

I would say you are stuck in first order thinking.

While not arguing for either side the two of those things can absolutely be true.

Will could absolutely be edging his audience that way and at the same time The Odyssey could be a movie big enough and good enough to overcome any efforts.

Again not arguing the correctness of either viewpoint just that both things can be true.

---

You can do that with anything. I can claim that casting a 90lb tranny cost the movie 5% of its potential box office, and yet the movie can still be wildly successful. Both of those things can be true.

Thought the movie was a solid 8/10

The acting was just off for me. Holland, Hathaway, Damon all felt just a little forced. I think Pattinson was decent.

Cyclops, Giants, Hades, Witch and concluding fight sequence scenes were fun to watch and helped make up for some of the movie’s weaknesses IMO

I went to see with the wife and another couple and all of us agreed it was not perfect but a pretty awesome watch.

quote:

---

And also my post holds, under his 6-degrees logic

---

Within the 4 corners of your post, it was logically unsound; it is as simple as that.

If you want to come back and add conditions and caveats to make it logically sound, you can do that; however, that underscores the fact that your post lacked the necessary precision to be accurate as written.

Wittingly or not, Flats agreed with my post.

quote:

---

Cyclops

---

Just learned that Bill Irwin played the Cyclops. He voiced TARS in Interstellar.

He also plays Mr. Noodle on Sesame Street / Elmo’s World as a recurring character.

quote:

---

Within the 4 corners of your post
Now you are using first order logic

---

First-order logic is VASTLY different from first-order thinking; the fact you conflated them indicates... well stuff.

If you are applying logical thought to a statement you can only use the 4 corners of the post. You are using feelings and bias when you start manufacturing things they didn't write or at least heavily infer with what they wrote. I could make your statement accurate with just a few extra words but that is not what you wrote.

Your post was inaccurate. Both of the statements can, in fact, be true at the same time, period. All one needs is a single contradictory example to prove an always or never incorrect.


Read what you wrote carefully. If you can't see how both of those could be true at the same time you have something beyond the words you wrote in your head allowing you to still maintain your position is correct. Identify that condition or caveat and add it to the statement and you can make it logically sound. Sometimes when we write something we have further thoughts in our head that we don't get down on "paper" and without those our point fails logic. Sometimes when we reread them, our brain just continues to add that condition or caveat and prevents us from noticing the failure of logic.

This isn't a big deal you just failed to memorialize a full thought or just missed the flaw altogether.

I'm definitely interested to see how this performs in China

How long before we see one of the usual suspects on x arguing that China is going to go out of there way to make Odyssey a huge success to promote leftist DEI policies in the west

quote:

---

the fact you conflated them indicates... well stuff.

---

first order thinking derives from first order logic. They are inextricable. Assuming we are able to agree this isnt a mathematical discussion

quote:

---

First-order logic is VASTLY different from first-order thinking

---

You are taking my statement in a vacuum. Whether for convenience or incompetence, I'll let you decide that.

But my statement is a direct reply to a statement.

Better seen as "if he is accurate then my post".

If he is right, then I am obviously right.

If they don't have an impact (as he said positively), then also you cant blame them for impact consequences.

If he is wrong, then my statement becomes commentary.

If he is right, then my statement becomes truth.

Viewing a direct reply in a vacuum, while ignoring the post it is in response to, is either incidentally dishonest, ignorant, or malicious.