nes Banned

thank goodness you never feel like it.

"Nes, the one who feels the need to convince himself that I'm worth less than him " just look, it's you who has convinced the whole site that you're stupid like a lobotomized cow. At this point, I don’t need to convince myself of anything.

I don't itch... pardon

look if you really got thirty-six you're an idiot who knows more about elephants than I do... I assure you my balls are itching, in fact, you've brought a smile to my face.

"Read, idiot, and learn" if this phrase hadn't been directed at me by a fool, I might have taken it into account. "Not like my 30 in Vertebrate Paleontology this morning (and the 28 on the Quaternary Geology part)..." you go to a special university? Otherwise, the thirty doesn’t make sense... Oh no, that's right, you alternate nonsense with colossal bullshit. Anyway, whether it's thirty or not, once you’ve passed the fifth grade, only an idiot brags about grades (when they make them up, they go from the state of idiot to that of sick).

I haven't read it; I only saw "post rock" among the genres instead of "brit pop/indie." That was enough for me.

"Often and willingly there are directors who ask not to be credited as 'screenwriters', pardon."

"Screenwriting is not just the words spoken by the actors, but also the story, events, fabula & plot. Sure, in Pulp Fiction, the story, fabula & plot are completely incomprehensible on a first viewing. And this is definitely the strongest aspect of the film: not having a coherent story (I mean, there is a story, it's terrible, and to gather all its pieces, you need to watch the film at least twice. Pulp Fiction is the deconstruction of screenwriting.///"On the screenplay, it was written: 'John violently shoves the syringe into Uma's heart'; for the rest, it’s up to the director to bring it all to life in an engaging way, but the idea is in the screenplay." Yes and no: what you say is undoubtedly true, but in Pulp Fiction, the director and the screenwriter are the same person. Often, there are directors who ask not to be credited because the director's work isn’t faithful to the screenplay. This means that directors (or the production) have the freedom, to some extent (depending on their level of fame, I assume), to do a bit what they want with the screenplay. In reality, the production has the freedom to do a bit what it wants always... As for the comparison with theater, forgive me, but it has nothing to do with this: you can write for theater and then write for film; you can't expect to be able to direct a film if you’re only a theater director. A quantity of knowledge is required that theater cannot provide (even just how to shoot a dynamic scene). Take Eternal Sunshine and hand it to Muccino, and you'll have a shitty film, or think about how it would have been if Scorsese had it during the time of The Age of Innocence. 'Is a painting made more of idea or practical realization of the same?' Regarding Leonardo da Vinci and The Madonna of the Rocks, I would say it's more technical; regarding Guernica, it's more about idea. It depends on what you consider, and anyway, I don’t think you can compare the cinematic medium to painting because, to quote Pulp Fiction, 'it's not the same championship, it's not the same sport, and it's not even the same playing field.' Art is not all the same, and those who say that in art the idea is what counts remind me a bit of Dream Theater fans when they claim that music is all about technique. Things are a bit more complex. Sure, a good screenplay is a better starting point than a shitty one, but great films can come from a terrible screenplay and vice versa."

I think of them what I think of the baroness: they make me sick, but they seem to be doing well, so considering I’ve only heard the reviewed album, can you tell me their best work?