This thread will be a running journal for all the stupid/annoying shit my fuckhead roommate does

Then distinguish between the two with lowercase and uppercase letters, DAMMIT!

I've always called him R_Z

RD is now Respond.

BAH, it's gonna take quite a while to get out of the habit of calling him anything other than RD/rd. Bah, r_z takes too long (and looks like some face paint lady gaga would wear), I'll think of something. Yes, an Underscore is a dealbreaker for me.

So I was watching Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade last night, hoping that the faggard wouldn't come home while I was watching it and try to sit down and watch it with me. Twenty minutes into it, he walked in, said, "Ohh, awesome! I love the Indiana Jones's!" and he sat down lol.

The movie gets to a part where it shows the flowing red route lines on the map transparent over the corresponding action of them traveling ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). He comments, "Man, I sure would love to travel through countries like this, but I'd just be afraid of being kidnapped and taken to a hostel." I made a weird face and said, "What makes you say that? You're probably nearly just as likely to have it happen in Germany or Italy as you are for it to happen here." He replies with this crazy shocked look on his face, "What, they have hostels here? Are you serious?" I told him, "Yeah. I mean, they're probably not as common, but they're around. Downtown Sacramento even has one." He asked back, "When did this happen? Cuz aren't those things, like, kidnap, cut 'em up torture things?"

THIS MAN, WHO IS ALMOST 30 YEARS OLD, THINKS THAT THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF A HOSTEL IS WHAT YOU SAW IN THAT STUPID MOVIE AND THAT WESTERN EUROPE IS CRAWLING WITH THEM

He then continued on with other stupid commentary and questions throughout the movie. It's bad enough that he's ruining a movie I love by talking over it every few minutes, but it's made worse by hearing the stupidest bullshit like, "What kind of books are they burning? Are they Jewish books?...Hey, what year is this supposed to take place in? Oh, 1938? So that means Hitler's doing everything?...What do you think they're doing there with that map with the things on it? Is that an invasion?"

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

at the hostels part.

That was a goodin. Thank you for that.

Indiana Jones is fucking gay so it serves you right

Correction: Indiana Jones is awesome, but The Last Crusade is indeed fucking gay.

...'Course, that was my opinion until the fourth one came out. The third one's passable compared to that wreck.

lololololol @ the Hostel thing. Wow.

I love that movie, you guys are crazy. Temple of Doom is the worst one. If you actually count the Crystal Skull as an Indiana Jones movie, you're dumb though. That's just Michael Bay Presents: Transformers, But A Really Long Time Ago.

roughdraft_zero wrote:

I love that movie, you guys are crazy. Temple of Doom is the worst one. If you actually count the Crystal Skull as an Indiana Jones movie, you're dumb though. That's just Michael Bay Presents: Transformers, But A Really Long Time Ago.

And I also must agree to Lololol at his idea of what a Hostel is.

Temple of Doom is awesome. Last Crusade largely sucks 'cos it fucks up Indy's character so much, and the whole beginning setup of how Indy gets his taste for adventure, his whip, his scar, his fear of snakes, his hat... It's just another George Lucas "LET'S REFERENCE EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE BEFORE IN A REALLY RETARDED, TIGHTLY-PACKAGED WAY" shitfest, except thankfully that movie only does it for the opening ten minutes or so, unlike the Star Wars prequels which is like 6+ hours of that shit.

But, the only one that truly kicks ass is Raiders, mofoz.

Raiders is the king of kick-assery, fo sho. Temple of Doom seems like it's made, on purpose, to be cheesy. 10 year-olds see it, admit it's awesome, but still laugh at it. And aside from the agreeably horrible Young Indy intro, I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Crusade. How does it fuck up his character? Because he becomes a believer in said, "hocus pocus"? He does that in Raiders too though lol. Is that what you're talking about or is it something else?

I'll just quote Ernest Rister's thoughts, lolz. He considers it Spielberg's worst, of course that was in 2002.

[DENOTINGAQUOTETHISWAYBECAUSETHISSTUPIDBOARDMAKESQUOTESANUNREADABLEDARKGRAYONBLACKDAMNYOURESUCHASTUPIDFUCKTARDLOXX]This "brief" look is gonna be a bit long, because I'm sure people are out there already disagreeing with this choice. So, here are my somewhat lengthy explanations:

Sometimes success is the worst thing that can happen to a character or film series. The Indiana Jones films started out as a series whose main character sported some rough edges to his moral make-up. By the time LAST CRUSADE rolled around, Indiana Jones had become a Corporate Trademark, and as such, any darkness to his character had been washed clean like so much soot. In RAIDERS, Indiana is the kind of guy who will let Marion remain in captivity, will even let himself be captured, just to see the contents of the Ark of the Covenant. In TEMPLE OF DOOM, Indiana isn't (at first) concerned with helping poor villagers -- he's after "fortune and glory". He has to *decide* to liberate the children, its not an automatic reaction.

In LAST CRUSADE, all of this is gone. Indiana isn't a grave robber/tomb raider, he's a boy scout (literally). Whereas the Indiana Jones in RAIDERS knows he's close to becoming like Belloq (a central theme in Lucas' work is how we all tread close to our interior dark sides) -- in LAST CRUSADE, Indiana is reduced to spouting lines like, "That cross belongs in a museum!" Its not the same character, it just looks and sounds like him. Even that speech he gives his students at the beginning, "X never marks the spot!"....doesn't he remember the Map Room from RAIDERS? Or the map to the temple he uses at the begining of that film?

This is nitpicking, I suppose, but this approach to sanitizing or re-drawing pre-existing characters goes right down the line to the supporting cast. Look at Sallah in RAIDERS. Intelligent. Competent. The best digger in Cairo. He only acts like a fool upon occasion to play off the racism of the Nazis. In LAST CRUSADE, Sallah has become that stereotype. "Indy, your father is trapped in the belly of that steel beast!" he gravely reports, sounding like Apu from THE SIMPSONS. What, Sallah doesn't know what a tank is? Has never seen on or heard of one? Trapped in the belly of the steel beast? Give me a break!

And then there is Marcus Brody. Again, as we see in RAIDERS, he is a man who is intellient, competent, and a man who has sharp instincts about the nature of the Ark. A man who even yearns to go after the Ark himself, if he were younger. Indiana even defers to him when they are quizzed by the Government Intelligence Officers. In LAST CRUSADE, he's a bumbling nitwit, who gets lost in "his own museuem", who has the instincts of Goofy on laughing gas.

Then there is the story to LAST CRUSADE. Whereas both RAIDERS and LAST CRUSADE had clear through-lines in terms of their story, (you always knew where Indy is going, and why), LAST CRUSADE is like a game of global hop scotch. RAIDERS and TEMPLE OF DOOM had economy to the their locations. LAST CRUSADE jumps all over Europe and even takes a little trip into the heart of Nazi Germany, a setting and premise that could have been the basis for an entire Indiana Jones film all by itself. Here, this great opportunity for drama and suspense is handled like a cartoon.

And here we get to the real problems with LAST CRUSADE. The treatment. The direction.

This is hands down Spielberg's worst job as director, for any movie. The whole thing feels like its on autopilot, without any of the visual wit or ambition of either of the two previous films. Remember that basket chase in RAIDERS? Remember Spielberg's extreme close-up on Indy's eyes, as he sees a marketplace full of identical baskets? Remember the opening to TEMPLE OF DOOM, as Spielberg tips his hat to Busby Berkley with the "Anything Goes" number? Remember that revolving table in that nightclub, which spins and takes a diamond from one person to another, as the balance of power in their battle of wits shifts?

There isn't a single display of imagination, flair, or ambition that can even approach those scenes in LAST CRUSADE. It looks like it was a direct-to-video film, shot as quickly as possible, with as little fuss as possible. There are shockingly bad edits...look at the scene where Indiana is in his father's ransacked house. He is staring at a painting on the wall, the camera creeping up behind his right shoulder for an OTS. The Spielberg we all know and love would have continued on in to that painting, and then away back to Indiana for the closing shot of the scene, all in one take.

But that's not what happens. Suddenly, from the OTS, we cut to a close-up of that painting from a lower angle, somwhere off to the right of the axis established by the previous shot.

There are film students in Community Colleges who would have had more sense than to make that cut. Where was the Spielberg we all knew in this film? He was as much the star of RAIDERS and TEMPLE OF DOOM as Harrison Ford. In LAST CRUSADE, Spielberg is muted, dispassionate...bored.

Everyone clamors for an INDIANA JONES IV. Not me, brother. Last time out, we got sanitized characters, bored filmmakers, missed opportunities and limp stories (Indiana's entire character, from his hatred of snakes, to his chin scar, to his use of a hat and whip -- these all come from a single hour in his life? Men have searched for millenia for the Holy Grail, but Indiana finds it in less than a week?).

This whole thing is Flat. Lifeless. Its like the Energizer Bunny suddenly running out of gas. This is a minority opinion, and it will always be so, but in my eyes, this is easily Spielberg's worst film.[/ENDOFQUOTEDTEXT]

So, it's really not just Indy's character that's fucked up, but other central characters as well.

But maybe I oughta just "shut off my brain" and enjoy it for the goofy action romp it is as I did as a wee lad.

I'd say that most specific points made are valid, but the purported impact is overblown or imagined. It wasn't an expectation/tradition-shattering film like he and you are making it out to be.

ANYWAY

Yesterday I woke up at 7:00 a.m., despite my alarm being set for 8:00. Why? Because shithead thought it was a good time to start a Smallville marathon (jesus fucking christ he sucks) at full blast.

Oh, and confirmation on the shampoo/conditioner thing: yes he was using them. His excuse? Same as the spaghetti: "Those aren't mine?"

I'm going to demand fifteen dollars from him for all this (he never paid me for all that food fiasco from before). Don't know how it will go, but I have no problem being an asshole about this now. Why? Well, remember my excuse for being nice and brushing things off and just trying to ignore or forget about his bullshit? About him being the only person I know who was responsible enough with money and would be able to pay rent and all that? Well, he wrote me a check for the utilities last month for $20 (which brings me to another point: he wrote me a check for $20, and then gave me seven singles and like $2.xx in change, including a stack of like fifty or more pennies. I'm like "dude wtf is this shit?" He says he gave me some cash because he already wrote the check and then made up the difference in cash. Already wrote the check? I wait until all the utilities come in, pay them, split the total in two, and tell you what you owe. What the fuck are you talking about? And he actually does this EVERY MONTH. The first time I thought it was to have an easier to balance checkbook or something, like with round numbers and shit, but plenty of times he's written a check for like $13.xx and then given $15.xx in cash, so it makes no fucking sense. Stop giving me this bullshit change, asshole). The next day, I still just have the $20 check, haven't done anything with it yet. He calls me and says he just made a pretty big payment on his credit card and asks if it would be ok if I don't cash that check for a couple weeks so that his account doesn't get overdrawn.

DON'T CASH A $20 CHECK SO YOU DON'T GET OVERDRAWN!?!?!? GTFO

This fucking asshole makes more money than me working for Enterprise. He also does his National Guard bullshit which is something like an extra $500 a month, sometimes more. He eats cheap, garbage Wal-Mart brand generic foodstuff bullshit. His mom just sent him a check for $2,000 so that he could get his pink slip for his second car he has, even though he only needed about $1,600 for it, so his mom basically just said "Here you go stupid here's a huge bill paid for you plus a little extra something cuz you're such a dummy." He's only driving eight miles roundtrip to work compared to the thirty I do every day. His education was paid for by his parents and other help he got (I'm guessing from Army stuff...no way this idiot got fucking scholarships). He has less bills than me, gets things just flat out fucking handed to him, makes more money than me, yet a check for twenty bucks is gonna break his fucking bank?

GET. THE FUCK. OUT.

Just cash the check and say you forgot.

While a few of the characters in there did become silly buffoons, the story was more than fine and I have absolutely no problem with Indy, years after Raiders, being a bit less amoral/immoral and more moral. It helps that in Crystal Skull (terrible movies for other parts) Indy is even more so that person.

Plus, don't quite a few grave robbers plan to sell a few of their possessions to museums, causing a bidding war and while not getting the same upfront, making more money from the publicity. The Last Crusade takes a path and was made in a time period where it's absolutely fine for them to semi-change the script.

I don't think any of the Indiana Jones movies are that good, but out of them all Temple of Doom is easily the worst. That girl Daisy or whatever the fuck her name is is so fucking horrible.

You're retarded Kurtrude. The list goes Raiders > Temple > Crusade > Crystal Skull.

I already successfully realigned this thread. All of you, stop your attempts to derail this bitch again.

most of my friends have ridiculously low bank accounts. like.... they'll go around and have pity parties with the "i've only got $7.32 in my checking account" and shit and I'm just thinking, 'Why the fuck did you go bowling last night?"


what really pisses me off is when i'm feeling particularly broke (as in I have less than $500 in my checking account), I'll say no to going out to eat or the movies because I don't want to spend the money and they say, "I'm broke, but I'm going!" ... okay, just because you're an idiot who makes bad decisions doesn't mean I should, too!

I have plenty of friends that for years didn't realize there was a point to saving any money. They would get their pay check and then spend it all like it was birthday money (which didn't usually take long), and then they would be broke and not able to do anything until their next paycheck came around.

Now that they're all getting into their late twenties early thirties, they're a little bit more responsible.

I tend to act like I'm broke if my checking account gets near $1000.

Yeah, that's like at least half my friends. Mid twenties and older, living with parents, begging for rides and an "allowance" to buy a 40 or a gram, never even attempting to look for a job, yet constantly complaining about the quality and monotony of their life.

I have five grand in the bank right now but I still act like I'm broke. My monthly bills, not even counting food or gas, is $1,200. Even then, I ain't goin hungry or nothin, but if I ever somehow lost my job or had some type of emergency, that five grand would obviously not last too long at all.

lol, I'm of the idiotic "spend every cent of every paycheck" kind. Actually, my dad just tried to have a talk with me about it but I got frustrated and guilty and walked out, lulz. Guess I better start saving money or something; 'bout time I show some sort of responsibility in my life.

To be fair, you also seem happier with your life (I think I've seen you say before that you like your living situation and your family for the most part), and believe it or not, have something to show for it. The kind of people we're talking about (or at least that I'm talking about) literally drink and smoke away the money that they're lucky to come across.

And believe me, when I get into that more comfortable region I have, I definitely can get into that mode of, "Hmm...I just had a pretty good payckeck, The End is having a sale right now and I haven't bought a CD in a while...I better order $200 worth of stuff."

I do dig my family and my living situation, even if sometimes my brother can get kind of annoying, ha. And honestly, I'd be A-OK with just watching cartoons and movies and reading comics all the time, and visiting a select handful of friends when they're available, but it feels like most people expect so much more out of me. I guess it's making me feel kind of guilty. I mean, I'd like to eventually own my own house and that. Won't happen unless I put something away. And considering the amount of stuff I have that I haven't read or watched or played or listened to yet, it is rather ridiculous I keep getting more. Think I'll try just sticking to the things I'd really like and would enjoy right away and several times over, and just kinda lay off the "that's cool, think I'll get it" kinda stuff.

Been thinking too for the past couple weeks of getting rid of a lot of my things. Again, just sticking to the essentials. Like, why do I have multiple copies of the Evil Dead films, lol? Like this standalone director's cut of Army of Darkness; I have the two-disc Boomstick Edition, which has the exact same disc, so I'm only holding on to it for collector's purposes. What's the point of that? I could sell it for a decent amount.

I just deleted over a hundred items from my Amazon "Save for Later" cart, ha. That's a start.