The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Aranuil

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 24, 2005, 10:55 am

Okay! We all know that the MPAA ( The group of people hired by the Mafia who represent their wholly owned industry of Hollywood) whines that online piracy is causing them huge loses, but as Newsday stated so well, <a href="http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/mo ... tory">Shed no tears for the motion picture industry</a>

The facts are that no matter how many press releases they shove down the throats of their news subsidiaries they are not losing money on any measurable scale because of people downloading video camera captures of movies online. If they ever cleared the system of book keeping they use so that stars, writers, producers etc did not have to sue to collect actual profits <a href="http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/sue.htm">Excerpt from How the Movie Wars Were Won by John W. Cones</A> and even going so far as to try to tell Stan Lee that the movie "Spiderman" made no money forcing him to sue for revenue, then MAYBE I might have some sympathy for them. Were you aware that based on Hollywood bookkeeping four of the top ten movies of all time...LOST MONEY!!! So they have no idea what their actual revenues are versus costs, so at this point no one can say if they are losing money. I think the entire problem is that the massive amounts of money generated by this industry have resulted in one overwhelming problem. Greed.

So, lets talk about why there is a decline in movie attendance, based on the assumption of it NOT being piracy. Well, first lets examine the fact that,

"In 2004, domestic box office sales were $9.2 billion (with three-quarters going to the major distributors, who must share the box office gross with the theaters), up slightly from 2003. DVD sales and rentals came in at $21.2 billion, up almost a third from the previous year." -Newsday

Hmm so they made MORE money in 2004 than 2003, okay well what about the current 2005 movie year?

"Blase adds that 2005's gross reflects that 10 fewer films have been released by the studios so far this year. And, she says, if you eliminate 2004 anomalies like "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" - the highest-grossing religious and documentary films ever - 2005's box office is actually up by 2 percent" -Newsday

So in 2005 the box office is lagging and they have released fewer films, and have not produced any automatic sellouts like those based on a religion held by a majority of the nation or those based on propaganda that would make Leni Riefenstahl happy. It is easy to see the real truth is that the evil online pirates sharing second rate views of movies are the problem here, isn't it? The problem is the MPAA and their watchword. Greed.

So aside from those numbers, let's talk about a trip to the movies. I have a rather 50'sesque Nuclear Family with a Y2K twist, my wife and I have two children half the week and they spend the other half with their father, but we have them weekends. So for the sake of argument I will assume a Saturday evening viewing of a movie and at regular price. Before someone asks why not go to a matinee and save money, locally the regular versus matinee pricing is not really that different, $9.50 evening, and $7.00 matinee. But in the interest of fairness, when I hit my totals cost for the evening subtract 10 bucks if you want matinee pricing. Why have mostly empty daytime showings and not reduce the price to attract more customers? Greed.

So lets go step by step through what it runs my family to see a movie, and I will pick something harmless that we all attended as a base. <i>Charlie and the Shreking Nemo</i> is about as white bread as they come in the movie field, we look it up to find out times, and we pack up the car. Now nearest Gigantagoogplex of screens is in the suburbs because Showcase/AMC etc fear urban areas so much that Magic Johnson is making a mint setting up theatres in cities. My city has 105k people and not a single screen in the city limits but immediately outside of them we have 30 plus screens. So we have to drive a minimum round trip of 22 miles. That is a gallon of gas to start so we are at $2.33 by the national average. Counting wear and tear would be petty but it would be nice to see some downtown areas revitalized all over the country by some new screens. Not to mention in a few years when the 1.4 people per square mile around those suburban screens become their major market because gasoline is 7 bucks a gallon, they will wish that they had taken my advice. So $2.33 and Greed.

We pull up and have to park a 175 meter (575 feet for the metricphobic, or a little over 1/10 a mile for the real throwbacks) walk from the nearest non-handicapped spot, that is fine, I am not afraid of walking and neither is my family. But you can bet it hurts the box office in December when it is 10 below 0 (Fahrenheit) here in Michigan. We get inside and run into the ticket booth, and I pull out my wallet, now if I did it online as the commercials I have seen before every movie for the last few years want me to, I pay $35 bucks. But I save a bit by buying locally, so I pay 9.50 each for the adults and 7 each for the kids. $33.00 plus our earlier $2.33. I am now out $35.33. Greed.

Okay here comes the snack bar, I am not going to rant about this that much, because it would be a case study all in and of itself. But because my wife is intelligent as well as sexy she is raising good people and it limits our costs to much lower than that paid by little Exstacy Jade's (the future spoiled stripper) mommy in front of us (she was whined into buying the Megaplastic cup bearing the cartoon character of the moment, 2 types of candies and a popcorn). My wife and I each get a drink ($3.35 small, $3.75 large) and the girls each get a drink ($3.35 small, $3.35 small) and we split one mega-freaking-insane sized popcorn ($4.50). Of course I see kids being lured by the amazing amount of in your face advertising displays around us, and the bins of months old candy, and the 2 bucks a play video games, but our snacks run $18.30. Do not whine to me that we could sneak stuff in and do X, Y, and Z to save on this part, some of those suggestions are illegal and in some states it can be a felony. I am now out $53.63. Greed.

So now we get to see the movie right? It is with 1 minute prior to the scheduled start we sit down to a lame slideshow of local advertising and advertising about local advertising. <a href="http://www.didntialreadypayforthismovie ... vie.com</a> has a great rant angle, they are sick and tired of viewing commercials for as long as 15 minutes before the PREVIEWS even begin. I am in complete agreement with them, it drives me nuts to have some Madison Avenue version of a "sk8tr boi" screaming about some new cola product, or the Army desperately recruiting because in the 90's they reduced the force to mostly paper pushers who could run two miles and had no muscle mass. Even worse is the room temp IQ level being catered to by those making the commercials, maybe that is why movies are so pathetic... They assume they need to use the same level of repetition for the story that ads possess, I get really tired of movies that explain things so the dumb can catch up. When I am at home I can choose from Commercial or Cable television, you know why it is called Commercial? Because it is paid for by Commercials! My movie experience is paid for by a 10 spot, so why am I being advertised to in addition to paying? So even though they (the MPAA) already have conned $53.63 out of my pocket, they want to make an additional <a href="http://www.didntialreadypayforthismovie ... ">EIGHTEEN CENTS EACH</a> by subjecting us to these ads. Greed.

Then we hit the previews, my gods, the previews prior to <i>Charlie and the Shreking Nemo</I> ran 14 minutes, so I had been in the theatre for 30 minutes BEFORE the movie started to play. The movie starts but they keep the lights up because in the interest of cramming every possible heinie in a seat they are catering to the people who have arrived 30 minutes after the published movie start and causing us to have less of an experience as a result. Movie Theatres should be required by law to stop selling tickets after the start time of the movie, especially since the ads and the previews give a half hour of time to buy popcorn and get in your seat. Also, anyone who has spent more than one day in a movie theatre knows that Americans are happiest when the theatre is about 10% empty, no one wants to sit next to the three 29-year-old geeks in the Harry Potter shirts who have not bathed in a week. Just as no one wants to be stuck next to little Exstacy Jade's mommy who overcompensates for her miserable life and spoiled child by weighing in at a poorly washed 360lbs. So rather than try to sell every spot, maybe they could give us a break? Oh wait, these are the people willing to subject us to 15 minutes of ads to make 18 cents each. Greed.

We all know movies are more comfortable to watch at home because we maintain our furniture while the theatres do not, and in addition, they start out with much less comfortable seating.. I really feel for Exstacy Jade's heavy mommy, because my 6'3", 250lb frame maxxes out the capability of most theatre seats and I am in the acceptable BMI range. So we now have 200 or so people, in uncomfortable seats for the next 100 plus minutes with strangers elbowing them. The inevitable group of people who think it is cool to talk, carry on cell conversations, run in and out, scream randomly, talk at the movie, and one of my pet peeves let their child/baby scream for the entire time at the top of their lungs. I hate to break the news to little Exstacy Jade's broodmare that the rest of us cannot tune out her screaming. What kind of an idiot does it take to bring a baby to a movie? The only realistic answer is that their pleasure is more important to them than the inconvenience to the other 200, I recommend they be voted off the island, and any responsible theatre owner would ask them to leave and give them their money back. But of course they do not, and we all know why by now...Greed.

So post movie, we go out the exits they push on us, and find out they are not even on the same wall as the parking lot, so we journey around the Gigantagoogplex back to the car and ride home.

As an alternative I can wait 4 months, and buy the DVD at Best Buy or Amazon for $14.99, and for another $14.99 order delivery of 2 pizzas, a 2 liter of coke and some breadsticks, and make a houseful of popcorn for pocket change. So at the theatre it runs $53.63 to see a movie, and at home a total of $31 but I gain the added benefit of no screaming, no uncomfortable seats, no drive, no traffic, no poorly maintained parking lot, clean bathrooms, no frozen walk, no questionable cleanliness in food preparation and handling, no crowding and best of all we get dinner, movie, and a pleasant night with the girls for 3/5th the cost of a movie trip with no dinner. If I drop the dinner the MPAA should be ASHAMED of the difference.

Then I read an interview with the head of the MPAA at <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/200 ... kman_x.htm"> USA Today</a> proving that someone too ignorant to pee on their own shoes can aspire to that position. It is the industry not the online piracy that is the heart of the problem. I could talk of the fact that you can go to most Asian countries and buy any movie within days, minutes or before its release on DVD that is professionally silkscreen printed and comes with all the extras for less than a quarter. Instead of going after those producing 500,000 perfect copies for sale, they want to create an artificial problem of piracy to allow them to enact draconian laws that remove the rights of fair use we have in the United States.

Oh yeah, forced ads and previews on DVD's, yep, Greed. I OWN IT! DO NOT MAKE ME WATCH THE ADS!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » July 24, 2005, 11:22 am

Kylere wrote:Oh yeah, forced ads and previews on DVD's, yep, Greed. I OWN IT! DO NOT MAKE ME WATCH THE ADS!

Strip them off

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 24, 2005, 3:16 pm

I watch less and less movies per year at the theater, but buy about 2-3 DVDs per week on average. I never DL movies, but even if I did I would still buy the DVDs.

The movie industry is having a hard time competeing with 72 inch plasma sets and a 1,000 watt surround sound systems. Why go out when within 3-6 months the same movies can be owned and you'll have a better experiance than they can offer for 1/3rd the price?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 24, 2005, 3:27 pm

the lengths people will go to ease their guilty consciences about stealing always baffles me.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 24, 2005, 3:33 pm

You're a fucking idiot Kylere. The fact that you mentioned me in your subject line just reinforces what an insecure little bitch you are.

Although I did find myself agreeing with a few of the rambling points you've made, I think kyoukan's post pretty much sums up the entirety of your latest whine. Make no mistake, you don't rant. You whine. You're likely the biggest whiner on this forum. Ranting takes a degree of intelligence and wit that you have never, ever posessed. Do us a favor, and if the movie industry is bothering you so much, stop watching, stop downloading, and stop supporting it. If that's too much to ask, at least stop bothering the rest of us with this bullshit.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 24, 2005, 4:03 pm

LOL me insecure? LOL you may have had a point years ago, Mr. I have to change my name on VV because I am confusing reality and fantasy. Good Shot son, but still a miss.

As for the concept of easing guilt, I find it hilarious, it is just like every little group ignoring certain rights as long as they are not being stomped on, Kyoukan has zero insight on the issue, living in a country with entirely different laws. Not to mention which this is a weak imitation of the actual Kyoukan.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 24, 2005, 5:25 pm

care to outline the difference in IP and copyright law between the USA and canada for our edification?

noel · Post by **noel** » July 24, 2005, 6:33 pm

Kylere wrote:LOL me insecure? LOL you may have had a point years ago, Mr. I have to change my name on VV because I am confusing reality and fantasy. Good Shot son, but still a miss.

The very fact that you replied to my post proves your insecurity. As far as confusing fantasy and reality? Are you just making this shit up as you go along? Oh nevermind, that's obvious. The only real question is, "What will Kylere whine about next?!?!"

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 24, 2005, 7:02 pm

I stole a car the other day because those damn carmakers make the cars so damn expensive.

But hell since they are so expensive it's manufacters fault.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 24, 2005, 9:08 pm

Meh, I'll still go to the theatre to watch a movie that I think will benefit from a screen so large I can't actually watch the whole thing at once..

But, here's the thing; we pay for our bandwidth here, so I'm just as discerning about what I download as what I see in a theatre, but I'll rent any piece of crap if I've seen everything else in the store, twice.

Come to think of it, I saw Bad Santa in the theatre once in the US, once in Australia, and on DVD. Shame it probably didn't make big box office given that's reserved for family movies and hideous rambling garbage romance that women dragged men to repeatedly.

It's easy to get my money on movies, and every indication is that Hollywood is just fine thanks very much.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 24, 2005, 10:25 pm

I admit I download movies.

But you know how many less movies I watch in the theatre because I download them? Zero. I was never a big theatre goer to begin with.

However, I do buy DVDs of movies I enjoy even if I did download them at some point in the past. Personally I don't care if anyone has a problem with that. I can live with myself.

What I have a problem living with is spending $20 on a DVD just to find out how shitty a movie actually was.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » July 25, 2005, 10:49 am

What I have a problem living with is spending $20 on a DVD just to find out how shitty a movie actually was.

Thats where On Demand comes into play. $3.95 On Demand. Cheaper than the theatre. Cheaper than a DVD. If you like the movie, then you can go out and buy it to add to your DVD collection.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 25, 2005, 12:19 pm

Homercles wrote:Thats where On Demand comes into play. $3.95 On Demand. Cheaper than the theatre. Cheaper than a DVD. If you like the movie, then you can go out and buy it to add to your DVD collection.

Then the DVD costs me $3.95 more than it should have.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 25, 2005, 12:57 pm

I download stuff just so I can call myself a Pirate, ARRRRRRRRRR!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 25, 2005, 1:44 pm

Kylere wrote:I really feel for Exstacy Jade's heavy mommy, because my 6'3", 250lb frame maxxes out the capability of most theatre seats and I am in the acceptable BMI range.

Your BMI is 31.2 which is considered obese. You sailed right past being in either the normal or overweight brackets.

Jesus, if paying that much for a movie is so bad, do something else. I watched Aida this past Saturday night at a Plays in the Park and the place was packed with families. There were 3000 people easy. Cost: under 6 free, 7-13 $2, all else $5 per ticket.

So what does your family do with your "free" movie dl'ing? Do they all gather around the 19in PC screen to watch a movie filmed on a shakey camera in your household as a result or something?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 25, 2005, 2:18 pm

Funny....an 'obese' person claiming to be 'average' making fun of another obese person. Hell, I'm pretty average @ 6'1" : 195lbs but I probably should lose some weight/fat in my midsection. In what universe does 2 inches taller and 55lbs heavier make your weight acceptable?

Also how does the cost of going to the theatre to see a movie justify the theft of IP? If you don't like costs involved in going to the movies, the solution is obvious... DONT FUCKING GO.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 25, 2005, 2:18 pm

Question for people with DVD collections:

I'm not a big movie-watcher, so I don't have a DVD collection. This is largely because I almost never want to see a movie more than once. Even if it was a good movie, the chances of my having the patience to sit down and watch the same thing again are really thin.

Do you actually watch the movies in your DVD collections beyond the first time?

I share a netflix subscription with 5 other people (i live in an apartment building). This allows me to watch a couple of movies a month for a cost of like $35 a year. Do you guys actually watch enough movies that purchasing DVD's is a better economic decision?

miir · Post by **miir** » July 25, 2005, 2:21 pm

Likewise, I buy very few DVDs.
I have a video store a few blocks away that has a decent selection and cheap rentals.

There are just so few movies that I would actually watch repeatedly.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » July 25, 2005, 2:51 pm

Aslanna wrote:I admit I download movies.

But you know how many less movies I watch in the theatre because I download them? Zero. I was never a big theatre goer to begin with.

However, I do buy DVDs of movies I enjoy even if I did download them at some point in the past. Personally I don't care if anyone has a problem with that. I can live with myself.

What I have a problem living with is spending $20 on a DVD just to find out how shitty a movie actually was.

I pretty much agree with this. I download movies all the time, but it does not stop me from going to see a movie in the theatre if I think it will be worth the money. I generally only go to see movies in the theatre that a huge screen will really make a difference for.

It also does not stop me from buying movies that I really like, I just don't want to wait for them to come out on dvd in some cases.

And yes sueven, I own around 110 store bought dvds, and probably in the neighborhood of 30 burned ones. I have watched every movie I own at least 2 or 3 times, my favorites way more times than that. I would say my average movie gets watched at least once every six months.

As far as being economically efficient, thats none of anyones concern but mine, if I could not afford the dvds I own, I would not have bought them. So I find no reason to rent over buying.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 25, 2005, 2:57 pm

Sueven wrote:Do you actually watch the movies in your DVD collections beyond the first time?

Yes. I own 150+ movies and I watched them all at least 3+ times. (excluding the newer ones I bought). Its nice to have basically.

Also, when people come over, sometimes they want to watch one too. I just don't buy DVDs for myself (although it plays a large part), I buy them for the company I have.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 25, 2005, 3:15 pm

Most of the DVD's in my collection are from blockbuster now. I'd never rent from there, but the buy so many copies of most movies that they wind up selling 100 or so of them like a month after they come out for about $6-10 per copy. They also take the sleeve and disc out and put them in a brand new case for you.

I don't watch every single movie in my collection more than once, but like any collectable I just want a particular title because I like to have it. It is like collecting stamps only you can do something with them.

Also most DVD's have 1 or 2 commentary tracks that are sometimes interesting and other special features I don't get to right away.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 25, 2005, 6:36 pm

I've watched Office Space 1,243 times.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 25, 2005, 7:21 pm

Most recently I went to see Batman Begins twice in the theater.. I went for the matrix trilogy, the lotr trilogy, star wars eps 1-3, most of the star treks, etc...

I buy dvd's on occasion, and I also download... and share.... too.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 25, 2005, 7:30 pm

I watch my Kevin Smith DVD's regularly.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 25, 2005, 7:45 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Kylere wrote:I really feel for Exstacy Jade's heavy mommy, because my 6'3", 250lb frame maxxes out the capability of most theatre seats and I am in the acceptable BMI range.
Your BMI is 31.2 which is considered obese. You sailed right past being in either the normal or overweight brackets.

Jesus, if paying that much for a movie is so bad, do something else. I watched Aida this past Saturday night at a Plays in the Park and the place was packed with families. There were 3000 people easy. Cost: under 6 free, 7-13 $2, all else $5 per ticket.

So what does your family do with your "free" movie dl'ing? Do they all gather around the 19in PC screen to watch a movie filmed on a shakey camera in your household as a result or something?

Yeah yeah try the BMI thing, have you ever actually studied it rather than going to a website vbia google and plugging in the number? Didn't think so asshat.

I have DL'd movies before and when I did I would not have downloaded anything I would have went to the theatre to see, the 2 or 3 I checked out were all DVD quality on release day though, the shaky cam thing is something amateurs and aol users download. Oh yeah 19 inch screen? I use a 19 inch screen for troubleshooting, but not on a main sys, too small at 1600x1200.

End result is that in the past I did not dl movies I would have paid for, zero sum loss for the MPAA, and movies are so bad lately that I would rather use my bandwidth to annoy far right and left wingers.

Oh and BTW I can pick on her nasty fat ass, because I was once a nasty 360 lbs myself, and I woke up and stopped supplementing life with food. Aside from the .000001% who are medically fat the rest are just losers, as I was was.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 25, 2005, 9:42 pm

That's a great comeback. Asshat. wow. cutting.

You're obese. No form of internet putdown catchphrase changes that. Are you Atlas? Let me guess, you also studied the science of psychiatry too

Oh yeah 19 inch screen? I use a 19 inch screen for troubleshooting, but not on a main sys, too small at 1600x1200

So now you're rich enough to cast aside a 19in screen as fodder. Holy crap, you must be rich! I had no idea I was going to be called to task from Captain Literal this evening

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 26, 2005, 12:25 am

No Asshat, I have been working in the IT industry as a civilian for 10 years, and 4 years prior in the military, and the 4 years prior to that I was a nuclear weapons tech with a computer hobby, there I have a shitload of computer equipment and most of it is top of the line especially in light of the fact that my wife is a graphic designer by trade. But since you know fuck all about me even though we have both been posting here for 7 years you would have no clue about that, so since you fail to pay attention or remember anything without a google search you decided to run some lame 19' monitor line at me, that would be like jumping on Voronwe's knowledge of network news, or Winnows knowledge of things Comic, or Pyro's ability to make VV a viable concern. Next time you want to try a line like that, think about it.

So now that we have established that you have an inability to read and comprehend, let me further point out that my rant was not written in support of piracy, it was just asshats like you running on with it. Mine was an attack on the extremely poor business reality behind the industry claims and their constant mouthpiecing of it through their subsidary news organizations. Perhaps if you were able to think on your own two feet without hopping in a line you might have caught that, perhaps if you had actually considered what you were writing, but no you could not.

But I am glad to see so many pissed off fat people! Use that anger!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 26, 2005, 1:16 am

Do you actually watch the movies in your DVD collections beyond the first time?

Absolutely. Furthermore, having a large collection to choose what you want to watch depending on your mood is great. I also lend out batches of movies to friends to watch as well. Just like when I built up my music collection years ago, I built my back catalogue so I would have all my old favorites and must-haves in hopes that eventually I would only be purchasing new releases. I'm pretty much there right now but pick up older tittles when I see them on sale. For example, I recently saw the Die Hard Trilogy for 14$. Even though those weren't on my must own list, I enjoyed the movies and it was a great deal so I jumped on it.

My GF has a very impressive set of chick flicks that she has been building over the past several years. I'm pretty happy with our horror movie collection as well. Sure we have all the standards, but we also have some gems and childhood favorites in there.

We're doing loads of wedding stuff right now, so we watch 2-3 movies on the weekends while we tie bows, organize the favors, cut the runners, ect. We watched the first season of X-Files in 3 weekends. We also usually have a movie going when we're playing/surfing on the computers.

Btw, I'm a huge fan of TV collections. It's nice to be able to throw something in that lasts about 20ish minutes while I am doing something else.

We have well over 350 DVD titles right now, including entire seasons of our favorite shows. Just like my CD colection, one day I will probably burn it all to disc and sell the actual copies when it becomes more practical. I sold over 500 CDs at second hand stores and made about $800.00. That's not a very bad turn around, seeing as how I still own all the music.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » July 26, 2005, 1:42 am

Chidoro wrote:Let me guess, you also studied the science of psychiatry too.

*gasp* Psychiatry isn't science! Tom says so!!!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 26, 2005, 7:30 am

Kylere wrote:But I am glad to see so many pissed off fat people! Use that anger!

You're obese

So now that we have established that you have an inability to read and comprehend

maybe I just don't care. But thanks for providing me that little walk of life sarge

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 26, 2005, 7:38 am

Kylere wrote: Oh and BTW I can pick on her nasty fat ass, because I was once a nasty 360 lbs myself, and I woke up and stopped supplementing life with food. Aside from the .000001% who are medically fat the rest are just losers, as I was was.

Ahhh.. Another Dr. Phil success story.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 26, 2005, 9:30 pm

The difference between my weight and build and obese is that no one would dare to call me obese to my face.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 26, 2005, 10:29 pm

okie dokie

sorry mister obe... larg... i mean fa... err exceedor of normal and overweight BMIness

noel · Post by **noel** » July 27, 2005, 12:20 am

Much easier to just point out his whining and his irrelevance imho.

All he has to do is post to validate the insult.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 27, 2005, 12:49 am

I hate to defend this retard, but....

Myth: BMI Measures Body Fat

Two people can have the same BMI, but a different percent body fat. A bodybuilder with a large muscle mass and a low percent body fat may have the same BMI as a person who has more body fat because BMI is calculated using weight and height only.

These men have the same height, weight, and BMI, but may have different percent body fat.

Both are 6'3", 220lbs, and 27.5 BMI.

This is a good reminder that BMI is only one piece of a person's health profile. It is important to talk with your doctor about other measures and risk factors. (e.g., waist circumference, smoking, physical activity level, and diet.)

Myth: BMI is a diagnostic tool

BMI alone is not diagnostic. It is one of many risk factors for disease and death. As a person's BMI increases the risk for many diseases increases as well.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 27, 2005, 3:08 am

BMI is in fact retarded... Plug in Shaq's numbers...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2005, 4:32 am

Fash wrote:
These men have the same height, weight, and BMI, but may have different percent body fat.

Both are 6'3", 220lbs, and 27.5 BMI.

Those are cartoon figures! Show us some real pictures of people that look like that with the same BMI. I'm not doubting you, I just want to see them for the hell of it.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 27, 2005, 5:11 am

I agree. If you have a lot of muscle mass does that make you overweight even if your body fat is low? I'd have to say not. That BMI chart is simply a guideline set to encompass the average and include the greatest number possible. That doesn't make it accurate for 100% of the population.

And wtf does this have to do with the topic? Move on already sheesh!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 27, 2005, 11:14 am

Kylere is a communist!!

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 27, 2005, 12:21 pm

If the BMI were useful then every player in the NFL would be obese instead of just the half that actually are.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 27, 2005, 3:58 pm

Back when I was working out (free weights and cardio) 5 days a week, I weighed 260 lbs. I'm now a fucking couch potato, and I weigh 250. I was and am still 5'11", and by BMI, I'm in better shape now. Still think BMI is 100% accurate?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 27, 2005, 8:13 pm

Christ, at least you go to movies in the midwest. California, the average movie run for just my girlfriend and I is nearly as much, and we don't have little fuck trophies to cart around with us either. News flash: Every form of entertainment is expensive and overpriced lately and greed is what drives it, dipshit. You think movies like American Pie get made out of some Oscar aspiration?

When you go to the movie you are paying for the social experience as much as you are for the movie itself. Comparing a theatre experience to plopping ones lard ass in front of the plasma screen and watching the Shrek DVD makes about as much sense as comparing going to see Pearl Jam live, as opposed to listening to their live album on your stereo at home. Maybe you are just so antisocial that you can't grasp this point.

Speaking as a fat ass who has pirated the occasional thing off of the web: no price on a luxury item ever justifies its theft, no matter how outrageous. If you want to pirate shit off the net, fine do it. Don't try and play the blame game and say its someone elses greed when its really your personal greed and laziness.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » July 27, 2005, 10:00 pm

Jice Virago wrote:When you go to the movie you are paying for the social experience as much as you are for the movie itself. Comparing a theatre experience to plopping ones lard ass in front of the plasma screen and watching the Shrek DVD makes about as much sense as comparing going to see Pearl Jam live, as opposed to listening to their live album on your stereo at home. Maybe you are just so antisocial that you can't grasp this point.

Oh you mean the social experiment, er, sorry, experience of the asshole behind you kicking the seat, the two dipshits to the side of you talking throughout the movie, the retard on the other side who left his cell phone ringer on and decides to take the call and talk for the next 10 minutes or the people in front of you that keep walking out in front of you and then coming back? Fuck that.

Obviously most people would prefer to enjoy a good movie in the theater. 'Enjoy' being the key word there. I'm not sure that choosing to watch movies at home instead classifies someone as antisocial.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 27, 2005, 10:07 pm

Well a lot depends on your willingness to bitch at people for being asshats at the theatre, which I don't hesitate to do. If anything, the commercials are a good time to scope out who is going to be a source of annoyance ahead of time. I generally don't have problems with other people, certainly never after calling them on bullshit the first time, in a theatre. I know that a lot of the people here who like to cock wave behind the saftey of internet anonymity are not quite as confrontational in the real world, however.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 27, 2005, 10:14 pm

masteen wrote:Back when I was working out (free weights and cardio) 5 days a week, I weighed 260 lbs. I'm now a fucking couch potato, and I weigh 250. I was and am still 5'11", and by BMI, I'm in better shape now. Still think BMI is 100% accurate?

so you're obese in both cases. mazel tov. Now you're lazy obese guy instead of active obese guy. You do your ticker proud.

and by the way, the initiator of this entire gem of a thread said this,

I really feel for Exstacy Jade's heavy mommy, because my 6'3", 250lb frame maxxes out the capability of most theatre seats and I am in the acceptable BMI range.

the fucker brought up BMI. How about this idea, say, "and I'm not fat" instead of "acceptable BMI range". All I sense are a bunch of people who can't own up to being overweight

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 27, 2005, 10:19 pm

Man, all I have to say at this point is that a lot of you SOB's must have mnuch nicer theatres than any I have ever experienced in the US or on Military bases overseas. The only places I ever enjoyed the theatre atmosphere was anyplace in the Netherlands ( They have naturally cool people, and most theatres server food/booze and yet still they are laidback) and a place called the Mt Adams theatre in Cincy that was part restaurant/part Theatre and is now probably gone because all the drones prefer to be put in the boxcars packed like sardines willingly, so why make things pleasant.

Just do not grossly overestimate and lie about the numbers when people occasionally see through that shit and refuse to go see movies like White Chicks and Little Nicky.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 27, 2005, 10:46 pm

That's why I go to the Alamo Draft House when I do get out to watch a movie.

http://www.drafthouse.com/

Here's the menu (pdf)

http://www.drafthouse.com/lakecreek/menu.pdf

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » July 27, 2005, 11:21 pm

Chidoro wrote:
masteen wrote:Back when I was working out (free weights and cardio) 5 days a week, I weighed 260 lbs. I'm now a fucking couch potato, and I weigh 250. I was and am still 5'11", and by BMI, I'm in better shape now. Still think BMI is 100% accurate?
so you're obese in both cases. mazel tov. Now you're lazy obese guy instead of active obese guy. You do your ticker proud.

and by the way, the initiator of this entire gem of a thread said this,
I really feel for Exstacy Jade's heavy mommy, because my 6'3", 250lb frame maxxes out the capability of most theatre seats and I am in the acceptable BMI range.
the fucker brought up BMI. How about this idea, say, "and I'm not fat" instead of "acceptable BMI range". All I sense are a bunch of people who can't own up to being overweight

LOL semantic bitch! I am heavier than I want to be by 20 lbs, but as my doctor pointed out, BMI does not allow for larger builds as well as it should, and I should stop sweating it.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » July 28, 2005, 5:47 pm

so you're obese in both cases. mazel tov. Now you're lazy obese guy instead of active obese guy. You do your ticker proud.

the fucker brought up BMI. How about this idea, say, "and I'm not fat" instead of "acceptable BMI range". All I sense are a bunch of people who can't own up to being overweight

Hey dipshit? A lot of people in this country are overweight. Who cares? Your hijacking over semantics.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2005, 6:06 pm

Sartori wrote:
so you're obese in both cases. mazel tov. Now you're lazy obese guy instead of active obese guy. You do your ticker proud.

the fucker brought up BMI. How about this idea, say, "and I'm not fat" instead of "acceptable BMI range". All I sense are a bunch of people who can't own up to being overweight
Hey dipshit? A lot of people in this country are overweight. Who cares? Your hijacking over semantics.

Heh, Kylere kinda brought this on himself.
Glass houses and all that.

VeeshanVault

The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Aranuil

The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Aranuil

Re: The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Ara

Re: The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Ara

Re: The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Ara

Re: The MPAA and movies, RANT warning aka no bitching by Ara