Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

[Koby_Fish]

Still here, and still want to take this to 5K

Let's fucking go!

Also, Moviebob is fat and ugly and I would not have sex with him.

yeah i bit the bullet to do the thing, too.

I found it interesting that Chippa (and Bob himself too, IIRC) when asked about whether they went to church as kids, the answer was, "Yeah, and the school forced us to". This is a very interesting case study in deflection. They're deflecting blame, from their parents, who sent them to the school that "forced them to go to church", and blaming the school for forcing them to go to church. As if the parents naively sent them to catholic school, not expecting their kids to be forced to go to church.

THE PERSONS TO BLAME FOR Y'ALL BEING 'FORCED' TO GO TO CHURCH, BOBBY AND CHIPPA, ARE YOUR OWN PARENTS, YOU DUMBFUCKS.

 

[Rei is shit]

lmao @ Robert insulting CNN by referencing Pizza Hut.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

You know, if MovieBob outlives the farms, I'm going to feel like I lost a bet.

Would you consider what he does living tho?

 

[Positron]

On Fat Eunuch Daily, Bobby lets slip of the quiet part again.

(Video from The Quartering)

Anthony Reed, drug dealer who almost caused the death of his client because he wanted to play doctor. This is something he would have made the world forget if not for Kiwi Farms.

---

Biden Fights Fascism with the power of Rainbows.


Michigan governor candidate Garrett Soldano does want anything to do with people who talk about how great Biden's Economy or how great student loan forgiveness is.


Pop music has its Extended Universe now!


American kids deserve to starve, Bobby most of all.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

"We won"

And yet, here I am, sneeding.

 

[Ralph Barnhardt]

On Fat Eunuch Daily, Bobby lets slip of the quiet part again.

(Video from The Quartering)

https://archive.ph/b7XmF

lol bring it tubby! Us being wiped off the face of the Internet will not make people suddenly buy your book, make people watch your movie, get you an actual job, make Lindsay forget that you were incredibly creepy towards her, or make Shigeru Miyamoto your dad. You will remain on twitter, impotently tweeting to the likes of Arkle A Bolmer for their meager applause. I say this with some confidence because if you were willing to do ANYTHING else you would've done it in the past decade of spinning your wheels.

 

[Flexo]

Jeeze, first endless Prom episodes, and now this...

They say write what you know, and these people have done fuck-all since High School... and thanks to getting everything from DoorDash and Amazon, don't even know what a trial looks like enough to fake the barest trappings of it for TV, the THREE STOOGES did a trial episode for cryin' out loud, it's not that hard.

No wonder these shows have characters with superpowers who can literally punch an Abrams tank to pieces yet they just mope around the house and complain about politics... it's what the WRITERS do all day.

See, here's the thing...

Being a multiple count felon, I've spent my fair share of time in courtrooms (though not as much as record-holder bender). I can barely stand TV/movie courtrooms because they are so badly done. (It's really a joke about which is less faithful: the law or computers in hollywood.) The best one still remains My Cousin Vinny - a comedy - written by an actual lawyer which is still taught in some law classes today. (But no, these writers couldn't even watch that film apparently.)

Reel law is, fundamentally, just a structured debate club with extra participants. (Note: this is NOT how REAL law works.) That to me is what makes such a statement even more facepalming. These people are essentially admitting they cannot write debates. Again, lower the bar to the bottom of the barrel, we're talking reel law here not the actual thing - and all you need to do to make trial scenes and stories "gripping" is to give the other side convincing arguments. Again: process that. These writers are so inept, they cannot imagine writing an opposing figure as having a legitimate point or quality argument. They literally can only do strawmen, so of course they can't write a gripping trial scene to save their lives.

EDIT: No seriously, you know how that whole "hero's journey" story structure works? ANYBODY here want to write a compelling trial story, I'm going to give you the basics of the structure right now.

Spoiler

Set up: Establish the sides you want the audience to root for winning and losing. Show the audience a key fact which pulls them firmly to the side you intend, but which is missing/not seen by other characters to establish why there's debate over the outcome in the story world.

Protagonist: Give them an extra stake in the trial outcome. Personal ties is too obvious a conflict of interest, so have it be more subtle like related to something in their past. Make sure the side the protagonist (and audience) is on is massively lopsided. (like lots of clear evidence for/against etc)

Antagonist: While the parties can be cartoonish scum, make the opposing attorneys and/or judges upstanding and smart. Every challenge they present must be by the book and perfectly understandable. Make them sympathetic, as if they could be the protagonist in the next story.

From there you have a rhythm:

• Establish the case and the stakes. Outline what "the world" of the story perceives.
• Protagonist struggles early. Has a major setback in the first round.
• Give the protagonist a bit of help (like evidence or witness) - but then take it away or reveal that it wasn't help at all.
• Have the antagonist suffer a small setback now. Not enough to change the case but to remind the protagonist it's not over.
• Repeat the previous 2 steps to fill out your time as required.
• You can also toss in personal life challenges between each step to pad out the runtime and give the protagonist a character journey.
• Put in small, seemingly insignificant clues in each of the above steps which don't seem to be helping.
• Climax! Have the protagonist discover/earn something which brings together all the insignificant pieces that were ignored earlier which conclusively prove their case and win the day!
• Have the antagonist shake their hand and acknowledge they hope to best them next time.

You can literally watch almost any episode of Matlock and see this done in 1 hr chunks week after week.

 

[Koby_Fish]

See, here's the thing...

Being a multiple count felon, I've spent my fair share of time in courtrooms (though not as much as record-holder bender). I can barely stand TV/movie courtrooms because they are so badly done. (It's really a joke about which is less faithful: the law or computers in hollywood.) The best one still remains My Cousin Vinny - a comedy - written by an actual lawyer which is still taught in some law classes today. (But no, these writers couldn't even watch that film apparently.)

Reel law is, fundamentally, just a structured debate club with extra participants. (Note: this is NOT how REAL law works.) That to me is what makes such a statement even more facepalming. These people are essentially admitting they cannot write debates. Again, lower the bar to the bottom of the barrel, we're talking reel law here not the actual thing - and all you need to do to make trial scenes and stories "gripping" is to give the other side convincing arguments. Again: process that. These writers are so inept, they cannot imagine writing an opposing figure as having a legitimate point or quality argument. They literally can only do strawmen, so of course they can't write a gripping trial scene to save their lives.

EDIT: No seriously, you know how that whole "hero's journey" story structure works? ANYBODY here want to write a compelling trial story, I'm going to give you the basics of the structure right now.

Spoiler

Set up: Establish the sides you want the audience to root for winning and losing. Show the audience a key fact which pulls them firmly to the side you intend, but which is missing/not seen by other characters to establish why there's debate over the outcome in the story world.

Protagonist: Give them an extra stake in the trial outcome. Personal ties is too obvious a conflict of interest, so have it be more subtle like related to something in their past. Make sure the side the protagonist (and audience) is on is massively lopsided. (like lots of clear evidence for/against etc)

Antagonist: While the parties can be cartoonish scum, make the opposing attorneys and/or judges upstanding and smart. Every challenge they present must be by the book and perfectly understandable. Make them sympathetic, as if they could be the protagonist in the next story.

From there you have a rhythm:

• Establish the case and the stakes. Outline what "the world" of the story perceives.
• Protagonist struggles early. Has a major setback in the first round.
• Give the protagonist a bit of help (like evidence or witness) - but then take it away or reveal that it wasn't help at all.
• Have the antagonist suffer a small setback now. Not enough to change the case but to remind the protagonist it's not over.
• Repeat the previous 2 steps to fill out your time as required.
• You can also toss in personal life challenges between each step to pad out the runtime and give the protagonist a character journey.
• Put in small, seemingly insignificant clues in each of the above steps which don't seem to be helping.
• Climax! Have the protagonist discover/earn something which brings together all the insignificant pieces that were ignored earlier which conclusively prove their case and win the day!
• Have the antagonist shake their hand and acknowledge they hope to best them next time.

You can literally watch almost any episode of Matlock and see this done in 1 hr chunks week after week.

The interesting part of all this, is the likes of Bob's senpais are dismissing the Hero's Journey (and I think to a degree, Bob himself does so) as unnecessary, because allegedly someone can write a compelling story without it. I don't know who (if anyone) actually taught Bob creative writing, but I think they fucked up.

Spoiler: Creative Writing Sperging

I was taught creative writing, but "hero's journey" was either only vaguely touched upon, neglected, or I forgot about what it was called. (Granted, I've been away from school longer than Bob, but he's gotten blackout drunk a few times so maybe that killed a few brain cells). HOWEVER, story structure was touched on, but I had a HUGE problem with "outlines" (autism I guess) and REFUSED to write a story that way, because how I conceive of stories doesn't rely on outlines at all and I considered it a massive waste of time. I simply know what I want to do, and write it as it goes, and thanks to watching plenty of TV, I 'channel' how a TV show would go and apply that to what I was writing. So yeah, you don't NEED outlines and shit to write a story, even a good one. While I didn't really know the phrase "Hero's Journey" as such, I understood the concept of what the Hero's Journey entails. For Bob to reject the concept and structure of the Hero's Journey in its entirety seems like it smacks of "Bob Knows Better", but the thing is, he's not smart enough to get away with it. Maybe some people are smart enough to completely dismiss "The Hero's Journey", but Bob's writing in general is garbage, stream-of-consciousness babble whilst vomiting a thesaurus, riddled with typos, spelling mistakes, grammar atrocities, and logical fallacies. He's the kind of guy that would NEED an outline, but even then it's not enough to make what he writes anywhere near good or acceptable. And while I'm sure he "learned" to write scripts the same way I learned how to write stories - CONSOOMING media and following the example of movies and TV shows - his is more rote imitation and less, actually learning something. This is made worse by his nostalgia-itis, where references give him dopamine hits. Then he thinks everybody else gets the same dopamine hits from these things. Which only goes to show, that dopamine-hit junkies shouldn't be reviewing movies. Then he probably got soaked in Deconstructionism, which compounds the problem, because every pseudo-intellectual thinks they're hot shit if they're into Deconstructionism, and again, like with ignoring the Hero's Journey, Bob's not smart enough to pull it off.

 

[King Dead]

The most important thing to learn when you're becoming an artist of any kind is how the rules associated with your artform work, so that you can then learn how to break them properly. You don't need to follow all of the rules of color theory, for instance, but understanding the principles on a fundamental level before you start to break them is the difference between creating something that still maintains a sense of visual appeal and something that looks like utter garbage that hurts to look at.

Anyone can throw out the hero's journey framework and tell a story without it, but odds are it'll be a sloppy, rambling, incoherent mess, much like any of Bob's writing. A talented author will take the hero's journey and skillfully tweak or subvert portions of it to deliver a more interesting story overall. I would much rather read a by-the-numbers hero's journey from an average author than a hoity-toity psuedointellectual of similar skill attempting to create a postmodernist total subversion.

As I've gotten older and this trend of lazy deconstruction and ideological subversion has continued to ruin just about everything I know and love, I find that my tastes skew more towards the simple and straightforward. A well-crafted story that plays all its tropes straight is way more entertaining than some hack fraud shitting out their daddy issues on screen for two hours. Bob can huff farts all day long for all I care, I'll continue to enjoy actual quality entertainment instead.

 

[Koby_Fish]

The most important thing to learn when you're becoming an artist of any kind is how the rules associated with your artform work, so that you can then learn how to break them properly. You don't need to follow all of the rules of color theory, for instance, but understanding the principles on a fundamental level before you start to break them is the difference between creating something that still maintains a sense of visual appeal and something that looks like utter garbage that hurts to look at.

Anyone can throw out the hero's journey framework and tell a story without it, but odds are it'll be a sloppy, rambling, incoherent mess, much like any of Bob's writing. A talented author will take the hero's journey and skillfully tweak or subvert portions of it to deliver a more interesting story overall. I would much rather read a by-the-numbers hero's journey from an average author than a hoity-toity psuedointellectual of similar skill attempting to create a postmodernist total subversion.

As I've gotten older and this trend of lazy deconstruction and ideological subversion has continued to ruin just about everything I know and love, I find that my tastes skew more towards the simple and straightforward. A well-crafted story that plays all its tropes straight is way more entertaining than some hack fraud shitting out their daddy issues on screen for two hours. Bob can huff farts all day long for all I care, I'll continue to enjoy actual quality entertainment instead.

Bob's gone further than deconstruction and subversion, IMO. How else would you explain Bob's insane insistence that a (badly written, badly executed, plot-holey) story that doesn't make sense, doesn't HAVE to make sense because it's a fictional story with fictional characters that do not reals, therefore literally ANYTHING GOES, and Touch The Grass NOW NOW NOW if you don't agree with him? Bob believes in literal literary anarchy.

 

[King Dead]

Bob's gone further than deconstruction and subversion, IMO. How else would you explain Bob's insane insistence that a (badly written, badly executed, plot-holey) story that doesn't make sense, doesn't HAVE to make sense because it's a fictional story with fictional characters that do not reals, therefore literally ANYTHING GOES, and Touch The Grass NOW NOW NOW if you don't agree with him? Bob believes in literal literary anarchy.

I explain it in the simplest way I know how: knee-jerk contrarianism. It's pretty much Bob's entire M.O.: find out the position of those he's ideologically opposed to, then take the exact opposite. They're evil, so their opinions are evil. Bobby is good, so he needs to take the good opinions. Invert evil position, and that must be Bob's. Doesn't matter if the "bad guys" actually have salient points or not, Bob can't be seen agreeing with chuds!

In this case, and many others like it, longtime fans of the property are the enemy because Bob's simple mind sees them as being reactionary mayo ghouls that are just mad about Diversity™ and secretly want to lynch all niggers and fags. So, despite their rational criticisms (a total disregard of the existing lore, bad pacing, cringeworthy dialogue, mediocre performances, and a dumb and boring plot), Bob must take the opposite stance in order to remain on the good side of those he wants to suck up to. Thus, an utter dismissal of their critique, an insistence that this is a fantasy story for children and thus doesn't matter, insistence on touching grass, and then blind praise that has just enough wiggle room for him to weasel out should the tides turn and even his side starts calling it bad.

Bob is the epitome of the modern consoomer. He's what every megacorp wants their entire audience to be: clapping seals that consume product and get excited for next product.

 

[Positron]

I don't recall Kiwi Farms having doxed this shrimp


But his long-forgotten groomer mother -- who no doubt told him to strike the pose -- has to jump at the victimhood bandwagon:


This is from one of Fox G. Green's thread on how environmental and abortion movements were founded by racist eugenicists.

Let's hope China's anti-DDoS tech is better than their rail tech; Kiwi Farm depends on it to stay on Clear Web.

Film critics! Do better! Jabba The Hutts are being genocided by your bloody pens!


Someone has a "big head guy problem"






No idea:

---

Chris tries this again:


If Chris has to boost his Patreon, I suggest he interview trannies for their near death experiences under the claw of Kiwis.

 

[Adamska]

I explain it in the simplest way I know how: knee-jerk contrarianism. It's pretty much Bob's entire M.O.: find out the position of those he's ideologically opposed to, then take the exact opposite. They're evil, so their opinions are evil. Bobby is good, so he needs to take the good opinions. Invert evil position, and that must be Bob's. Doesn't matter if the "bad guys" actually have salient points or not, Bob can't be seen agreeing with chuds!

In this case, and many others like it, longtime fans of the property are the enemy because Bob's simple mind sees them as being reactionary mayo ghouls that are just mad about Diversity™ and secretly want to lynch all niggers and fags. So, despite their rational criticisms (a total disregard of the existing lore, bad pacing, cringeworthy dialogue, mediocre performances, and a dumb and boring plot), Bob must take the opposite stance in order to remain on the good side of those he wants to suck up to. Thus, an utter dismissal of their critique, an insistence that this is a fantasy story for children and thus doesn't matter, insistence on touching grass, and then blind praise that has just enough wiggle room for him to weasel out should the tides turn and even his side starts calling it bad.

Bob is the epitome of the modern consoomer. He's what every megacorp wants their entire audience to be: clapping seals that consume product and get excited for next product.

Yeah, he basically needs to create mental enemies in his head to avoid just fucking killing himself given how aware he is that his own life is complete shit. He also needs to reaffirm the delusions he gave himself of being smart and nerdy, hence why he desperately pretends he has a solid understanding of all sciences and of all fandoms.

It's also funny that despite his alleged degree in film studies that he'll either with complete dishonesty throw out whatever he learned from them to defend actual garbage. Or he proves that again he's a slow witted moron who constantly cried to mommy who lied to him about his intellect and never learned it.

Again, this was a guy who admitted he only bothered to try with school, and even then got middling grades, to get a SNES to stay the "cool kid" in his area since his abysmal and maladjusted social skills meant he could only bribe people with toys to be friends.

 

[Flexo]

@Koby_Fish

I was taught creative writing, but "hero's journey" was either only vaguely touched upon, neglected, or I forgot about what it was called. (Granted, I've been away from school longer than Bob, but he's gotten blackout drunk a few times so maybe that killed a few brain cells). HOWEVER, story structure was touched on, but I had a HUGE problem with "outlines" (autism I guess) and REFUSED to write a story that way, because how I conceive of stories doesn't rely on outlines at all and I considered it a massive waste of time. I simply know what I want to do, and write it as it goes, and thanks to watching plenty of TV, I 'channel' how a TV show would go and apply that to what I was writing.

Each writer should figure out their own process that helps them write. Heck I've known people I would caution against doing an outline because I know they would end up sinking all their time into the outline rather than actually writing.

HOWEVER, outlines are absolutely necessary if you're going to do some big project with multiple people involved (say... a major motion picture trilogy which you paid $4 bil for) and/or something like a major, multi-book epic where you need to keep a handle on several moving parts.

Constructing art is like constructing buildings - use the right tools for the job requirements.

As I've gotten older and this trend of lazy deconstruction and ideological subversion has continued to ruin just about everything I know and love, I find that my tastes skew more towards the simple and straightforward. A well-crafted story that plays all its tropes straight is way more entertaining than some hack fraud shitting out their daddy issues on screen for two hours. Bob can huff farts all day long for all I care, I'll continue to enjoy actual quality entertainment instead.

Ditto. Give me something that does the basics very, very well rather than trying to be clever all the time.

It's that whole "shortcutting" effort I've talked about before. Where people assume things work both ways. i.e. "The geniuses break all the rules, therefore if I don't follow any of the rules, I'll be a genius!"

This is why I've grown more tolerant of fan fiction in my old age. At least in some of those the writers are working out the basics.

 

[Koby_Fish]

@Koby_Fish

Each writer should figure out their own process that helps them write. Heck I've known people I would caution against doing an outline because I know they would end up sinking all their time into the outline rather than actually writing.

HOWEVER, outlines are absolutely necessary if you're going to do some big project with multiple people involved (say... a major motion picture trilogy which you paid $4 bil for) and/or something like a major, multi-book epic where you need to keep a handle on several moving parts.

Constructing art is like constructing buildings - use the right tools for the job requirements.


Ditto. Give me something that does the basics very, very well rather than trying to be clever all the time.

It's that whole "shortcutting" effort I've talked about before. Where people assume things work both ways. i.e. "The geniuses break all the rules, therefore if I don't follow any of the rules, I'll be a genius!"

This is why I've grown more tolerant of fan fiction in my old age. At least in some of those the writers are working out the basics.

I've noticed something about Bob in that, he never seems to condemn "Mary Sues". Now, a "Mary Sue" is about as anathema to "the Hero's Journey" as you can get. Much of that is probably explained by simping (HOW DARE you criticize Stronk Whamen CHaracteR! P.S. plz touch my peepee, whamen who love Strongk Whamen CharacteR), but the rest is based on this literary anarchy combined with deconstructionism and subversion. Bob doesn't believe that a character should work towards skills and goals; they should already have them right out of the womb away, like Superman. But even Superman undergoes Hero's Journey-type events.

Some needs to point out that Bob's favorite characters and stories Do Not Reals, anytime he complains about shit like say, who's going to voice Mario in the upcoming Super Mario movie. Hell, since Everything Fictional Do Not Reals, why the fuck was he bitching about Joker? It'S a FiCtiOnAL CHarActER, bOb. They can do with it whatever they like, because IT DOES NOT REALS. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[Flexo]

This offends me so much as both a Tolkien fan and someone who's been recently diving into archeology and old testament stuff I have to do a double post.

I mean, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its OT, just to give you a small taste of how wrong Bob is going to be.

Spoiler: extreme spergery

First of all, the antediluvian-giant thing is more a deal of modern rendition than what the people back then would have read it. I mean... they did see the ancients as "great men of renown" and have this trope about "precursor tech" but the people wouldn't imagine tech like we might. Look, if you want to really dive into it, listen to this: https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/land_of_giants

Second, this is such a hilarious misunderstanding of the Simiril that it loops back around to enraging. ESPECIALLY as Bob tries to pass himself as some knowledgeable geek. The prequel book (which I'm going to refer to as S because it's too hard to spell) is so obviously laid out by a Christian writer you can almost match sections 1 to 1 from it to the Bible. Like the opening chapter about the song of creation - obviously Genesis 1. You even have the figures in a garden who later get expelled.

Following that is the old testament period - or rather the first age which maps pretty obviously to Joshua, Judges, and the annals of the kings of Israel. This whole bit that Amazon is doing? That's all from the SECOND age. Which - again if you're paying attention - is more like Middle Earth's new testament.

Remember how I said before Bob is blue-curtain retarded? His brain just does this "matching" thing? Here you can see it again because he brings up "antediluvian" stuff. Well antediluvian would be early genesis, that which predates even Abraham. How can you say the SECOND AGE of middle earth is antediluvian? Well because the second age is ended by the sinking of Numenor. Flood in middle earth == flood in the Bible, see? Never mind that the sinking of Numenor was LOCAL and not a GLOBAL flood. If you want to maintain the parallels, it would be more akin to the sacking of the second temple and destruction of Jerusalem which is not explicitly mentioned, but understood to kind of be the "end" of the New Testament.

What makes it even dumber? Bringing this all back around to the aforementioned podcast, the nephilim were humans conceived of by pagan ritual where the "god" (or demonic spirit in the jewish/christian POV) would bond with a host the time. Thus, "antediluvian" time would be the period where Satan and his homies are literally on earth making demonic servants. You know what period of time in Middle Earth was LITERAL Satan walking about and fighting elves and humans? THE FIRST AGE. Sauron and stuff? The bad guy in this series. You know, the SECOND age? He's just a lower servant of the ME Satan. Just like how in second temple literature there was a belief that the demonic spirits mentioned in the gospels were the ghosts of those ancient nephilim left to haunt the earth. Again, not Satan, but those who has served him in the past.

This is what I'm on about! The more you know of BOTH the Bible and Middle Earth, the more Tolkien's inspirations and the parallels are super obvious. (Making Hobbit & LotR like the legends of King Arthur - post biblical stories.) But Bob here is so dumb he just runs half-assed over popular hollywood interpretations of this shit instead of digging down into the truth and original sources. Hence why he comes off even dumber than usual!

Also I await to be corrected by @Mola Ram and @A Very Big Fish who I think know Tolkien even better than I do. I certainly know which one knows more about pagan rituals.

Now you bring CS Lewis into it??? GET THE NAMES OF THESE GREAT MEN OUT OF YOUR FILTHY MOUTH!

willSmithSlap.gif

CS Lewis taught himself foreign languages to read his favorite works in their original language (it was one of the things he bonded with Tolkien over). He would MAYBE tolerate RoP as an original piece assuming he had any tolerance for TV (which I doubt). But to say he would dig a bastardization of an original? Especially his good friend?

Fuck off, Bob.

 

[Koby_Fish]

r

View attachment 3684004

This offends me so much as both a Tolkien fan and someone who's been recently diving into archeology and old testament stuff I have to do a double post.

I mean, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes the Book of Enoch in its OT, just to give you a small taste of how wrong Bob is going to be.

Spoiler: extreme spergery

First of all, the antediluvian-giant thing is more a deal of modern rendition than what the people back then would have read it. I mean... they did see the ancients as "great men of renown" and have this trope about "precursor tech" but the people wouldn't imagine tech like we might. Look, if you want to really dive into it, listen to this: https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/land_of_giants

Second, this is such a hilarious misunderstanding of the Simiril that it loops back around to enraging. ESPECIALLY as Bob tries to pass himself as some knowledgeable geek. The prequel book (which I'm going to refer to as S because it's too hard to spell) is so obviously laid out by a Christian writer you can almost match sections 1 to 1 from it to the Bible. Like the opening chapter about the song of creation - obviously Genesis 1. You even have the figures in a garden who later get expelled.

Following that is the old testament period - or rather the first age which maps pretty obviously to Joshua, Judges, and the annals of the kings of Israel. This whole bit that Amazon is doing? That's all from the SECOND age. Which - again if you're paying attention - is more like Middle Earth's new testament.

Remember how I said before Bob is blue-curtain retarded? His brain just does this "matching" thing? Here you can see it again because he brings up "antediluvian" stuff. Well antediluvian would be early genesis, that which predates even Abraham. How can you say the SECOND AGE of middle earth is antediluvian? Well because the second age is ended by the sinking of Numenor. Flood in middle earth == flood in the Bible, see? Never mind that the sinking of Numenor was LOCAL and not a GLOBAL flood. If you want to maintain the parallels, it would be more akin to the sacking of the second temple and destruction of Jerusalem which is not explicitly mentioned, but understood to kind of be the "end" of the New Testament.

What makes it even dumber? Bringing this all back around to the aforementioned podcast, the nephilim were humans conceived of by pagan ritual where the "god" (or demonic spirit in the jewish/christian POV) would bond with a host the time. Thus, "antediluvian" time would be the period where Satan and his homies are literally on earth making demonic servants. You know what period of time in Middle Earth was LITERAL Satan walking about and fighting elves and humans? THE FIRST AGE. Sauron and stuff? The bad guy in this series. You know, the SECOND age? He's just a lower servant of the ME Satan. Just like how in second temple literature there was a belief that the demonic spirits mentioned in the gospels were the ghosts of those ancient nephilim left to haunt the earth. Again, not Satan, but those who has served him in the past.

This is what I'm on about! The more you know of BOTH the Bible and Middle Earth, the more Tolkien's inspirations and the parallels are super obvious. (Making Hobbit & LotR like the legends of King Arthur - post biblical stories.) But Bob here is so dumb he just runs half-assed over popular hollywood interpretations of this shit instead of digging down into the truth and original sources. Hence why he comes off even dumber than usual!

Also I await to be corrected by @Mola Ram and @A Very Big Fish who I think know Tolkien even better than I do. I certainly know which one knows more about pagan rituals.

View attachment 3684007

Now you bring CS Lewis into it??? GET THE NAMES OF THESE GREAT MEN OUT OF YOUR FILTHY MOUTH!

willSmithSlap.gif

CS Lewis taught himself foreign languages to read his favorite works in their original language (it was one of the things he bonded with Tolkien over). He would MAYBE tolerate RoP as an original piece assuming he had any tolerance for TV (which I doubt). But to say he would dig a bastardization of an original? Especially his good friend?

Fuck off, Bob.

rejoice, for I coincidentally saved you from double-posting

Bob's surface-level, primarily wikipedia-skimmed knowledge is very evident here. Figures he can't even get his parallels and allegories straight. The blue curtains are strong with this one. A steady diet of crayons isn't exactly conducive to brain development. It's also very clear that Bob has no idea what blasphemy actually is.

I wonder who the "Jack" is that Bob references here? Peter Jackson? Bob OTP partner Jack Packard? Or someone else?

Also, Bob, something something touch grass. ALL THE GRASS. NOW.

 

[Flexo]

I wonder who the "Jack" is that Bob references here? Peter Jackson? Bob OTP partner Jack Packard? Or someone else?

That's what I was explaining right after. Jack was the name CS Lewis was known by to his friends and family. I would bet you a thousand dollars donated to NULL that is who moviebob is referring to because it's one of those "second level" trivia facts (not super common knowledge, but easy enough to find or reference) that he would use to make himself sound more knowledgeable.

It seems on the internet there has become this meme from Father Christmas in Narnia that somehow Lewis was more lax and accepting in his fantasy stories than Tolkien was. That both of them might have enjoyed George MacDonald (though yes, Lewis was the much, MUCH bigger fanboy) escapes a lot of people.

And yes, MacDonald's fantasies can be VERY trippy. But that's another sperg for another time. (his stuff is all public domain now though, so you can read them any time you want)

EDIT: Oh boy!

072 - “What is Heat?” and Other Hot Takes from “The Rings of Power” - Amon Sûl | Ancient Faith Ministries

Fresh from watching the first two episodes of the new Amazon Tolkien series “The Rings of Power,” Fr. Andrew and Richard give their initial impressions – what they liked, what they didn’t like, and that haunting, uncomfortable feeling Richard has that there is a lot of acne in Amazon’s...

www.ancientfaith.com

Fresh from watching the first two episodes of the new Amazon Tolkien series “The Rings of Power,” Fr. Andrew and Richard give their initial impressions – what they liked, what they didn’t like, and that haunting, uncomfortable feeling Richard has that there is a lot of acne in Amazon’s Middle-earth. Spoilers included!

 

[Koby_Fish]

That's what I was explaining right after. Jack was the name CS Lewis was known by to his friends and family. I would bet you a thousand dollars donated to NULL that is who moviebob is referring to because it's one of those "second level" trivia facts (not super common knowledge, but easy enough to find or reference) that he would use to make himself sound more knowledgeable.

It seems on the internet there has become this meme from Father Christmas in Narnia that somehow Lewis was more lax and accepting in his fantasy stories than Tolkien was. That both of them might have enjoyed George MacDonald (though yes, Lewis was the much, MUCH bigger fanboy) escapes a lot of people.

And yes, MacDonald's fantasies can be VERY trippy. But that's another sperg for another time. (his stuff is all public domain now though, so you can read them any time you want)

EDIT: Oh boy!

072 - “What is Heat?” and Other Hot Takes from “The Rings of Power” - Amon Sûl | Ancient Faith Ministries

Fresh from watching the first two episodes of the new Amazon Tolkien series “The Rings of Power,” Fr. Andrew and Richard give their initial impressions – what they liked, what they didn’t like, and that haunting, uncomfortable feeling Richard has that there is a lot of acne in Amazon’s...

www.ancientfaith.com

Ah, ok, I wasn't sure. Cuz it's early and I haven't had my caffeine yet.

Oh yeah, I have 2 George MacDonald books. The Princess and the Goblin, and The Princess and Curdie. I doubt Bob knows these books.

Spoiler: George MacDonald Sperging

Of the two, I vastly prefer The Princess and the Goblin. The secret infinitely great-grandmother at the top of the special staircase and her amazing magical room; the forays into various places including the underground dwellings of the Goblins, and the Goblins' eventual defeat (STOMP ON THEIR FEET!), were all very thrilling. By contrast, The Princess and Curdie was lacking. It had an adventure and even mentioned the old grandmother, but it just wasn't as compelling as the first book. Then it came to a rather disappointing conclusion: The Princess and Curdie got married but couldn't have any kids, and thus the kingdom eventually collapses. I mean sure, this might be a simple, straightforward way to tie up loose ends so that the reader knows no sequels are forthcoming, but man, what a complete downer of an ending.

 

[Flexo]

Ah, ok, I wasn't sure. Cuz it's early and I haven't had my caffeine yet.

Oh yeah, I have 2 George MacDonald books. The Princess and the Goblin, and The Princess and Curdie. I doubt Bob knows these books.

Spoiler: George MacDonald Sperging

Of the two, I vastly prefer The Princess and the Goblin. The secret infinitely great-grandmother at the top of the special staircase and her amazing magical room; the forays into various places including the underground dwellings of the Goblins, and the Goblins' eventual defeat (STOMP ON THEIR FEET!), were all very thrilling. By contrast, The Princess and Curdie was lacking. It had an adventure and even mentioned the old grandmother, but it just wasn't as compelling as the first book. Then it came to a rather disappointing conclusion: The Princess and Curdie got married but couldn't have any kids, and thus the kingdom eventually collapses. I mean sure, this might be a simple, straightforward way to tie up loose ends so that the reader knows no sequels are forthcoming, but man, what a complete downer of an ending.

And that's his most straightforward stuff.

I have Lilith and read it. I'm still not sure I could tell you what it was about. And if I could, I'm not sure I would spoil it for you or not come off like a crazy man.

He's like literature David Lynch but I kind of feel like I'm insulting both men by the comparison.

I'll just say that as someone who despises what one might call "absurdist" or weird art (not Lynch but his poor imitators), I actually do like the guy's work and keep meaning to read more.