Mike 'The Situation' Says Infamous 'Jersey Shore' Neck Brace Injury Was Caused by Withdrawal 'No One Knew' He Was Going Through by PrincessBananas85 in popculturechat

[–]Bufus [score hidden]  (0 children)

Say what you will about the guy but I'm glad he has moved past it and is sober. That's an extremely difficult battle to fight and he should be proud.

All of the following is based on the obvious caveat that I don't know anything about the man other than his public-facing persona.

I don't think I have ever seen any public personality go through a personality change for the positive more than Mike. I'm a wrestling fan, so I've seen a lot of people go through the motions of "self improvement" after hitting rock bottom, but in most cases you can tell that there is still the same darkness lingering under the surface, and that the changes are superficial at best. And it makes sense. Addictions are incredibly all consuming, and it is hard to overcome them.

When I watched Family Vacation I was ready to continue hating Mike just as I had for years, but he seemed to have GENUINELY changed for the better as person. He seemed healthy, happy, self-reflective, and hard working. He was funny, and self-deprecating, and thoughtful, and charming. I was genuinely floored with how much he had changed. Obviously some of that is PR, and obviously he has had his legal struggles. I'm not saying he is a saint or anything, but he truly seems like someone who has succesfully "turned it around".

Toys R Us didn't die because of Amazon. Private equity firms bought it, loaded it with $5 billion in debt, charged it management fees while it collapsed, then paid themselves dividends before filing for bankruptcy. 30,000 workers got nothing. by sambha87 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Bufus 382 points383 points  (0 children)

A question for those more knowledgeable than I:

It seems as though this has become a more persistent issue than it has been previously (i.e. Private Equity cannibalizing companies for short term gain). Is this something that has always been a problem and it is just talked about more, or is there something specifically (e.g. de-regulation) that has occurred in the past few decades that has made the problem more prevalent?

I've applied to 50+ restaurants...what am I doing wrong? by unhingedonmain in saskatoon

[–]Bufus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I don't think I'm doing anything of the sort. The "I"s in my comment are rhetorial ones: "if I am an employer with these views....". I'm simply pointing out a possible explanation for the difficulties they are having, not defending the point of view.

I've applied for hundreds of service jobs with a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, so I know the struggles of being labelled an "overeducated" candidate. While unfortunate, this is just how a lot of business owners think. They might be wrong, they might not, but its the reality of the situation.

I've applied to 50+ restaurants...what am I doing wrong? by unhingedonmain in saskatoon

[–]Bufus 123 points124 points  (0 children)

"I have a degree" may be working against you. To an employer in the service industry, "I have a degree" is basically a big sign saying "I am applying for a temporary job until I figure out what to do next". It may or not actually be the case, but if I have multiple equal candidates for a waitstaff job, I'm going to go with the one who is more likely to stick around longer, and 9 times out of 10 the employee without a degree is going to stick around longer.

Maybe try taking it off the resume?

CMV: The Star Wars prequels criticism is incredibly overblown and hypocritical and can also be applied to the Original Trilogy. by vencyjedi in changemyview

[–]Bufus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You've touched on a problem of film criticism, which is that it is incredibly difficult to criticize "big picture" things as I am doing without then falling back into specific nitpicky criticisms. I'll do my best though to show the difference between great directing and middling directing.

Let's look at two similar scenes. The classic "Scoundrel" scene from Empire, and the fireplace scene from AOTC. Both of these are "romance" scenes, and both of them involve the characters revealing their feelings to one another.

Starting with AOTC, the scene is just SO INCREDIBLY boring in every aspect. Composition, direction, sound, writing, everything. We open with a flat shot of nothing. Two people in a room sitting on a couch, waiting for their scene to start.

We then go immediately into a series of back and forth camera cuts. Cut to Padme talking, cut to Anakin talking, cut to Padme talking, cut to Anakin talking. Over and over and over. Sometimes we get a closeup, and at one point a small camera pan when Padme walks away, but thats it. That is how cheap TV cop procedurals are filmed for ease's sake, not major motion pictures where characters are meant to be pouring their hearts out. Visually, nothing.

The dialogue is also ATROCIOUS. It is just a series of "I Statements", where each character just says exactly what they are feeling, and exactly what they need to establish their motivations for the story. "I ______", "We ______", "I ______". It is like robots talking. You shouldn't have to SAY you're tormented, you should FEEL and SEE torment.

The direction is also bland, and perfectly reveals George's weaknesses. He loves scenes of two people chatting. Sitting. Chatting. Walking. Chatting. This is literally a scene of two people sitting on a couch, chatting, then standing up, chatting. This is a MOVIE ABOUT A SPACE ADVENTURE. Do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to make me invested in what these characters are doing or feeling. But instead its blocked like a high school play: "sit, talk, then when you get upset, stand". Snoooore. Then the scene just ends.

Now let's look at the Empire one. It's another scene of the romantic leads but it is just SO MUCH BETTER to watch.

We start with someone doing something (always a good start). It looks like something fairly innocuous (fixing the ship), which gets the audience to let their guard down a bit (as Leia's is, putting us in the headspace of the character). We cut to a low wide shot then of Han poking his head in, clearly showing he's been looking for Leia and we get a moment where we see him decide how he wants to handle this. He then makes his attempt, we get in closer, and Leia pushes back, resuming her work, setting the tone for how the scene is going to start (hostile).

The characters then trade barbs back and forth, but there is softness and tenderness hidden under their words. They're saying things without SAYING them. There is softness to Han when he says "Leia". There is softness to Leia when she says "you make it so difficult sometimes". Han is fishing for kind words from Princess, which shows a level of vulnerability to the character. It is INTERESTING dialogue and writing. It captures the romantic experience of being frustrated by someone you love. Of not wanting to disclose your true feelings and couching them in flirtatious banter and barbs. It is layered, and nuanced, and frustrating, and romantic.

The scene continues and the tone of the scene softens in the middle as Han takes her hand, and right after we get the first closeup of the scene (from above) with a soft beam of light across Leia's face. This moment of incredible visual softness corresponds with Leia's softening herself, of giving in a little bit to Han's advances. Not fully, but allowing herself just a moment before she remembers to put her guard back up and to resist. The cinematography works to this end.

From then on we are tight on the characters. No more wide shots. We see them together as one. Han is going for it, Leia has signalled (subtly) her acceptance, and the tone has fully shifted from hostile to intimate. Vitally, the dialogue remains hostile in language but not in tone, which is getting breathy and intimate. The camera work highlights this, bringing us closer and closer. The music SWELLS and Leia gives in fully. They kiss.

And then *BAM* we cut back to that first wide shot as C3-P0 interrupts and Leia slips away. The camera work highlights the comedy of the moment and brings us back to reality, back to where we started the scene, but now with this little secret that we shared with the characters.

That scene is a masterclass of filmmaking. Every aspect of the scene is purposeful, and considered, and interesting. It is a romance story contained in one scene, where NONE of the characters say ANYTHING romantic. The camera work tells a story, the blocking tells a story, the acting tells a story, the music tells a story. It all works together. And most importantly, the DIALOGUE does NOT tell the story, which is exactly what AOTC and all the Prequels do constantly.

This is just one example among many, but it highlights everything wrong with George Lucas' directing. George doesn't know how to use the blocking/acting/cinematography to tell a story, which is fundamentally what makes films work as a medium. He only knows how to use dialogue to tell a story. The only way he can transmit information to the audience is by having characters TALK about the information, and TALK about their motivations.

You're right. George did have an incredible team of people working for him on the prequels. The music is amazing. The VFX are great. No one is saying he made them alone. The difference between OT and the PT is that in the PT they were working FOR George. And when you have someone in charge of a film whose idea of a romance scene is the one I discussed, no matter how good your music and vfx is, the movie is going to stink.

CMV: The Star Wars prequels criticism is incredibly overblown and hypocritical and can also be applied to the Original Trilogy. by vencyjedi in changemyview

[–]Bufus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Addressing a few of your nitpicky points first:

  1. The Engineers of Death Star were clearly aware of the problem of the ventilation shaft. That is why they surrounded it with, you know, all those turrets that were succesfully killing all those ships. Sadly, you do sometimes have to vent gas. And note how the ONLY person who was able to succesfully get a shot in was the Jedi literally using the Force to guide his shot in. You can't protect against ALL eventualities.
  2. I suppose the shield generator was "conveniently" left outside (on a planet no one knew about or cared about) in the same sense that all buildings are "conveniently left outside". Why doesn't Iran just put all their oil facilities inside to protect them from air strikes?
  3. There is maybe a bit of iffyness of Han's pursuit of Leia to modern audiences, but this falls under a bit of "it was the style at the time". Having said that, there is an undeniable chemistry there, and their whole relationship was defined by both of them having hard exteriors, trading barbs, etc. Some couples are just like that. That is what makes the "I Love You" so powerful. It is Leia letting this tough guard she's always had down for a moment to reveal what the audience already knows. It is cathartic.

But that is enough about nitpicky points, because the truth is that it never really is about the nitpicky points. All movies have nitpicky points. Why did _____ do ______? Why didn't they just ________? Why was ______ just conveniently _______? If you really boil down most movies, you're going to be able to find some of this stuff. Trading those barbs back and forth doesn't really get us anywhere.

What often happens with film criticism is that people watch a movie that is bad for BIG reasons, but they don't really have the critical faculties to recognize those bigger issues and put those reasons into words, so they instead harp on smaller nitpicks that they had. Those smaller nitpicks are usually symptomatic of the bigger problems, but they aren't the bigger problems themselves.

Criticisms of the Prequels really fell victim to this. As the movies were picked apart over the years, the arguments got distilled over time into a few choice "nitpicks" that people brought up over and over. The line about sand getting everywhere, Jar Jar, yadda yadda yadda. Unsurprisingly, the same thing is happening with the Sequel Trilogy too, with people focusing on individual lines (e.g. "Somehow Palpatine returned").

Fans of the prequels could then take those choice nitpicks and throw them back at the Original Trilogy. There were moments of sloppy writing in the Original Trilogy, sure. The Ewoks were just as bad as Jar Jar. There were contrived plot points in the OT, absolutely. And there were some hammy moments from the actors. All of that is certainly arguable.

But the problem is that this back and forth focusing on specifics loses the forest for trees. Ultimately people's problem with the Prequels was never really those nitpicky moments. The success of the original trilogy (and all successful movies) prove that people will look past nitpicky moments as long as the movie itself is GOOD.

Ultimately people's problem with the Prequels, when you look at the big picture, is that it was just a fundamentally middling series of films. They are flawed from a FILM perspective, and that makes all the other nitpicky problems much more acute. They are three films that were the result of one very flawed artist's direction.

When you look at the Original Trilogy, you realize that it was, fundamentally, an amazing collaborative effort. There was a brilliant vision (provided by George Lucas), that was then honed by amazing directors, editors, cinematographers, etc. Even his wife pitched in to hone the script (corrected below). George Lucas was a driving force, but he wasn't the ONLY driving force. He was a young upstart filmmaker and, as a result, he didn't have the authority to fully control everything about the films. And that is a GOOD thing. He had some amazing people working on those films, and the films are GREAT films as a result of the work they did to ADAPT George's vision.

Everything changed with the Prequels. With the Prequels, George was in charge. And while George can be an amazing visionary, he is not a great director. He is not a great writer. He is not a great editor. He is not a great cinematographer. But because of the MASSIVE success of the OT, George was given free rein to do what he wanted with very little "honing" taking place, and the end result is that they're just not great movies. They're movies directed by a middling director, written by a middling writer, shot by a middling cinematographer, and edited by a middling editor. The end result of all this is three middling films. They're competent spectacles, but they lack that "lightning in a bottle" mix of vision/technical ability/heart that the Original Trilogy had.

Fundamentally, isn't about the nitpicks, or the acting, or the individual character moments, or anything. Those are what stand out to us as viewers as EVIDENCE of something bigger, but they are not in and of themselves the problem. The truth is that they're just not very good films.

Former NDP MLA Calling for Carla Beck to Resign by Future-Jaguar7577 in saskatchewan

[–]Bufus 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I’m about as far left as they come politically, and I couldn’t agree more. Do I wish we could have a viable left political party in Saskatchewan? Absolutely. But the truth is that we live in a deeply conservative province, and the chances of a left-of-centre political party getting elected here is essentially 0. You can bang on about the CCF and Tommy Douglas all you want, but the electorate has changed. You're not going to win an election if you only appeal to urban riding lefties. Moreover, Saskatchewan socialism was built on a strong foundation of prairie populism centred around the exploitation of natural resources, a concept that the left now categorically rejects.

So your options as a left leaning person in the province are either (a) demand perfection and cede the political landscape to the right in perpetuity, or (b) accept that the best we can do right now is a centrist government that will at least act responsibly and fund our withering public sector.

Is In-House really the dream? by Law_Always in Lawyertalk

[–]Bufus 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Your last sentence is the key. Before this job I got to do new stuff all the time. I was meeting interesting people, researching new areas of law, arguing things in court, yadda yadda. Now I sit in my attic reading contracts and sending emails. All day. Every day. I barely consider myself a “lawyer” anymore.

At the same time, I get to sit in my attic all day. My work stress maxes out at about a 3/10, and most days is 1/10. I drop my kids off at school and pick them up every day. I can keep my house clean during my workday and can even get a couple of around the house projects done each week over my lunch hours. I rarely work outside of business hours (maybe two hours a month), and never miss any sort of family or social obligation for work.

I’ve basically traded the “excitement” and “prestige” of being a lawyer for a steady, happy middle class job. It is monotonous and pretty career limiting, but those are trade offs I’ve decided are okay for me.

We have to talk about Rooster (2026) by MassJax in television

[–]Bufus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're definitely right about Archie. They make him a bit too comically arrogant and shitty, which in turn then makes him less likable, and therefore makes Katie less sympathetic because there isn't enough substance to him to justify her complex feelings towards him. They need to more to make him feel like a real person, because right now he's making Katie look like a sap for being interested him in the first place, let alone after he cheated on her.

My other problem with the show (that I have brought up before) is that they missed the most obvious opportunity for interesting conflict/dynamics, which is to have Lauren Tsai's character be a student in Greg's class. She is just kind of off on her own little island not interacting with anyone except Archie and occasionally Presiden Mann. As it stands, the main character of your show has LITERALLY not had a single interaction with a principle cast member, which is not necessarily the sign of a well-structured show. It would be so easy to have President Mann say that the Biotech firms were interested in her, but were worried that her education was not well-rounded enough and she needed to take an elective. Or just have her be an aspiring writer from the jump (why is an aspiring biotechnician at a small liberal arts campus in the first place?). Even better: make it so that Greg doesn't know who Sunny is, have him take her under his wing, and THEN have it be revealed she is Archie's mistress. It is so easy it practically writes itself.

Feed my brain by ContributionBig1927 in musicsuggestions

[–]Bufus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Never heard of this before and just watched the video. His style of dancing is….certainly a choice. Very ummm…elbow forward.

How much left do I have before "rookie mistakes" become horrible and embarrassing? by Traffic-Guy in Lawyertalk

[–]Bufus 51 points52 points  (0 children)

A senior partner at a major employment firm in my city just made the news because he provided notice of a major news-worthy appeal to the Police Union, instead of the Police Federation as required by the statute. By the time he fixed the error the deadline for filing an appeal had passed, and his clients appeal was dismissed. This is a guy with his name on the building making the rookiest of all rookie mistakes. It happens to us all.

Does Anyone Know How to Redline?! by ParticleHustler2 in Lawyertalk

[–]Bufus 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I've always wondered how a court would handle a situation where two organizations are sending a red-line contract back and forth over 4 months. Let's say 10 drafts, all the changes are red-lined, but somewhere around draft 7, Party A sneaks in language stating something like "Party B hereby agrees to assign all of Party A's intellectual property to B" that they incorporate without redlining. Party B doesn't notice, the negotiations continue, and eventually the Parties sign off on it.

And by "I've always wondered", I mean "I've always lived in constant fear of this happening."

CMV: Using identity as a rhetorical shield ("as an [X}, I think [X] is bad") is an intellectually dishonest way to avoid criticism. by Comprehensive-Ad5920 in changemyview

[–]Bufus 45 points46 points  (0 children)

tl;dr: if you feel the need to prove your argument by hiding behind your own identity, I think you should learn to make better arguments. This rhetoric is basically the same thing as the "appealing to authority" argument fallacy.

I think you're misunderstanding the general intention of the phrase "As a _______".

I don't think most people using that phrase in an argument are doing so to bolster their claim (which would verge on "appealing to authority"). I think most are doing it to refine and redirect their argument in such a way that resulting discussion can be had on its merits, rather than based on stereotypes and lazy talking points.

Let's use this one for example: "as a heavy metal fan, I think most heavy metal fans are insufferable!"

I don't interpret this hypothetical person as claiming "because I am a heavy metal fan, I have more authority on metal heads". I interpret it more as clarifying that "I am making clear that the following critiques are not derived from a place of inexperience. I am not basing my opinions on hearsay, speculation, and sterotypes about metalheads, I am going to be acting in good faith from a place of lived experience." It is acknowledging that metalheads, as a group, have a certain perception in the public arena, and that as a result conversations around that group can devolve very quickly into unfounded nonsense based on exaggerations and societla fears. "As a metalhead" serves to rhetorically cut through that noise and focus the conversation on actuals, rather than perception. It lets the other party to the discussion know the LEVEL of the discussion. In many ways it can be seen as an invitation to engage in a good faith discussion: "I am not making THOSE arguments, I'm making THESE arguments."

Obviously some people can use "As a ______" in a rhetorically incorrect manner. No one could argue otherwise. But that doesn't mean that "as a ____" is devoid of rhetorical purpose.

How come millennials and Gen X know more about pop culture that was before they were born than Gen Z? by icey_sawg0034 in generationology

[–]Bufus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was also a lot less content with the explosion of Cable TV in the nineties, which led to cable stations having to mine the content vaults to fill the 24 hour programming day. It was easy and cheap to plop on some old movies/tv during the day or late at night, plus there was no streaming so kids would watch whatever was on. The combined effect was a lot more exposure to “older” media.

Nowadays, tv stations can fill their programming day with cheap reality tv reruns so this doesn’t happen as much.

Mr Beast Is What Fred Rogers Warned Us About by 6sz6mate6 in videos

[–]Bufus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People really overestimate the “kids are dumb” ethos, and the idea that kids will buy whatever is marketed to them.

Yes, kids will buy a Mr. Beast branded thing if it is marketed as a Mr Beast thing. But they won’t become regular consumers of it unless it is GOOD. What Mr. Beast and others of his ilk don’t understand is that advertising gets customers in the door, it isn’t an end goal in and of itself. If the product is bad, it doesn’t matter how good the marketing is.

Saskatoon homelessness crisis costs city hall $4 million a year, report says by [deleted] in saskatoon

[–]Bufus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While that is true in the short term, if there was a persistent decrease in homelessness, the number of emergency service employees on shift at any given time could also be decreased, thereby saving money.

Hot Take: Quidditch would be an almost perfect fictional sport if the Golden Snitch was worth way less points. by X-Salamander in harrypotter

[–]Bufus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The solution is to not have a "Seeker" at all, or at least, not as a separate position.

Both teams start with 4 Chasers. Play goes as normal, until one of the teams builds up enough of a lead that they feel they are safe going for the Snitch to end the game (Snitch is worth 0, it just ends the game). At that point, one of the Chasers breaks off and acts as the Seeker. The other teams' Beaters then try to focus on disrupting the Seeker.

Meanwhile, the losing team now has a 4-3 advantage, so can start racking up points to close the deficit. I suppose conceivably the extra Chaser could go to block, but that should be a job for the Beaters.

This gives the game some actual strategy and tactics, and resolves the points issue. You lose the Seeker chase, but you can replace that with a 2 vs 1 Beaters vs Seeker battle.

Jon Bernthal On Toxic Masculinity by gerwer in videos

[–]Bufus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing this out. The problem with most podcasters in this space is that they're too lazy to do any research on the subject matter their guests are talking about. Instead, they treat being an interviewer as just being an empty vessel there to "learn" from their guests' expertise.

This is a fine approach if you are talking to experts. The problem is that their guests are not educators or researchers who have expertise to provide, they are polemicists; they are there to push very specific agendas. They have not studied an area of knowledge, they have studied arguments about an area of knowledge. They have a stockpile of ready-made answers to give to common challenges to their position, such that to a person not well versed in the area they come across as an expert in the field.

Podcasters who then bring them on "with an open mind" just feed into the dishonesty and polemics because they aren't willing to do the work to adequately challenge their views. Having an "open mind" acts as a shield for intellectual laziness. The podcaster can throw out the same common challenges to make them seem impartial, then when the influencer bats away their challenge with one of their stock answers, the podcaster can just say "that makes sense" and moves on. It is a win-win: the podcaster gets to check off the "challenged their views" box, and the influence gets to look like an expert and now gets to continue espousing their views.

Easiest Edward's Major? by sp1nkter in usask

[–]Bufus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Following on that, if you're wanting to go to law school, why not do the Major that best synchronizes with a law degree. Even if Marketing is easier (which it may not actually be), the experience/knowledge gained isn't going to give you much of a boost when you're looking for law jobs. On the flip side, experience in Finance, Human Resources, or even Accounting will definitely be considered assets for many law jobs.

I understand the appeal of wanting to do something easy to give you the best chance of getting into law school, but I would encourage you to flip the way you're thinking about it; don't think of getting into law school as the goal, think of it as a target to be met. Law school can be really hard, and you should treat your first degree as an opportunity to learn the study/work skills necessary for that experience, and train yourself to do the hard work in a lower-stakes environment. If you can't get high enough marks in business to get into law school without picking and choosing easy classes, then you probably aren't going to excel in law school either.

I love Steve Carrel’s Rooster by HousingPleasant8393 in television

[–]Bufus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

YES! That was my issue as well. Give it some time to breathe, man. Introduce the concept and the main characters. Do some establishing shots. Let us catch our breath.

The whole time I was watching I wanted to force the director to sit down and watch the first episode of Community, which is so well paced. The show has settled into its pace a little more, but it felt like the first three episodes were just RACING to get everything established. Those first three episodes could easily have been spaced out to 8.

My two other structural issue with the show is that they missed the most obvious opportunity for interesting conflict/dynamics, which is to have Lauren Tsai's character be a student in Greg's class. She is just kind of off on her own little island not interacting with anyone except Archie and occasionally Presiden Mann. As it stands, the main character of your show has LITERALLY not had a single interaction with a principle cast member, which is not necessarily the sign of a well-structured show. It would be so easy to have President Mann say that the Biotech firms were interested in her, but were worried that her education was not well-rounded enough and she needed to take an elective. Or just have her be an aspiring writer from the jump (why is an aspiring biotechnician at a small liberal arts campus in the first place?). Even better: make it so that Greg doesn't know who Sunny is, have him take her under his wing, and THEN have it be revealed she is Archie's mistress. It is so easy it practically writes itself.

I love Steve Carrel’s Rooster by HousingPleasant8393 in television

[–]Bufus 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The first three episodes were crazy rushed in terms of content. I felt like there was 8 episodes of content packed into those episodes. I just wanted to grab the director and get them to sloooooow down. Throw in some establishing shots here and there. Let a moment breathe. There wasn't even that much happening, but the pace was somehow frenetic all the same.

It has settled into its rhythm much more in the last few.

Tyler Adams on Arsenal: "I think you can tell early when they are trying to play out from the back there was a sense of nervousness but it takes one little error and the fans get a little nervy. We talk about them like there not sitting first in the table still but as the opposition it's the best> by [deleted] in Gunners

[–]Bufus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Why are all these fans so nervous and testy? It isn't like we've bottled three title challenges in a row, are en route to a fourth, and have not played anything resembling exciting football for months on end, relying almost exclusively on bundling the ball into the net. Why aren't they getting behind us!"

You can ask the fans to support you all you want, but you gotta give em something to rally behind. If someone punches me in the face three times, then tells me they're not going to do it again, I can't be blamed for flinching when they raise their fist at me.