HunterTech

While John Ottman has denied using Lifeforce as the basis of his X-Men theme (down to even outright saying that it wasn't in the temp), I do wonder if he has anything to say about this particular similarity:
 
 

I can certainly believe it being a coincidence, given the shared elements are essentially just the back beat of both tracks, but I can't help but wonder given how successful RFAD would've been.

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

I mean, I don't think the rules specifically forbid anyone from quietly discussing personal COVID-19 matters. Just the ones where things can easily spiral out of control, really.

(Also, I'm sure you could just easily message the peeps you care most about.)

Thing is: there have been bans issued over some of these matters (even recently). It's just that prior to today, there wasn't a solid way for people to know that information. Me personally, I figured some people simply decided to take their time off after a particularly heated discussion, instead of simply having a time out. And given that people would always come back like if nothing happened, it almost felt like it did absolutely nothing.
 
It was tolerated because as Jay mentioned, he's not always privy to the context and ideas that certain topics present. It's only thanks to recent events that there has been more of a discussion made over what the line actually should be, given it was affecting the engagement of several users. The implemention of the current rules may be a bit spotty so far, but it's questions like these that help our mods in charge figure out what the best courses of action to take are.
 

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

Since yesterday was the day when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 released back in 2014, I decided to give the complete score a listen to commemorate a movie that I don't hate in spite of being such an obvious corporate product.

What continues to impress me about the score is how little it feels like a standard Zimmer effort in a lot of areas. Things like the Osborn material give way to some of his normal characteristics, but it otherwise fully embraces the collaborative nature that it advertises itself as. There's enough variety to where even if you don't like the overall result, there's likely parts that stick with you. In a lot of ways, prior to WW84, TASM2 seems like HZ's attempt to try and make his own spin on a classic superhero score, with prior and subsequent capeshit scores playing more to his regular sensibilities.

I've only heard the OST one or two times in total, but it's not a bad presentation of the score. It's still ultimately missing a few cues that help form the character of the music, and some of the versions of the tracks that are on there pale compared to the ones in the leak. It doesn't help that it's not a particularly well developed enough score to where there's enough variations in the repeats of some ideas to justify its whole length, so a condensed playlist picking out the best moments might be the way to go.

I'm not sure if this is that great of score, especially since it doesn't rank too high in my list of Spidey scores. But it's so infectious and fun that I can't really dislike it very much. I honestly do prefer Zimmer in his "no fucks given" mode, where he does whatever he feels like will make his project stand out. It doesn't always pan out, but it does provide underrated gems like these.

This track, for as cheesy as the lyrics and vocals are, best represents what I enjoy about the score:
 

For all the people wanting to debate politics here: there's countless subreddits dedicated to politics, whether it's American, British, European, Australian, right, center, left, etc. Why don't you just go there? 
 
If you want to voice your political opinions with so much intensity, there's no need to do it at JWFan when you could've been doing on Reddit.

Thing is: there have been bans issued over some of these matters (even recently). It's just that prior to today, there wasn't a solid way for people to know that information. Me personally, I figured some people simply decided to take their time off after a particularly heated discussion, instead of simply having a time out. And given that people would always come back like if nothing happened, it almost felt like it did absolutely nothing.
 
It was tolerated because as Jay mentioned, he's not always privy to the context and ideas that certain topics present. It's only thanks to recent events that there has been more of a discussion made over what the line actually should be, given it was affecting the engagement of several users. The implemention of the current rules may be a bit spotty so far, but it's questions like these that help our mods in charge figure out what the best courses of action to take are.
 

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

Just for some clarification, I am not a newbie, I've been here regularly for three years now.  And I first joined five years ago.
I'm quite sure I have been seen by and have interacted with Quintus on several occasions.  

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

I have observed Bilbo's posts on this board, I follow him on Twitter, and I have engaged in conversation with him on Discord.  
He has been very clear that he strongly detests the actions of violent terrorists like the PIRA and their political wings and enablers.  He has publicly called them out on social media.  
 
What is more, he has repeatedly expressed his admiration for British culture and history, especially WWII and the RAF.
 
Trying to paint him as a terrorist sympathizer or supporter is slander and bullying, pure and simple. 

Well let this page of discussion be a shining example of why allowing politics, even siloed off into a specific area, just doesn't work.
 
We're supposed to all be here because we like film music, and want to talk about it with other people who like film music, as well as everything else related to it - movies, shows, games, books, other types of music, etc
 
It shouldn't matter if the person you are having a conversation with about these things is pro-Trump, ant-Trump, pro-Brexit, anti-Brexit, conservative, liberal, democratic, republican, left, right, up down, whatever
 
In this example, Quint took words posted into - in Quint's own words - "political threads", and used that to form an opinion on another member, assumed he supported a terrorist organization, got so angry he told this person to kill himself, and also admitted that because of his opinion on this member's politics, he chooses not to engage with him on any topic, even if it were on-topic to the main thrust of the forums as a whole.
 
This is why political statements and political talk aren't allowed at all.  You leave all that at the door when you come to JWFan, and you have healthy and engaging conversations about the mutual things we all love without the influence of the personal politics of anyone in the conversation.
 
 
I also strongly disagree with the notion that the new rules - or the old rules, or any moderation any of the moderators have ever done - have ever done anything to "silence and squash disagreeable discourse".
 
There is nothing in the new rules (nor was there in the old) that say that people cannot disagree, or argue, or get heated, or be passionate, or share how strongly you feel that something is completely terrible and a waste of time and effort, or anything like that.  The rules only say that you cannot resort to personal attacks or bring politics into things.  This is how most discussion forums run things: argue the opinion, not the person.
 
If part of a "disagreeable discourse" includes telling people to kill themselves and accuse them of supporting a terrorist organization, then I suppose these rules must seem stifling to you.  However, I am sure there exists places online where you can post those kinds of things to your heart's content.
 
Otherwise, everybody is encouraged to be as absolutely bloody passionate about any topic you want, and argue your heart out about why you feel what you feel.  Just respect the other people involved in the conversation while doing so.

I do not support the PIRA or any of its splinter groups and do not have any admiration or any support for any organisation styling itself as the IRA after May 1923.
 
But a bit of made up bollocks to prove a point isn’t a new tactic. 

and I have blue eyes not green but they still allow me to turn people to Stone with my gaze 

Would love to understand what 'context' made it acceptable to tell another poster to go kill themselves and liken their appearance to a genetic disability. Classy stuff.
 
 
Once again demonstrating why politics don't belong on JWFan.

That's definitely a quirk I can relate to. On Discord, I've changed my proper username to CinderTech, and am likely to change to that elsewhere (including here). However, I've still kept the older one as the nickname in my small private server of friends, since everyone is too used to it. In a way, I haven't gotten to really adjust to the newer name, so I'm not sure where to go with that.

Haha, missed some posts!  Yeah, it's me.  I've been here for an extremely long time, just stopped talking a while ago, a problem not unique to this forum.  But hi!  Thanks for remembering.
 
Also, yes, I'm a changling, as of early last year, and my username changed most places to @LongTallJodie.  Didn't change here for the sake of consistency.
 
(And thanks for the plug, @Jay, haha.)

Politics haven’t been allowed for ages. Now it’s in writing. 
 
It’s also now in writing you can’t be a dickhead to other users and you can’t pollute for the forum with useless shit posting. 
 
I’m just really struggling to understand the opposition to this.