Kids,
Let's note how his opinion is getting more and
more negative now that he just got EMBARRASSED
after he realized how he walked into a trap.

He realizes now that I got him to stop what he
was doing and watch a movie, all because

When he first posted his response, he was less afraid
to say good things about the film.

Now he's in here STEAMING because he WALKED RIGHT
INTO A TRAP and so he's going to backpedal AGAIN
by finding new negative things to say about the film.

He already said it was "good" and "engaging."

Now he's going to try to divert attention from the
fact that we all know he liked the film, and so he
starts having a semantic debate about what "nuanced"
means, all so he can save face and return to being an
idiotic hater.

He's been exposed: He hated for no reason, watched the
film, gave me his (somewhat)honest opinion, realized how
bad it made him looked, and then backtracked by finding
new negative shit to say about the film.

Let's archive this one. This is exhibit A for why I
don't like wack niggas.


>Ie a movie that did a few things right but that shouldn't be
>lauded as masterpiece cuz it isn't...and it isn't great.

Translation: "This film is damn good, but because
you exposed me already, I'll say it in the most
negative way possible."

>No, the script wasn't well written. It was adequately written.

Translation: "The script was good."

>Josh Grisham is an adequate writer, doesn't mean he's a good
>writer. That's why I made the comparison.

Translation: "To make myself seem less biased, I'll
cite a white writer that I don't think is great, to
make my Tyler Perry critique seem more genuine."

>And actually I didn't care about the characters. Bates and
>Woodard just did a good job with Tyler Perry's script.

Translation: "Orbit, you know I can't give credit to
Tyler Perry for a good script, so allow me to just write
it off to two good actresses and give no credit, at all,
to Tyler Perry. You and I both know the script was
good,though."


> That's
>says more about their acting abilities than Perry's writing.

LOL


>Woodard's character was a saint with little to no deviation,
>there were several unnecessary scenes that established just
>how divine she was. Only reason it was acceptable is that
>Woodard is a good actor.

LOL. Wrong.

Woodard was hardly a saint -- she was a god fearing older
woman who probably had made several mistakes but tried
to raise her children earnestly and stick to her morals.
Hell, I know dozens of older black women just like that.

Idiot

>Lathan was a vile harpy from the outset, not a lot of nuance
>there.

LOL. Wrong.

>There are other examples, but first I think you should follow
>this link and study the information you find.
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

LOL

This nigga is so upset right, he's linking dictionary
definitions


>Who said they mentioned it? Oh ok, now I get why you think
>that this movie is nuanced. You think that if someone doesn't
>say something that means that they aren't being explicit.

Keep


>No, you didn't. The movie wasn't nuanced. The movie didn't do
>a better job than other films in commenting on race relations
>or interactions. It wasn't a well written script. It wasn't a
>masterpiece.


Note all the negatives and the absence of positives.

Kids,

See how his tone changed? Nothing like it was before.


>But you know what, I get the feeling that you just like being
>an asshole and getting a rise out of people. So this will be
>my last post. But just for posterity's sake let me state my
>position one last time.

Translation: "FUCK ORBIT. YOU GOT ME TO WATCH
this GOOD MOVIE and OPENLY ADMIT IT!!! Aight,
I've had enough of you, man. I'm going to go
sit in a corner and CRY


>1) It wasn't a masterpiece. I question whether or not you
>actually understand what that word means. There's difference
>between a good film and masterpiece, but I guess for a fan of
>Tyler Perry the bar is fucking low. When I say that movie is
>good, I'm not saying that it was a must see film, I'm not
>saying it belongs in the canon of great films. A good film is
>in the mid B to high C range. A masterpiece is an A+ film.
>This shit isn't an A+ film.
>
>2) It wasn't nuanced.
>
>3) It was predictable and Perry rehashed things we've all seen
>in films before
>
>4) A lot of the characters were one dimensional. However a few
>of the actors transcended this.
>
>5) The plot was engaging but predictable.
>
>6) The ending was a tacked on piece of bullshit.
>
>7) It wasn't a bad movie. That doesn't mean it was the movie
>of the year. It was a good movie but ultimately forgettable
>film.

In seven points, he said two things that weren't
negative, one of them positive("It was a good movie.")

Note how much more negative this post was than the original
review. See how mad he's gotten?

All he had to do was thinking before he posted, and it
would been all love.



>But I've waded in your inflammatory bullshit long enough. I
>hope that one day you learn to differentiate between a
>non-shitty film and a masterpiece.

Translation: "Good shit, Orbit. I walked into a trap.
I allowed my anger to dedicate several hours of my day
to you, and even admit that I was 'engaged'. Of course,
after I realized I was being sonned, I had to change my
view again, but that's how I do. All good, son. Thanks
for turning me onto a damn good movie. Peace, Herb."

----------------------------

http://www.dkmsamericas.org/register-today-and-help-save-natasha-and-others


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.


"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"