Auto news on Youtube Apr 23 2018

Oh hi.

There was a time in my youth where I wished that I could someday see a Spider-Man film.

In 1989 Tim Burton made Batman.

It broke all kinds of records.

It showed that superhero films could be successful.

And yet nothing really became of that.

Except for the terrible sequels that it spawned.

"Alright everyone ... chill."

I was a Marvel comics fanboy as a kid.

So I still have

these old banker boxes here in my house. Sorry, let me focus up here.

And some of these go back to the early 90s. Ancient times now.

Cloak and Dagger. The New Warriors. Better than the old lame warriors we had before.

The Spectacular Spider-Man.

The Sensational Spider-Man.

Web of Spider-Man.

Spider-Man Unlimited.

And then my personal favourite. Spider-Man.

And because Marvel Comics was a hairs width away from bankruptcy it started selling the

rights to its characters.

Which is why we got a pretty bad Hulk film made by the great Ang Lee, and two really

bad Fantastic Four films, and that terrible Daredevil film starring the guy who isn't

Matt Damon.

And though it is certainly not a perfect film, Sam Raimi made Spider-Man in 2002 something

that I'd been waiting years for.

I think it's very much like Star Wars fans who, for a while, convinced themselves that

Phantom Menace was great until reality hit them and they had to accept that these-a no

good.

What I'm trying to say is that I think there are a lot of problems with the Sam Raimi Spider-Man

films, even number two which is admittedly pretty decent.

And the problem is that the filmmakers are approaching the characters as inherently silly

instead of the subject matter.

Because, come on, men and women jumping around in stretchy underwear suits, or fantastical

mutant beasts walking around having normal conversations is kind of ridiculous.

It's just that Marvel, and DC, and other comic book companies realized a long time

ago that while the situations can bring about humour, the characters are what draws people

in.

If we perceive our heroes, literally superheroes, as foolish or are the butt of jokes then we

begin to distance ourselves and realize everything is a bit corny.

So in 2008 I was surprised to see that the movie Iron Man was receiving a bunch of great

reviews.

Like, over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes good.

(Now I have my problems with Rotten Tomatoes, but it's still not often you get that response

to a superhero film.)

So I needed to go and see it.

Tony Stark was a character that showed up occasionally in crossover events that I had

read as a child, but I really didn't know much about the character.

Plus it was starring Robert Downey Jr who I had sort of forgotten about after he had

gone to prison in the 90s.

But I was shocked at how much I liked it.

This was something different.

At least from Marvel Studios.

It had a sense of fun, but was also treating the characters with respect.

This wasn't a goofy beat-em-up.

It was a science fiction / fantasy mashup with the perfect casting attached.

And I wish I could remember how.

But I know that I had read somewhere that I needed to stay until after the credits.

The friend I went with wanted to leave as soon as the movie was over but I convinced

them to stay.

And boy am I glad I did!

The revelation that Nick Fury was being played by Samuel L Jackson?

That there may be a plan to have an Avengers movie?

Yeah right.

Next you're going to tell me that they're going to try and make a Thor film.

Wait what?

My friend had no idea why I was freaking out.

But this was exciting!

What I always loved about comics was that the world felt truly lived in.

It wasn't just one superhero, it was all the superheroes.

They would interact with each other all the time.

Any movie that was made was careful to make it appear that this was the only "special"

person in the world.

Now even with that big hit in Iron Man it was followed up a few weeks later.

Yes, it was only weeks.

With the Incredible Hulk, starring Ed Norton, and it … wasn't great.

It had some flourishes, but certainly was not as entertaining as Iron Man had been.

But Robert Downey Jr showed up at the end, showing how Marvel was looking at this universe

it was creating.

Now I could go into a detailed review of each of the following Marvel films, let me know

if you'd like that in the comments below.

But here's a quick rundown.

Iron Man 2 - huge letdown although I feel like I'm alone in believing it's the worst

Iron Man film.

Thor - fairly bland, the world of Asgard feels so empty, but Chris Hemsworth is great.

Captain America: The First Avenger - maybe I'm surrounded by weirdos, but most people

I know hate this one.

But I love it.

I enjoy that it's set in World War 2.

It has it's own unique feel.

And I am always moved by the emotional journey of Steve Rodgers.

The Avengers - bonkers that this film even existed.

It expanded the world, beautifully combined the characters, everyone was given a moment

to shine.

It's a movie that on paper I don't think should work but it totally does.

Iron Man 3 - People hate on this film, but I like it.

It depends if you find the kid in it annoying.

I don't.

Plus I do enjoy how they pulled the rug out from everyone who thought they knew what was

going to happen in the movie with the Mandarin.

Thor: The Dark World - a bit better than the original Thor but that isn't saying much.

This is really when I began to notice the problems Marvel has with villains.

They often aren't interesting by themselves and each movie seems to end with a giant beam

of light that the heroes need to stop.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - The start of each film basically being an Avengers

film.

But I've never understood that criticism, really.

We know these characters and I have fun with them.

This film is maybe my favourite of all the Marvel films.

It's certainly the one I go back to the most.

Guardians of the Galaxy - So much fun!

I left with a stupid smile on my face.

Who knew Batista would steal the show?

The villain is awful, though.

Just really, really bad.

But everything else makes up for it.

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Marvel was starting to show it's cracks.

Still fun.

The Ultron character is great.

But it's hard to juggle that many characters, plus introduce more, and and have a satisfying

film.

I still have fun with it though.

How many more are there?

Oof.

Ant-Man - I'm a hater on this movie.

I love Paul Rudd.

He does his best.

But the script and direction do not help him.

I'm hoping the sequel solves those problems.

But this feels like a throwback to those superhero films of the 90s instead of what Marvel had

been trying to do.

Captain America: Civil War - OK.

I admit it.

I'm a Captain America fanboy.

Even though I'm Canadian.

I liked how they sowed the division between Cap and Iron Man.

And that last fight scene.

From how it's staged, to how it's acted, to the music I think is the best cinematically

the Marvel films have ever been.

Again, wish the villain could have had a better presence.

Doctor Strange - great casting again!

But I think this is just a slightly above mediocre film.

It was something I had completely forgotten about seeing the next day.

But what I respect is that Marvel is trying out different genres within it's universe.

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 - I still had fun with this.

But it has the problem that many sequels have in that it didn't feel new anymore.

Still funny.

And I love Kurt Russel in this film.

But it turns into a bunch of pixels bopping around the screen which I've never been

a fan of.

Spider-Man: Homecoming - Marvel finally got the rights back to Spider-Man.

Sort of.

And it's the closest they've come to nail that character.

Tony Stark / Iron Man essentially become the father figure Peter Parker has yearend for.

Michael Keaton has come full circle in his superhero films and is now a villain.

But a villain who is understandable.

Not that it absolves him, but I get why he turned to crime.

Some of the special effects are iffy, but man if the acting doesn't elevate this to

being really good.

Thor: Ragnarok - Hands down the funniest of the Marvel films.

And mostly based off of character moments.

However that's also the main criticism.

It could be too funny.

By focusing on laughs it forgot to make a resonant film.

And what a waste of Cate Blanchet.

The most egregious of the bad villains in Marvel films.

And finally Black Panther - I feel I'm going to get a lot of hate on this one too.

It's fine.

But I didn't love it.

Which is a shame, because the villain for once is great!

He has motive.

He's charismatic.

But our protagonist disappears for a good portion of the film.

And the country erupts into war really quickly.

Great casting again.

I love Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther.

I equally love the director Ryan Coogler.

So maybe my expectations were too high.

Marvel's Cinematic Universe has had a downside.

As much fun as I've had with the film series, and is exactly what I always wanted when I

dreamed of superhero films as a kid, it's had a bad effect on Hollywood.

Why it works so well for Marvel is that they've had 50 years of practice in the comics industry.

But Universal trying to make a Universe for their monsters seems weird.

DC has tried to rush theirs to disastrous results in my opinion.

Not everyone wants a Universe.

And not every franchise needs to be.

I don't need a Harold and Kumar universe.

Or maybe I do.

This is also part of larger trend where movies have started to feel like TV, and TV has started

to feel more like movies.

But that's a topic for another day.

I'm looking forward the the near 3 hour extravaganza that is going to be Avengers:

Infinity War.

These storylines we've been following for 10 years are going to have some deep payoffs.

At least I hope so.

And sure, superheroes are, perhaps, not high art.

But they don't need to be.

They are our current folk heroes.

The stories that reveal a bit about our humanity.

Stories that make us a little bit happier and can take our minds off the evils of the

world we feel so powerless in stopping.

Maybe somebody needs to make that Iron Man suit for real.

But I'd like to know more about what you think.

Do you watch the Marvel films?

Which ones are your favourite?

Which ones do you not like?

Do you think it's time for another Howard the Duck film like I do?

Let me know down in the comments below.

Thanks so much for watching!

My name is Kyle.

I upload videos every Monday and Thursday.

You can like, comment, and subscribe if you'd like.

And if you want to help get me closer to that live pizza party, consider becoming a Patreon

supporter for $1 per month.

I should let you know I was also bitten by a radioactive spider.

And now I'm dying of cancer.

For more infomation >> Marvel Movie Madness - Is This What I Wanted? - Duration: 9:52.

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

how would BLACKVELVET sing Twice's What is Love?? - Duration: 4:20.

Edit - I'm so sorry I forgot to add the timer here but its Jisoo's line from 2:31-2:33. I'm pretty sure she's still 3rd in the line distribution tho :)))

For more infomation >> how would BLACKVELVET sing Twice's What is Love?? - Duration: 4:20.

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

[KPOP IN PUBLIC] TWICE (트와이스) - What Is Love? | Dance Cover - Duration: 4:36.

did you said TWICE?

Had to stop my bike riding for watch this

let's go, friend, it's late!

For more infomation >> [KPOP IN PUBLIC] TWICE (트와이스) - What Is Love? | Dance Cover - Duration: 4:36.

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

What Is Beauty? What Do We Mean When We Say, "Beautiful"? - Duration: 13:20.

Hello everyone, so today I want us to talk together over a couple of questions that have

kind of sprung up in my mind as I was walking outside today.

So I want to talk about beauty, in general.

What is beauty and what do we mean by that word beautiful?

When we use that word when we see someone, anyone, and at first glance it's like, wow

that person is so beautiful or this could also apply to other situations where we see

a painting and it's just a beautiful painting of a ship on an open sea or we can talk about

going outside somewhere and seeing a Mercedes-Benz, and it's such a beautiful car and that person

is driving it under the sunset and the way the sunlight just bounces off of the paint

and it's just glittering under the sun.

We're just like wow, that's beautiful.

So is all this beauty?

And the reason why I put this question is because when we see something beautiful...

why does... why is that capacity for that "thing" to NOT be beautiful anymore...

why is that possibility there?

Because things are always changing right?

I say that Mercedes is so beautiful and then over time, it's got more more miles on it,

therefore, the car is going through more and more wear and tear and it just doesn't look

as clean as it was in the beginning, so it's not that beautiful anymore or if the painting

I really enjoyed looking at it.

So I frequently go back to the museum to look at that painting day after day and after looking

at it so many times it's just like, well...

I mean... there's got to be something different, more exciting something new, right?

And that also applies to human beings, when we see someone and they're so beautiful and

then when they take their makeup off, we may have a different opinion.

So is beauty something that can change into ugliness or boredom or dissatisfaction?

Because today in our society, we have really just taking that word beautiful and we have

defined it according to what we think is beautiful and therefore, we go around saying "this"

is beautiful, wow that's pretty, that's gorgeous and then when something happens or if something

changes, we are quick to just discard or change our opinion about something and is that real

beauty?

Because isn't beauty always the first sight of something?

When I had no knowledge of it before and I see it for the first time, it's just like,

wow, you know, then I come in and say that is beautiful.

So isn't beauty seeing things new, always anew, always clear, instead of seeing something

that I've memorized in the past and then saying, oh yeah I seen that already plenty of times

you know it's just, It's just oh, okay, yeah it's beautiful, but then that feeling is also

not there.

We can also say that something is beautiful, but after seeing it so many times, we're just

kind of like yeah it's beautiful and the passion is not there anymore like the vitality is

lost or you know like earlier examples we stated, a girl can dress up all nice and then

change her clothes and all of a sudden, she's ugly.

So why has beauty been reduced to this, to this sense of opinion, of my own personal

prejudice, of what I think is beautiful?

Which originates from what other people think about beauty around me, right?

All of my influences.

So is that beauty?

Is beauty limited down to my particular surroundings and people who have influenced me?

Is that beauty?

Can we define beauty to that?

Or is beauty new, wholesome?

So therefore, if it's new this implies that there is not a single trace of the past included

in perception, in what we're seeing.

So if I look at something, am I looking at it through the mental picture that I've invented

in the past or am I just looking at something and there is no mental abstraction interfering

with this perception that is actually going on?

Because once we look at something with an idea, with a prejudice, saying that this is

beautiful, then when it changes and it looks totally different and we come back to that

and we look at it, we're quick to react.

We say woah, woah, woah, hey, that's not beautiful.

It's not fitting to this idea or this mental picture that I've had when I first saw you

and said that you are beautiful.

Now you don't fit into that picture and is beauty limited down to just my mental structure

of what I think is beautiful?

So I think this is very interesting when we go into it ourselves, can we look at something

or notice when we are looking at something through an image?

Can we notice our reactions to our own mental picture?

We see what is actual and then we see our mental idea of what we think is beautiful

and we react to that and say, okay, now we're comparing, we're saying what is happening

now is not this "idea" and therefore, I say, okay, this person's gross or this

person's bad because I am comparing it to what I think is good, is pretty, beautiful

and then this just starts the gears running, which may inevitably lead to hatred, to opposition,

to violence.

I may think you're so ugly, that I just want to just, be away from you or get rid of you

off the face of the earth.

I feel that understanding beauty in the real sense is part of living without violence,

without hatred, without all of the turmoils, the conflicts, the struggles in life that

we have in relationship with people.

So beauty is not... beauty can't be described.

Beauty can't be put into words because every time we are looking at something that we call

beautiful or every time we talk about beauty and try to define it, we are using that very

same mechanism, that very same mental structure that is very limited down to our own particular

experience, what has already happened, therefore, we are looking at a thing an abstract thing.

We are looking at that and we are reacting to that thing.

We're saying, oh this should be like, this should be like that, you should look like

this.

We are so pleased with something in the past we see a beautiful girl and we start to think

about that girl, wow, like I saw her yesterday, she's so beautiful and I think about her,

I think about her, and you know, I guess we describe this tingly, sensational feeling,

we call it butterflies, right?

And it's very pleasing to the senses, so we continue on doing that, continue on thinking

about that, but what happens when we are so absorbed by this memory, which we all have?

Don't we start to get attached to this?

We start to live our life trying to fit everything all into this, into what we think is beautiful

or into what we think is right and if things naturally, factually, are always changing,

is always different, then these things won't fit properly, which will lead to our own frustration

or anger.

So that's all I wanted to talk about beauty today in this video, if you would like to

discuss over this further via messaging or voice messaging or video messaging, just let

me know and thank you for watching and listening and I'll see you all in the next video, bye.

For more infomation >> What Is Beauty? What Do We Mean When We Say, "Beautiful"? - Duration: 13:20.

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

'Westworld' Season 2 Premiere: What is William's Game? [Dialogue & Clues] | SML TV - Duration: 9:04.

'Westworld' Season 2 Premiere: What is William's Game? [Dialogue & Clues]

HBO The Man in Black.

During the Season 2 premiere of Westworld on HBO, we learned that William is about to embark on a new game.

Here's everything that was revealed during the premiere, including clues and the dialogue about William's new game. This article will have major spoilers for the Season 2 premiere of Westworld, along with theories. .

After William wakes up under a pile of dead hosts and people and has some strange encounters where he barely survives, he has an even stranger encounter with the Young Ford host who, oddly enough, has Ford's adult voice at times.

It's an encounter that might have far deeper implications for the rest of the show.

Here's what Young Ford says to William.

As they're talking he says: "The question for you is: what's next? Have you achieved what you wanted?" And William says that the folly of his kind is always yearning for more.

This is a direct reference to Ford's story last season about the greyhound (which William is likely quite familiar with.).

Back in Season 1, Ford said: "When I was a boy, my brother and I wanted a dog, so our father took in an old greyhound.

A greyhound is a racing dog.

Spends its life running in circles, chasing a bit of felt made up like a rabbit.

One day, we took it to the park.

Our dad had warned us how fast that dog was, but… we couldn't resist.

So, my brother took off the leash, and in that instant, the dog spotted a cat.

I imagine it must have looked just like that piece of felt.

He ran.

Never saw a thing as beautiful as that old dog… running.

Until, at last, he finally caught it.

And to the horror of everyone, he killed that little cat.

Tore it to pieces.

Then he just sat there, confused.

That dog had spent its whole life trying to catch that… thing.

Now it had no idea what to do.".

This was a reference to how people are always chasing after things, but never satisfied once they "catch" what they are chasing.

Young Ford then says: "What I have always appreciated about you.

You never rested on your laurels.".

And Ford says to William: "You've made it to the center of the [?] maze.

But now, you're in my game.

You must find the door.

Congratulations William.

This game is meant for you.".

He then tells him: "The game begins where you end, and it ends where you began.

William mocks him for speaking in code again.

And Young Ford says, "Everything is code here William.

You know that more than anyone.

Don't worry, the game will find you.".

At that point, William shot Ford in anger.

Apparently he doesn't really want Ford messing around with his world, now that he's finally achieved his goal.

But Ford isn't done with William yet.

This of course, brings up quite a few questions.

Is everything that is happening (including the new narrative Ford was working on last season) all about William? Ford's new narrative was the introduction of the hosts from Cold Storage, the shooting of humans, and Dolores' personality switch to Wyatt.

At least, it appeared to be that way based on what Ford said, and a scene that a Redditor spotted which showed him creating a narrative that looked surprisingly like the Season 1 finale:.

HBOFord working on his new narrative.

So now we're left wondering just how much is self-awareness and sentience (a la Arnold's bicameral mind program), and how much is Ford's narrative (a new game for William.) Is Maeve self aware and autonomous, or just being programmed by Ford? Bernard said last season that someone named Arnold had infiltrated her code and uploaded an escape narrative.

Was that Ford?.

And how much of Dolores is her own autonomy vs.

a narrative by Ford.

Or how much is even just the Wyatt personality taking over again via the reveries.

We know that Arnold uploaded Wyatt into Dolores right before she killed him.

It's all confusing.

But what we do know now is that quite a bit of this hinges on Ford's "game" for William.

Maybe the show will give us some hints in a new ARG too.

Last season, Westworld had active ARGs that gave extra clues for the story, so it's always good to pay close attention to what's going on in the show, including things that appear on cards or computer screens.

You never know what you might find.

What do you think about William's game? Let us know in the comments below.