lepa.pametna@neudata said:Just look at the evidence supporting my point—specifically, those double-digit percentages regarding women who are faking it during sex.
Honestly, why does it even matter? Why should that be an issue for me, or ris XXXX, or anyone else besides them? 🙂
Benjamin Gray6 said:The best part about those movies is actually what happens before—the buildup leading up to the event—because I find that imagination tends to be quite limited when it comes to depicting everything that follows...
If a movie aims for realism (😕 ), then you wouldn't even need much imagination to visualize the aftermath. We have a pretty clear idea of how things would actually look once everything falls apart. It probably wouldn't look quite like it does in (most) films.
I really enjoy post-apocalyptic cinema. It’s definitely my favorite genre. 😍
briskpuma19 said:Sci-fi has always been my absolute favorite, though I suppose I can watch just about anything if the quality is there. The one thing I truly CANNOT stand is romantic comedies or that sort of thing.
This poll is perfectly constructed, especially since it doesn't even include sci-fi or rom-coms. It feels as though you're essentially shouting into a void here. I must say, I have a great deal of respect for the person who started this thread. 🙂
I’ve started heading back to the movie theater again. It happened somewhat by accident. 😂 (I’ve been stuck with Zbanan from the TV station for about six months now, and apparently, it’s 'forever'). 🤣. I suppose you can't quite 'grasp' a film or truly evaluate it unless you've seen it on the big screen. And I think that’s only slightly a matter of the aspect ratio or the 'framing' you mentioned in your last post.
Back when I was taking a break (from going out), I would sometimes find myself watching a movie on video that I had actually already seen in a theater. Even though I am able (or rather, used to be able to 😁) concentrate on a film at home, I felt—especially with movies I really loved in the theater—that I wouldn't quite 'fall in love' with them if I were watching them on a smaller screen. This applies particularly to genres that aren't exactly 'intimate.'
On the other hand, you’re often forced to watch all sorts of things in a theater (partly because the selection isn't entirely up to you). So, it seems to me that lately, I've been seeing (on average) worse films in theaters than I do on video. Plus, some movies don't really 'require' the cinema; it feels like they might actually be better watched at home. Therefore, I think it’s wise to be selective about which film you see, rather than just going out simply because you feel like being somewhere.
But then again, when everything 'clicks,' there is absolutely nothing that can replace the cinema experience!
Yes, you definitely lose something by not going to the movies anymore.
Mickey Mouse said:Suppose someone claims they believe in Santa Claus. Does that really carry the same weight as believing it’s going to rain tomorrow based on our own observations and experience?
I suspect there might be two distinct meanings of the word "believe" being conflated here. Using the term "believe" when you say "I believe it will rain tomorrow" isn't quite the same thing as, say, having faith in Santa Claus (or God).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: I have faith in the existence of Santa Claus, as opposed to simply "believing" it will rain tomorrow. Or maybe we should distinguish between "faith" and "belief" entirely? I imagine in English, we could differentiate this by using "faith" versus "belief." 🙂
darkcanyon13 said:So, what is your wife doing on the night shift that's leaving you so bored? (I see you've been "wandering aimlessly" through the forum for hours now 😵).😕 😬
Wife? What wife?! I think you have me confused with someone else entirely!! 😕
Of course you shouldn't. My grandmother had seventeen children, but I suppose that doesn't mean everyone else will have that many. For all we know, some people might not have any at all.
To make a long story short. Let me cut to the chase... 🙂
Of course, everyone can intuitively tell the difference between various shades and subgenres of Sci-Fi. But let's not go making a whole mess of genres and subgenres out of it! There's really no need to split hairs over such trivial distinctions.
Kafka is Sci-Fi, Orwell is Sci-Fi, H.G. Wells is Sci-Fi, Huxley is Sci-Fi, Asimov is Sci-Fi, Philip K. Dick is Sci-Fi, Star Trek is Sci-Fi, "Red Dwarf" is Sci-Fi, "12 Monkeys" is Sci-Fi, "Sixth Sense" is Sci-Fi, "Flying Teddy Bear" is Sci-Fi ...
I suppose almost everything worth reading or watching from 20th-century literature and film falls under the umbrella of Sci-Fi.
And that’s just how it is. Does anyone happen to disagree?
I won't even get started on Unforgiven, which I found to be a complete miss. It feels incredibly heavy-handed, overly literal, and just too strained—this sort of "preachy" film trying way too hard to deliver a message.
Whoa! We might actually have to have a disagreement over this one. Are you perhaps more a fan of Westerns in general rather than actual filmmaking?
What strikes me as particularly fascinating about Unforgiven is that it is an Eastwood film—specifically, the same Eastwood who played Dirty Harry and all those iconic characters in Spaghetti Westerns. It’s only within that specific context that you can truly appreciate how good Unforgiven actually is.
Because, when you look at what William Munny does in Unforgiven, he's doing the exact same thing as Dirty Harry—walking around and shooting people he doesn't like (though Harry does have a badge, much like Gene Hackman's Little Bill). What elevates Unforgiven to greatness is the realization that Dirty Harry is essentially the same man as Munny—a hard-edged individual who simply cannot suppress the darker parts of his nature, driven by vengeance and irrational rage.
Clint Eastwood has matured so significantly (which is an incredibly rare thing to witness) that he realized Harry and Munny are fundamentally the same character. That is how I interpret it, and I suppose that is why I find the film so compelling. 🙂
When you lay everything out so beautifully and systematically like this, I have to admit that it feels like you might actually be "more right" than I thought 😁. Even though I’ve seen most of the films you mentioned, I don't think I ever really dove deep into the subject matter. But still—my heart just pulls me in a different direction: "McCabe & Mrs." is one of my absolute favorite films, and I just can't help myself. 🙂
Well, nobody (?) is actually claiming that "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" appeared out of thin air. But it wasn't quite as continuous a progression as some people would have us believe (?). There was more of a "quantum leap" involved here. The only movie I can recall right now that even remotely resembles it is "Unforgiven." As for "McCabe & Mrs. Miller," it’s an absolute five-star masterpiece. Pull up a chair, 5.
P.S. staying on topic: I don't think it really matters whether Altman intended to make a Western or an anti-Western. He probably had that in mind at the start, but later on, he likely just forgot all about those labels and simply made—a film.
TzU said:Well, didn't you see the movie? It’s not about whether rock 'n' roll died, it's about HOW it actually fell apart. There is a massive distinction there, because rock 'n' roll hasn't truly died globally—nor will it—it just lost its way for certain people through three specific avenues: 1. Commercialization, which is basically selling out your sound just to chase a paycheck. 2. Falling in love, where you lose that raw, aggressive drive that used to make the crowd tremble under the stage lights. 3. Becoming a parent, where suddenly your priority shifts to protecting your kids from the world, mostly so they don't end up ignoring you during their teenage years. 😈 I suppose those cover all the bases. 😎
Which would imply that if you want to be a true rocker, you shouldn't need money, you shouldn't fall in love, and you definitely shouldn't have kids. If that were the case, I'd just sit here listening to old Chuck Norris tracks like "Rock Around the Clock." Even though everyone says rock 'n' roll is dead, I haven't heard anything to prove it yet. Besides, I think I meet about eight out of five of the requirements to be considered a rocker. I'm a bit too much of a rock guy myself. I almost ended up a punker.
I honestly find myself questioning my own sanity 🙄 . I've spent the better part of the day trying to explain to a few idiots that having a "good voice" isn't actually the most important thing about being a great singer. It’s such a blatant, obvious, and frankly trivial fact—it's practically baked into the definition of the craft itself. So, really: 👋 [(c) lebowski].
You seem to be quite fond of the word "essence," don't you? And I see you even picked up a little bit of my vocabulary. Well, what can I say when American is my native tongue? Though, I suppose I am glad others can learn a thing or two from me.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you had trouble spotting the North Wind star in the night sky, as it seems your sense of direction isn't exactly your strongest suit. You struggle to distinguish left from right, so I suspect you might have some difficulty locating north. For the record, left is on your left side. There, now you know that too.
The idea that myself, Lebowski, and Drita are incapable of writing a simple nursery rhyme is clearly just your opinion. The three of us actually write better than John Williams, who happens to compose music. That's a bit of a stretch—I wouldn't want to mislead you. I really shouldn't mock your selective blindness, since you somehow managed to overlook (it is fascinating how you only notice what suits your narrative—not that it's a bad trait, perhaps you could teach me) my post where I recount what Williams saidafter the concert.
Just because I am old doesn't mean you aren't middle-aged yourself. If Natalie hadn't been so nervous, she might have actually sung the song well, and if my grandmother had any backbone, she would have been a grandfather. cy 🙂 Jason Morgan2