Posts by northerncrane4

Jesse Thomas7 said:I honestly can’t even tell you what the name of that thing was, but I guess that just goes to show how much it actually hit me. Still, you guys have a point—if I had actually bothered to do some digging instead of just following the crowd like a sheep, maybe I would've seen some red flags popping up before it was too late.

Then sue the majority, for God's sake. No—I'm calling it: this has become idiotic.

Joshua Smith5 said:I love watching new users fall for northerncrane4's sophistry. 😍

Seems I might be the one who actually fell for it on this thread. 😉

Jesse Thomas7 said:Haha, well... here I go again, standing alone against the entire crowd. Honestly, I’m surprised I even made it through that last round without getting shut down. But look, let’s get back to the actual point before everyone starts trolling me—do you guys seriously believe that movies, on a global scale, haven't just become nothing more than mass-produced commodities designed to be shoved down as many people's throats as possible? I mean, sure, there are always those rare exceptions that break the mold, but for the most part, it's just a product being pushed.

No, they haven't "become" that. They always have been.

Jesse Thomas7 said:So don't come around trying to recommend anything to me, because it's pretty obvious we aren't on the same page... and look, I'm not insulting you or your taste, so maybe you could try being a little less aggressive in how you talk... though, I guess you're one of those people who thinks anyone who disagrees with them is just straight-up stupid.
Also, how is buying a DVD not just paying extra for the same damn movie? Most of that cash ends up in the same pockets as the theater ticket money anyway. I can borrow a disc, I can rip it, and the fact that I haven't done that just shows I actually think the people who made the movie deserve the extra cash....

No, I'm simply pointing out that what you consider a masterpiece might be absolute garbage to someone else. It really highlights the absurdity of your stance—thinking you should get a refund just because a movie didn't meet your personal standards.

Jesse Thomas7 said:Nah, you've got it all wrong... when a movie actually blows my mind, I'll Buy being original, which means that movie makes even more money off me. If the soundtrack is killer, I'll pick that up too—so, more money for them. Basically, anything that actually impresses me ends up earning an extra buck from my pocket. So yeah, I "pay extra" specifically when I feel like I've gotten way more than my money's worth.

That isn't "extra payment"—it's just an additional purchase. Extra payment would be walking up to the theater box office after the credits roll and saying: "That was so good, here's another $6.75!"

By the way, I watched Nightwatch—which was indescribable garbage—and after that, I wouldn't watch Daywatch even if I were tied to a radiator. Your mention of The Matrix and Quentin Tarantino as things you don't mind paying extra for just labels you as a consumer of the highest order.

Jesse Thomas7 said:Has it ever happened to you where a movie totally blows your mind even though you expected absolutely nothing from it—like, you were dead certain it was going to be total garbage, and then suddenly... boom.
Or on the flip side, have you ever been positive, based on your own tastes and what you actually like, that you'd have a blast, only to end up feeling completely let down?

I think your issue is this general life misconception that you always get exactly what you pay for. That attitude usually crops up when you feel like you've been shortchanged. I doubt you argue the same way when you feel like you got more than your money's worth—as if you should somehow owe extra in those cases.

Deal with it. Sometimes the best things in life are free; other times, you pay a premium for absolute trash. That's Life. ☕

Gary Collins4 said:I couldn't agree more! You can't argue with taste, and I think the mistake here was simply failing to realize that this particular film wasn't going to be your cup of tea.

Personally, I find the whole concept of going to the theater a bit silly. Kill me now. 😢 No, really, I’m just not a fan of the cinema experience, mainly because of the fact that I have to shell out $12, the risk of buying a total dud, and my own high standards for movies. On top of that, I can't stand people laughing or coughing around me, or folks constantly getting up to head to the restroom...

For the price of those $12, you could have grabbed five bags of chips at Walmart and just streamed that trash instead. If it turns out to be a disaster after ten minutes, you just turn it off, delete it, and find something else to watch. You save time, skip the headache, and end up with a full stomach! 👍

And then colon cancer hits after those five bags of Walmart chips. 👍

Personally, I think anyone heading to an AMC Theatres to see "Tron: Legacy" should be charged a parking fine for every single minute they spend inside—on top of the ticket, of course—and then have their credit card interest rates spiked and their house facades smeared with industrial sludge. 😁

Since the current lineup in San Francisco is looking pretty thin, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up playing at the stadium. 😁

Michael Parker92 said:My question is—what do you all think should be done?

Watch some series.

There’s really nothing left to say about this.

rustywalker42 said:Seriously, why the cynicism? You're clearly just trying to stir the pot, but for what? I'm asking you again.
Is the definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film history, the old dogmas get torn apart. If I'm looking for references, I'd much rather trust a PhD specializing in Australian cinema than some random grad from our local ADU (and I'm not exactly huge fans of their curriculum).☕

Actually, Hrvoje Turković isn't just some local state college grad—he's a trained philosopher and sociologist, holding a PhD in Philology from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, as well as a Master of Arts from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at NYU. All of which apparently doesn't carry much weight with some guy named rustywalker42 on an internet forum.

rustywalker42 said:Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

Fine, then do something about it. Write to the Lexicographic Institute and tell them they need to list post-apocalyptic revenge films as a separate genre in the next edition—defining its specific parameters and how it differs from pre-apocalyptic road movies or dystopian action-romcoms, which deserve their own labels. Lay out your arguments and don't back down until they listen. Then, we’ll finally have a new encyclopedic definition to cite in our debates as legitimate.

@rustywalker42, look—they’ve got you at the top of the page with a quote and a link from the Film Encyclopedia, which makes it crystal clear that Mad Max belongs in the Sci-Fi genre—it's even listed as a prime example of the sub-genre. So, grab a pen and write a letter to the Lexicographical Institute and Hrvoj Turković; go ahead and break down their sentences one by one, explain exactly where they missed the mark, and don't give them any peace until they fix the error. You could even leave a comment right there on the page.

rustywalker42 said:Don't have the time right now. I'll get back to the rest of you soon, but here's my quick take on this last one.

So, what would you base it on? Christian Taylor3So, he actually concluded that Mad Max is a Sci-Fi film just because that opening line isn't there? Seriously?

That opening line is part of the film—just like everything else. How could you possibly conclude that a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away was the setting if the movie didn't explicitly tell you? And besides, is Star Wars even Sci-Fi, considering how much scientific nonsense it's packed with?

I don't see the point of this thread.

I’d honestly love to see haralampija take over as a moderator for the Book Lovers Club. Though, if you ask me—and I think you should—the whole club has become about as useful as a broken PDF, considering there are barely five or six people actually showing up. A single thread over in the Literature section would be more than enough for this crowd.

The Family said:
Meryl is "getting there"—but honestly, she’s struggling with this specific role.

That's strictly down to the script—besides, Meryl is actually quite good when the material is written well enough.

Christian Taylor3 said:Let's be real here, we aren't going to pretend otherwise—the script for The Social Network has been out for ages, and honestly, it’s not even remotely close to the old Fincher vibe. Then you have this new hype job, which makes me wonder, good grief, what are we actually doing? A movie about little brat Zuckerberg feat. a newly enlightened Hollywood sweetheart version of Fincher, backed with Kanye West's new single, 'Power." 😕

I could go on forever about Benjamin Button, but if you ask me, there is absolutely nothing
Fincher-esque about it, IMHO. To paraphrase briskfalcon45 (just so there's no confusion): 'Well, he's finally sold out.' Or if you listen to xavierkat talking about Nolan: 'It's as if he's lost his sense of direction and his compass, just surrendering to the masses and simplifying himself so everyone can digest him and love him.' The last time Fincher truly felt like himself was with Zodiac, and since then, he's basically gone off the radar. Instead of maturing as a director, it feels like he's just started to rot.

As for this remake of an already mediocre film, everything has already been said, so I don't see why he even bothered. 🤷

As if the "Panic Room" script was anything special—Fincher just delivered another stellar chamber thriller and pushed the boundaries of CGI once again. Honestly, the only real grievance one can have with Fincher is that he missed out on an Oscar for "Benjamin Button," which remains a perfectly fine film—perhaps even because of its flaws—and sits well above the quality of the other nominees that year. Sure, there are some screenwriting issues, specifically regarding the formulaic plot structure, but is there actually any collection of scripts in Hollywood today approaching the caliber of "Se7en" or "Gamma" that Fincher would pass up just to work with Justin Timberlake? 🤷

Let’s just wait until Fincher actually puts Di Capri in the credits before we start calling him a failure. 😎

nimbleangler22 said:Oh, thanks so much! I assume all of that is included as part of the camp setup, right?
I was also wondering if there have been any issues with theft? I'm mainly asking because I'm thinking about leaving some of my gear inside the tent,

Oh, absolutely. Last year, the award for best regional film went to "Buick Riviera."