Posts by northerncrane4

And why does this idea keep dragging on—that Michael Bay just isn't "given" a decent script? Who exactly is "withholding" it from him? Does he even actually want a good script in the first place?

Nicholas Walker3 said:northerncrane4—could you help me make sense of the hypocrisy on this forum? It feels like some people get their posts deleted just for using a smiley face, while others don't... is there a double standard going on where mocking someone is fine, but actually agreeing with them via a simple emoji gets flagged? I’ve had my own agreement suppressed so many times just by using a smile to show I'm on board with an opinion!

Anyway, I never said Lynch can't be explained—it's more that we can never truly know what his actual target was! Rational explanations work pretty much anywhere, and I don't think he's an idiot who would film something that lacks any kind of logic!

There’s no hypocrisy involved. Every single post consisting solely of a smiley—including the one you're targeting and several previous ones regarding your own statement that you apparently missed—gets removed. The only issue is the forum's occasional technical glitches, which cause some users to push back against moderator actions. This forces the mods to wait for the system to stabilize, during which time they sometimes overlook tasks they set earlier. It's quite simple. If you have more questions about this, please send them via PM—they have nothing to do with this specific topic.

Brenda Lee50 said:I'm mostly wondering if there's going to be a version of Grlić's "let stay among us"

No. Not for another year.

Olivia Moore51 said:Raymond Sanchez7—is that actually you? 😬

Oh, really? I guess I'm just a naive fool then... 😵

placidmarlin3 said:I wouldn't go so far as to say I've been painting anyone in a bad light—not really.😉

No? Then try reading it again—carefully this time.

placidmarlin3 said:These self-proclaimed intellectuals on this forum are so obsessed with their endless philosophical black holes that we’ll soon be over on the Economy subforum debating the secret motives of some local mobster—all because a cashier failed to say, "Thanks for shopping, have a nice day," after a three-second transaction.
Even after just five and a half—it’s already happening.

placidmarlin3 said:On the other hand—I've always been fascinated by people who spend their limited lives obsessing over inferior subjects—much like those currently cluttering this thread.
Someone else—a third party like myself—could step in from a neutral standpoint and comment on the living paradox inherent in that kind of behavior.

This isn't a discussion—it’s not even a debate over the topic at hand—it's just... Ad hoc—just a quick fix for a temporary problem. Discrediting the conversation itself instead of actually addressing the topic—classic trolling.

Here is today's post from user placidmarlin3 on the thread "Elvis Presley at Walmart":

placidmarlin3 said:I am in total agreement with you.👍

The self-proclaimed intellectuals on this forum have spiraled so deep into an intellectual black hole of endless philosophical nonsense that we’ll soon be over on the Economy subforum debating the CIA intentions of some local gossip—someone who didn't even give us a "thanks for shopping" after three seconds,
but waited five and a half instead.☕

... and here is a post (deleted by me) from the thread "Sunday at 2":

placidmarlin3 said:God, these debates...

If a chatty singer like Madonna can make it, if Jerry Perenchio can, or even those idiots Green Day, then surely February Deer—who is basically Dr. Science compared to them all—can too.

At the very least... they have style and actually deliver what their name implies.

On the other hand, I've always been fascinated by people who obsess over inferior subjects and grant them so much space in their tiny lives—exactly what some people do on this thread.
A third party, like myself, would simply comment from a neutral standpoint on the living paradox of such behavior.

In both instances, user placidmarlin3, for reasons known only to herself, disparages the participants in these discussions. Consequently, I sent her a PM warning that her next post of this nature would earn a ban for trolling. This triggered her current reaction. If the admins wish to weigh in, I would request they do so.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Look, I make movies, so I actually know what I’m talking about—I've spent plenty of time watching behind-the-scenes features to see how people work, including how Lynch does things... but you two are either trivializing my points or you just don't get what I'm getting at, so I'm calling it quits on this debate. Regardless, there's a massive gulf between standard filmmaking and the way Lynch operates!

To truly improvise on a set, you have to be talented; someone who over-prepares isn't really improvising... and honestly, that's the core of everything I've been saying! That's exactly what sets Lynch apart from most other creators—and I'm definitely not talking about those "technician" directors...

Look, I don't make movies—so frankly, I have no idea what I'm talking about. 🤷

Nicholas Walker3 said:To improvise on a film set, you actually have to be talented—the kind of person who over-prepares is the one who doesn't need to wing it... which is basically the entire point of my writing.

😲 If that’s what you’ve been preaching this entire time, then forgive me—you’re talking nonsense. To even stand on a film set as a director, you have to be better prepared than the rest of the crew combined. Sure, if an idea hits you mid-shoot that elevates your initial vision, that’s great—but showing up unprepared and playing the "Great Artist" who just creates magic on the fly? That privilege is reserved strictly for legends like Vinko Grubišić.

Anthony Smith3 said:Look, man... you didn't just jump at the chance to quote me by bringing up "Lynch's visuality and intellectual strangeness", you completely missed the point of what I said. I don't know... maybe it was too complicated for you to grasp.🤷
Since when? There was absolutely NO 🤷comparison😕 happening here. I honestly have no clue where on earth you saw MY comparison between Bay and Lynch.
Here... I'll quote my own text again just to be clear...

Whatever people think of him, the guy knows how to make a visually striking and cool movie... he knows how to design great action shots, cool frames, and slick sequences far better than 80% of blockbuster directors. So, strictly in terms of action, his movies are visually creative, and thanks to his specific, recognizable "style," he stands out. Now... some people dig that... some don't... just like some people enjoy having their brains melted by Lynch, while others would rather just slap him in the face for it...

So... let me simplify this for you and a few others...the bottom line is, some people like Bay, and some people like Lynch..👍 Lynch was only brought into this as an example of how different people appreciate different things. What offended you (and a few others) was simply me saying that Lynch messes with people's heads with his films... but hey, that's my take on Lynch, and I'm allowed to have it, just like you have yours on Bay. Look... I'm not some deep intellectual looking down on everyone else, judging their trash tastes or acting like I "understand Lynch's code."
It’s honestly exhausting seeing people beat their chests and act like they're film experts just because they've watched Lynch, Godard, Van Saint, Bergman, and other world-renowned auteurs, thinking that automatically makes them literate in cinema. That doesn't give anyone the right to look down on others or lecture them. If anything, it's the opposite.☕

Seconded. Since my previous response was nuked for being a dead end, maybe his baseless insults toward me should be wiped or handled differently...😉

If he were still around, Ante Peterlić would definitely have dedicated one of his exhaustive critiques to Michael Bay. I mean, once you start putting David Lynch in the same breath as Bay...you really ought to check if someone actually understands basic cinema or has any sense of taste before they even think about logging onto this forum. Otherwise, just any random idiot can ramble on about whatever they want.

Anyway, enough about that...

Seconded. Also, regarding Harlin's "newer" stuff... we should mention Driven, one of the biggest flops of the last decade.

Look... you just won't admit it because of your personal vendetta against Bay... end of story. But if you actually looked at this objectively, you'd see The Rock was a hit with both critics and audiences... even more so than Die Hard 2. Basically... the movie has a pretty solid reputation...

Yes—that’s exactly what it is: a comparison based purely on the level of audience satisfaction. 🙄 Regardless of what you say—the fact remains—I get why Michael Bay appeals to certain audiences, whereas you simply can't grasp why Lynch is actually a significant director; you seem to reject the idea that it will ever click for you.

ruggedjackal46 said:So, let me get this straight: a breathing mask just happened to be lying around, Lynch found it, and went, "Hey, Dennis, you want to breathe through this in one of the scenes?"

There is a massive difference between improvising an entire movie and improvising a single scene involving a sandwich.

If you're giving up on the discussion, I’d suggest you spend your time reading "Lynch o Lynch" instead.

That’s just how a lot of people imagine it works—but it’s not. You show up to the set, see a bridge already built, and then the director turns to the special effects lead and says, "Alright, blow this thing up today!"—as if it actually functions like that. I don't follow. Bulajic directed it—but honestly, rarely does any director in the world get to touch a marshal's legacy like that. Carte blanche. And they’ve got the most powerful military on the planet backing them up—not to mention the sheer scale of it.

If you want any hope of improvising on a film set, you first need to be as prepared as a heavyweight boxer training for the Olympics under Castro's regime.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Well, I think it's both—I mean, with many scripts, if a director gets fired, the movie ends up being "directed" by someone else... but with Lynch, that just doesn't work. He's the only one who can truly finish his vision, and you can really feel that!

Look, "directing" a film—especially an auteur project—isn't just about sketching out a storyboard, handing it off to the crew, throwing on a baseball cap, sitting behind a monitor, and waiting for them to shoot exactly what you drew, for God's sake!

Nicholas Walker3 said:Well, sure, Lynch might have had certain thoughts—and I’ve already shared what those were—but there isn't any actual "proof" regarding his exact mindset, which is my whole point... honestly, no matter how straightforward his films might seem at first glance, there just isn't one single rational explanation for them (if there even is one!)—besides, like I mentioned, looking at a production notebook (not sure if you've ever had the chance to dig into one!?) shows just how much is planned out versus how much is improvised... when that's missing, it's a dead giveaway that things are being made up on the fly...

Every single Lynch film serves as "proof" of whatever was running through his head during creation. Then again, any piece of auteur cinema is essentially evidence of the artist's psyche—so, are we really just debating the fundamental definitions of an artist and their work here? 😕

Nicholas Walker3 said:Look, I’ll say it again—that production book (not sure if you’ve ever actually laid eyes on one!) is proof enough of how much is planned out before execution. Not having one is a dead giveaway that they're just winging it.

A shooting script isn't some manifesto for a director's "vision"—it’s a technical document designed for logistics. Its sole purpose is to ensure the crew knows exactly what the shots look like for that day, how many camera positions we're dealing with, and how much time we need for set and lighting resets. What exactly are you imagining—that every shot in the script includes a deep dive into the director's psychological intent or how a specific frame contributes to the film's overarching themes? That's just not how the job works. 😕😕😕

Nicholas Walker3 said:Your plot summary is so broad it could apply to pretty much any movie out there... I’m honestly worried you might not fully grasp how the filmmaking process actually works! Sure—once you've seen a film, you can give a general recap of what happened—but we’re really here to discuss what was going through Lynch's head while he was actually making it!?

Besides, Lynch himself talks about how things shift and decisions change right in the middle of production—even during those repetitive takes of the same scene... so, unless you happen to know more than Lynch does himself, that's a whole different story!?

Exactly. My take is that Lynch was focused on the internal thought processes of a generic film actress during the production itself—how she evolves into herself, how she appears to those around her, her specific character, and finally, how the audience perceives her or the role. What's your issue with that?

Nicholas Walker3 said:That sounds more like a plot summary than the director's actual philosophy... I'm worried that with this film, Lynch is distracting us from the underlying issues and moral decay within the film industry—and the world at large—which get forgotten because people only focus on the finished product. They're basically flashy packages that, at first glance, don't even hint at the real problems we should be discussing.

That’s just a summary of the plot—Lynch doesn't care about linear storytelling; he captures raw, personal impressions that only he can truly decode. 🙂And now I'll tell northerncrane4 straight up: you have no clue. I'm far more perceptive than you are, and I won't agree with anything you post because it's all nonsense—you're completely lost, yet you act like you're some kind of authority.

@briskhound2

Harlin is just burnt out—plain and simple. But let’s be real: Bay doesn't have anything in his filmography that even comes close to "Die Hard 2," "Cliffhanger," or heaven forbid, "Cutthroat Island" and "Deep Blue Sea."

As for Scott's "Last Boy Scout" and "True Romance"? Bay can only dream.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Alright, I’d love to hear what was going through Lynch's head while he was filming Inland Empire.

Be my guest. This topic existed long before you decided to show up.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Of course they do, but they’re deeply personal—there's zero chance you (or anyone else, really) can truly grasp how Lynch was feeling or what was crossing his mind during specific takes that he eventually stitches together under a single label later. Besides, I think you know that Lynch doesn't use shot lists—which is basically standard practice on any US film set—and he doesn't over-explain things to his actors. He mostly lets them shoot first, then figures out if it actually worked afterward (just look at that scene where someone is eating a sandwich in Twin Peaks if you ever get the chance). In the end, he's the only one who knows if the final product actually matches what he had in his head before cameras started rolling!

Could you please explain how you think you're "decoding" his logic?

😲 Please. You can find the core idea behind any artist's work if you actually know how to look—and think.

Besides, I’ve already given a very direct response to this line of reasoning earlier in this thread:

northerncrane4 said:Of course rational meaning has a place in Lynch's work—he isn't just too clever to let the audience off the hook. He isn't going to alienate the crowd that's perfectly happy just drifting through the dreamlike elements by explaining exactly what the poet intended.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Just another one in a long line of brilliant Lynchian tales!

Look, there are actually people out there who can read the Lynchian code—so they can explain everything you need to know. It’s funny, really—how some people claim to decipher things that aren't even there, especially since Lynch himself has said countless times that he films emotions, not logical sequences or made-up plots! Apparently, there are even bigger David Lynches out there than Lynch himself.🙂

And what about it? Are emotions supposed to be meaningless? Don't they have their own sources and their own cause-and-effect?

Anthony Smith3 said:LOL... straight to the warnings when you don't get it... nice work.👍 Feel free to hand one out to yourself while you're at it.😉

I brought up Lynch to show how what he does best works for some people, just like how what Bay does best works for others in a totally different way. That was my point. But then you immediately latched onto Lynch and started explaining why he's good, what you see in his films, why they're masterpieces, etc. Anyway... let's just drop it.😉

There are plenty of action movies that offer more! And who said we were talking about Bay's action movies? You've got Leon, Aliens, Die Hard, and tons of others where you actually get that "more." As for the clarity thing... I don't follow. What specifically is "unclear" to you?😕 Fine, if Rock and Armageddon were that "unclear" to you, definitely stay away from Transformers or Island (though I doubt that'll be an issue).😉

I haven't even bothered explaining why Lynch is good—or what I actually see in his work—let alone defending them as quality filmmaking. My only move here was questioning that ridiculous comparison between Lynch and Michael Bay. The only reason Lynch even entered this conversation is because you felt the need to signal to everyone that you don't actually enjoy his movies. To you, Lynch is "fake" while Michael Bay is the "real thing." So, because I happen to be able to decipher Lynch’s visual language—unlike you—am I just supposed to shut up? Not a chance. Besides, Michael Bay’s films don't possess even a fraction of the visual culture found in a David Lynch film. It's just that bombs aren't constantly exploding in Lynch's work, which makes it harder for self-proclaimed cinephiles like you to notice.

Anthony Smith3 said:Let's not veer off into an off-topic debate about Lynch...😉

That bolded part right there is exactly why this thread is such a mess. You and a few others feel like that visual rush isn't enough (which is just personal taste, even if it's a lame excuse to make)...but for me and some other people, it is. I don't ask for anything more from Bay personally...it's that simple. Either you dig watching dozens of explosions tear a city apart or you don't...but the fact is, Bay knows how to throw a top-tier "fiesta."

Now, Tony Scott is in a league of his own (personally one of my favorite directors). He had his ups and downs, and in his later years, he started experimenting with his style a bit, which I thought was great. But Harlin... I don't know. Maybe the Harlin from the 90s (though that's also when Bay was at his creative peak)...but not this modern version...not really (though I haven't seen "12 Rounds" yet). To be honest, even the "new" Bay doesn't wow me like he used to back in the 90s. For me, Transformers wasn't even half the blockbuster that Armageddon, The Rock, or Bad Boys were. Honestly...everything else is just so-so.

Look, you were the first one to bring up Lynch—completely out of context, by the way. What exactly are you looking for here? For me to hand you an off-topic penalty just because you mentioned him in your post? I don't get it.

Dragonrage said:This overweight individual hits on exactly why this topic is such a mess. You and a few others clearly need more visual flash—which is just a matter of personal taste, if you want to use that weak excuse—but for me and several others, we’re satisfied, and frankly, I'm not asking for anything more from Bay himself.

I don't expect anything specific from Bay personally. However, when it comes to the film itself—especially an action flick—my expectations are higher. I'm looking for much more clarity than what he’s actually capable of delivering—based on what I saw in Rock and Armageddon.

Anthony Smith3 said:And you’re out here watching movies with zero actual substance or logic.👍🙂

Look, kid—I find plenty of meaning and structure in Lynch's films, something that clearly escapes you. You admitted yourself that all you see in Bay's work is visual hype—which I agree with, but it's just not enough for me.

Besides, if we're talking about pure action visuals, Michael Bay can hold his own against guys like Renny Harlin or Tony Scott.