Posts by northerncrane4

quietdriver3 said:Man, if you actually picked up on that from F911—honestly, stay far away from "Fight Club." Who knows what kind of headspace that would put you in. 😁 😁

My star, you have to read it—really dive in—to understand what actual depression feels like. Then move on to Palahniuk. Compared to the book, the movie is just a picture book.

ruggedmarlin15 said:You don't know either one.

Fine. You claimed I didn't know what an "apologist" was when you called me one regarding the festival. So—why exactly does that word fail to fit the context of how you used it?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Let me school you then—it’s "apologist," not "apologeta." Just like it isn't "diplomata," "artista," or "komunista"—it's "diplomat," "artist," and "communist." Clear enough now?
.
.
.
Give me your teenage diarrhea posts—please.

Good grief.

Budal.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What a stretch of a theory. That actor showed up to promote a film that wasn't exactly a comedy—or even a blockbuster, if we're being honest.

The media is already out in full force—loudly announcing him as the lead in that "American pita" movie.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Exactly—you're just speculating.

I'm just trying to keep up with you—since you're out here claiming, with absolute certainty, that the girl hasn't even looked into these movies.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Wrong. She can hate the movie all she wants—but thinking that a lack of enjoyment should be used as a metric against the festival itself is just plain stupid. I really should have stuck to drawing.

No. You should have just provided an exact quote. The actual quote is:
Another movie—well, I only caught the beginning at the same theater, that one about the son and his schizophrenic mother. The whole thing felt like "I was tortured as a kid, so now I’m going to torture you." After fifteen minutes of that nightmare—all the electroshock therapy and pure depression—I decided my life didn't need that right now and just walked out. Long story short, I didn't have much luck with Barbacan.
She just claims she had bad luck with the screenings at that specific theater—that she was simply unlucky. Not a single word about the festival being a failure.

Then he goes on to say—and I quote—"Besides, if you're going to screen two movies at once, the lineup should probably be balanced so they aren't both depressing."
That’s a pretty pointed critique of the programmer. I honestly can't tell if you're actually the one putting this lineup together—taking her comments personally—or if you just view it as your job to defend those lovely festival organizers, who give you that one chance a year to hang out and feel like you actually matter.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I don't know about you. My advice? Don't bother watching the movie—or just go ahead and skip it altogether.

Or

ruggedmarlin15 said:You'd be shocked at how many tickets go straight to the festival's sponsors and buddies.

Exactly. You get it.

ruggedmarlin15 said:But you can't blame the local corner store for that.

Sure—if they're the only shop in town and they're selling junk people don't even want at prices that aren't exactly a bargain.

ruggedmarlin15 said:And those smaller screenings? Maybe a hundred people—mostly accredited journalists who, let's assume, aren't paying for tickets. Go ahead, multiply all that to your heart's content. Whatever. Like they say, "you missed the whole point."

Well, that brings us to the real question: does this festival even matter if most of the screenings are just for the press? Especially considering the organizers tell the Secretary of Culture that their screenings are always packed—unlike the ones in San Francisco.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Right. And it's been that way for seven years now. Look—either learn how festivals and cultural events actually work, or just grow up. I don't know what else to tell you.

Then explain it to me, since I'm clearly so "immature"—tell me what I've asked you several times already. If this festival doesn't live off ticket sales, according to you, why then ruin the spirit of community by charging prices that are nearly as high as Cinemark? Since you're such an expert and I'm apparently so clueless.

Jose Miller17 said:But hey, the end result is exactly the same 😁 😁 (getting the picture now? I'm talking about the silver screen here. 😁 )....

I don't get it. Look—I am still answering your questions to the best of my ability.

Jose Miller17 said:Other than that... just tell us, finally, what "dangerous thoughts" did Moore impose on you?

Well—let's say everything is meaningless, that there are zero positive options left in today's world, that nothing but thugs and criminals run the show, and that no matter what you do, there's no hope for improvement. In that case, you might as well end it all right now—and it wouldn't hurt to take out a few of them standing around you before you go.

Jose Miller17 said:Heh, you're right there—your opinion is definitely prone to questioning. 😁😁...but then again, Moore's is the same way...

What do you mean by "likewise"? I am answering every single one of your questions and doubts directly. Does Moore do that?

Jose Miller17 said:That’s a separate issue entirely—you’re so convinced everyone else is just a mindless sheep that you’ve managed to be the only one to spot the flaws in Moore's methodology.

Where is this coming from? I simply stated that Moore's methodology is comparable to Riefenstahl's. Some people can take it—others can't.

Jose Miller17 said:Besides, the medium Moore uses might be one-way—but that’s hardly his fault if you'd rather just stare at a movie screen instead of actually discussing what you saw with everyone else... 😛

Look, the movie screen isn't the director—just as you aren't actually talking to your monitor right now.

ruggedmarlin15 said:No. One of those terms isn't part of standard American English. Go ahead—guess which one.

First off, you were talking about word meanings—which I clearly don't know—not about standard American usage.
Second, Klajić's "dictionary of foreign words" lists both versions in bold as legitimate.
Once again, you missed the mark entirely. My apologies—you missed the entire stadium. Coach, sub him out!

ruggedmarlin15 said:If I recall correctly, the films from a couple of years ago were also pretty dark and depressing. I don't consider that good or bad; it just is what it is. The festival has certain parameters it needs to meet—otherwise, they'd just be screening the latest blockbuster "comedies."[/B]

Madness.

So now you're attacking the festival's direction just because they invited the lead actor from that American blockbuster comedy "American pita" as an official guest one year. How malicious of you.

Quote:Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: Nobody. It’s a matter of access and principle. "The movie I came to see was too depressing, and that’s a huge downside for the festival." Honestly, what is going through her head?

Is that in quotes a direct quote? Or are you fabricating things again?

Quote:Madness.Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: You don't have to be an idiot. Just read the beginning of her post.

Which reads (exact quote): "Yeah, I have objections to this year's film festival, and they are veeeery big." Who exactly was she "angrily" targeting? You?

Quote:Madness.Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: Are you sure she knows? Based on what?

Well, based on the fact that she obviously knows the subject matter of the film playing alongside the one she went to see. I'm speculating.

Quote:Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: You reacted to my observation that the festival isn't a profitable event. PROFITable. And you're calling me a fabricator? Heh.

Yes, I am calling you a fabricator. Because it doesn't sit right with me that a woman, after buying a product, shouldn't have the right to comment on it. Unless, of course, she's just being difficult. So I said ticket sales generate some sort of revenue. And you want me to check a dictionary to define the word "profit."

Quote:

[B]Look, there's a deal. You pick a different movie—or you hit up a party, grab a drink, or just stay home. The choice is yours. Let me clarify—if you want to see the film, the "deal" is simply buying a ticket. You’re talking about consenting to a deal, but consent implies having an alternative. I know what the other option is; I’m just waiting for you to name it. ruggedmarlin15 said:They are just an audience that paid for admission to see the specific movie they bought a ticket for. Nothing more, nothing less. And once it's over, they have every right to say they didn't like it—purely based on subjective taste. It's like buying a jar of beet juice and deciding it's too sour for your palate. ruggedmarlin15 said:Did you honestly expect symbolic ticket prices? Sure, maybe at some dive bar in Springfield—no subtitles, grainy DVDs, and terrible sound systems. I wasn't expecting anything. You keep claiming ticket revenue doesn't matter to the festival, yet they still charge full price. $8.25, 800 seats. Even if we assume 300 spots go to credentialed guests—though half of them are probably passed out in a bush somewhere—that still leaves $4.25 per night for the main screening alone. Multiply that by the number of nights and all the side screenings, and sorry, but that is not "small change." ruggedmarlin15 said:No wonder. There is no paradox here. Ticket sales obviously aren't generating a profit because they can't cover the overhead. To build on that math—what on earth are the expenses, then?! If the festival isn't turning a profit even after sponsorships, ticket sales, and a mountain of volunteer work, then someone in management is clearly incompetent.

Jose Miller17 said:Sure, Moore is a master of subtlety...🙄
but why don't you tell us exactly which opinion he's forcing on us? Unless—and hear me out—you actually believe he's forcing an opinion by making us feel like our own thoughts are being dictated to us. By that logic, you're doing the exact same thing... except it's painfully obvious when you do it.🤣

Oh, please. I’m in no position to force an opinion on anyone—communication with me is a two-way street, meaning my views are open to direct questioning from the "imposer" (should I say oppressor?). Moore's isn't. He simply presents his version of events—deliberately withholding any details that don't fit his narrative—by using a medium that lacks any real dialogue. Clearer now? 😛

Jose Miller17 said:..haha, "triumph of the will" is just some romanticized comedy northerncrane4 uses to claim we're being brainwashed when we aren't. 😁

I guess Moran was incredibly successful at influencing you—since you haven't even realized you're being manipulated. 😎

ris XXXX said:There are more than just that one win.
Take our Lady of Mount Carmel, for example.
PS — Fahrenheit and Columbians aren't even like that.

Yes, they are. Just as much as I'm forcing my opinion on you.

ruggedmarlin15 said:You're using words you don't even understand. Don't. You just look ridiculous.

Is there a difference between the meaning of "apologetic" and "apologist"? — Not really, they both stem from the same root—just different parts of speech.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Your assumptions are a bit too loose—"what if this happened, what if that happened..." Honestly, I don't recall any year where the festival was branded specifically as a "festival for certain types of films." Not even this one. No one promised a comedy only to bait people into some depressing drama. I don't see any manipulation here.

The gentleman is offering a program this year that’s fundamentally different from previous years—which, if you ask me, is actually a good thing. But apparently, he doesn't see it that way. Who's to say I'm wrong and he isn't?

ruggedmarlin15 said:You shouldn't be taking your anger out on people who aren't even responsible for it.

And who exactly was she targeting, in your interpretation? To me, it’s nobody—she simply shared her opinion on a Reddit dedicated to covering all of this.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Could someone please give me some info on what movies are playing?

She obviously did it—the moment she realized which movies were playing at the exact same time.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Not at all. Check the dictionary under "profit."

It’s interesting—I didn't actually use the word "profit"—I used the term "revenue." To the fraudster.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The deal is this: tickets are sitting at 20 bucks.$8.25You can buy them and watch the movie—but you don't have to.

So, if you actually want to watch the movie—which is the whole reason you showed up—the deal is off?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Festivals are non-profit ventures—period. They survive on sponsorships and grants—mostly. Which part of that did you fail to grasp?

So they charge admission—but the people buying those tickets aren't actually the customers. Even though the price isn't exactly "symbolic." Go ahead—try explaining that paradox to me one more time. Though, honestly, I don't even know what the word "paradox" means.

kaeovo said:That's because you agreed to the terms in the first place—it doesn't mean that cash actually turned a profit for the festival.

1.) Is there even another option on the table?
2.) The fact that her money isn't generating profit for the festival is the festival's problem, not hers—it certainly doesn't strip her of her status as a client.

kaeovo said:Wrong. This year, the organizers handed the selection reins over to J. Pavicic. He picked most of these films. Whether J. Pavicic was the right choice—that’s debatable. But this kind of nonsense like "boohoo, the movie was too depressing, the festival sucks"—is just plain idiotic.

What an apologist! If—let's say—90% of the festival lineup consists of depressing films, and the management, artistic directors, or whatever they call themselves, knows this but chooses to stay silent—even though if they had included, say, children's movies instead, the theme would have been "LET'S BE KIDS"—then we're looking at manipulation designed to avoid any risk of lower attendance.

kaeovo said:Look, sorry, but maybe people should actually look up the films before going. Did the lady expect some summer teen flick? For heaven's sake, this wasn't some surprise screening; you can find plenty of info on these movies online.

Maybe she just didn't expect to end up in a funk every single night. Maybe she learned from previous years' festival editions—and complained about it.

kaeovo said:She has a right to complain, provided it's reasoned and explained.

It seemed reasoned enough to me. The viewer was denied the choice of not being dumped into a depression, regardless of what she chose to watch.

kaeovo said:I don't comment. I respond to stupidity.

Oh, sure—you're the enlightened righteous one, a once-in-a-century phenomenon.

kaeovo said:They charge admission, but that's not how the festival survives.

😕 Are you suggesting the ticket revenue is lining someone's private pockets?

ruggedmarlin15 said:That’s baseless. The festival isn't tied to any specific theme—so dismissing it because of "depressing movies" doesn't hold water.

Wrong. There is no official theme assigned to the festival. That much is obvious from the programming. Which was what gospodican was complaining about—an argument she seemingly has no right to make, regardless of the fact that she bought a ticket.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What, are you her lawyer or something?

Hardly. I'm just trying to look at the facts.

ruggedmarlin15 said:By the way, those random assumptions from volleyball are great. Not.

Funny—you also seem to have a habit of commenting without actually specifying what you're responding to.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The festival isn't a profit-driven event. So that whole "customer base" logic falls apart.

So, they don't charge for admission?

ruggedmarlin15 said:How so? Most of the films this year were "depressive"—I can't recall a single comedy. So what? And even if they weren't, what kind of nonsense is that? "Give me one depressing film and then one lighthearted comedy"? I don't care whether a movie is depressing or not—what matters is whether it's actually good. The organizers are doing their best to schedule the lineup.

See, the lady is interested. She’s just a festival attendee—one who wasn't exactly promised a theme titled "THE DESPAIR OF EXISTENCE"—so she might feel a bit cheated.

ruggedmarlin15 said:She’s unhappy with the movie and wants to blame the screening schedule—I'm not buying it. Besides, she didn't even mention which films she was talking about. So... what, should I just guess?

No. You just don't answer—if you have nothing to say. Besides, the question wasn't even directed at you.

ruggedmarlin15 said:No, I just find these posts from spoiled brats a bit grating. Look, PewDiePie—it’s not like everything is exactly how I’d want it—but honestly? It’s all just "mommy, mommy, mommy"... Ugh.

That’s just how it works in a consumerist society—the customer is always right. Get used to it.

ruggedmarlin15 said:No—but I see there isn't even a "drawing board plug-in" available for me to sketch things out for those struggling to grasp a simple sentence.

Fine. If the "depressing movie" genre doesn't exist, then isn't it possible that both films screening at the same time aren't depressing? That was the question from a festival attendee—clearly unhappy with the screening schedule. Since you're acting as the festival spokesperson here, why don't you offer a meaningful response? Because the question itself isn't stupid.

quietdriver3 said:John McTiernan...

He hasn't directed anything truly great since Die Hard III—not even close.

In a way, you're right—but let's not forget he wasn't even the editor on "The 13th Warrior" or that infamous "Rollerball." Personally, I find "Basic" so over the top that it actually works for me.

And just like Ali G says, Apple is a thin line between Punani and Batty—so don't go taking your wife to the wrong one.

Gerald Barrett25 said:We already know Triumph of the Will was dangerous because it targeted a "mainstream" audience—it clearly showed that. I just can't quite wrap my head around whether that same logic applies to Michael Moore's films... hence 🙄

Look, bias is bias—no matter how you dress it up.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Movies aren't organized by genre.

Is there actually such a thing as a "depressing movie" genre?

Gerald Barrett25 said:🙄

What? Both of them are clearly designed for the mainstream masses.

quietdriver3 said:A "triumph of will"?

It’s no different than—say—Fahrenheit 9/11.