Posts by Charles Taylor10

I’m an atheist mainly because I can't stand the idea of some idiot profiting off faith—it doesn't matter if it's a street vendor selling cheap trinkets or the Pope himself. It just grinds my gears, especially since nobody ever makes a dime off atheism.

The movie was alright—though I’ve always had a soft spot for kid flicks—but it definitely wasn't meant for the big screen. It feels more like a TV movie, honestly, and the plot is just a mess of holes; nothing connects. The acting is pretty rough too, especially John Malkovich—he was absolutely desperate in this one. Nothing feels fleshed out and it's totally unoriginal: first he gets an egg, then his cousin gets killed, then he meets the dragon, then his protector gets hurt, then the dragon gets hurt, then the girl he hears in his head gets hurt, then the dragon again, then he gets hurt... I saw the whole predictable cycle coming from a mile away. 😬

It honestly just wears me down... nothing is more exhausting than watching people spiral into total hysterics over nothing. Like, people are actually struggling to put food on the table, yet she’s ready to throw her life away just because some guy didn't call her for forty-eight hours or whatever. 🙄

Harold Adams5 said:😕 come on, at least explain this part

Look, for instance—I don't bother talking to people I know are just jealous or gossiping about me... some might call that being a pushover (I know plenty of those types), but it doesn't get to me. Or when someone does something shady toward me, I don't make a scene. I take note of it, sure, but I still act totally normal around them—like nothing even happened. Some would label that self-abasement, but to me, it’s more about self-fulfillment... I want to show them their little games don't phase me, that I didn't even notice... that I couldn't care less. Maybe I'm just acting, because deep down I definitely saw what they did and I won't forget it... I'll probably settle the score eventually (though maybe not)... but seriously, it barely touches me... just a shrug... yeah... you're kind of the same way. Just an example.

I can't really make you see it if you just don't get it—it’s one of those things. All I was trying to say is this: what looks like self-humiliation to one person might actually feel like self-fulfillment to someone else.

A hundred people, a hundred different ways to be wrong.

Maybe what feels like self-deprecation to you isn't even that to someone else. I've run into plenty of people who see just being honest about themselves as humiliating—mostly because they're ashamed... or they're the type who think it's perfectly fine to let society dictate how you act, viewing any actual independence as some kind of pathetic ego trip.

I usually try to keep things original, but then I remember Lassie and Heidi... :buuu:

Dead Carrot said:That’s exactly what I was getting at—linen suits, leggings, t-shirts... 😍

Aaaaah, look, I'm not even old enough to be twenty-four, but I still remember Don Johnson... anyway, do you remember me??

Brian Moore67 said:Check out the collection:

pretty damn hot

Charles Taylor10 said:It’s alright... though you aren't really missing much if you skip it. Maybe the newer one is actually more interesting—I think it has some number in the title, like 167 or 163 or 143... can't recall. The only downside is the premise is totally wild, but the directing and writing choices just don't land right. The ending was pretty dumb. It felt like they pushed too hard to keep certain elements grounded, like "maybe this could actually happen" in real life... plus that religious angle, which is just classic Mel Gibson. Honestly, maybe The Village is better. It’s scarier, at least, even if neither is truly scary (except for me 😁).

Oh, and the title is: Population 436!

crimsonmoose3 said:cough, cough, I still haven't seen that movie yet. 😁 Just kidding, but you really should have put that in a spoiler tag. 😁

It’s alright... though you aren't missing much if you skip it. Honestly, maybe the newer one is actually more interesting—I think it has some number in the title, like 167 or 163 or 143... can't recall. The only real issue is the premise is totally wild, but the directing and writing choices just don't land. The ending is pretty stupid. It feels like they pushed too hard to keep certain elements grounded, like "maybe this could actually happen"... plus that religious angle, which is right up Mel Gibson's alley. Maybe The Village is better after all. It's definitely scarier, even if neither is truly scary (except for me 😁).

crimsonmoose3 said:The Village?

I haven't a clue—isn't The Village that other movie about some town terrified of some monster, only to find out at the end they just made it all up? Like, the elders had some bad experiences living in modern society and decided to go off the grid without electricity or TV—kind of like the Amish? It’s a decent enough flick, honestly—better directed than this recent stuff.

I’m mostly into those social dramas about oddballs—think Thumbsucker or Napoleon Dynamite... movies that lean into comedy without being just a joke.
I also dig stuff based on real life, like that "in the saddle" type vibe... you know, stories about biker hippies who end up spiraling into some cult thing.
Horror works too, provided it isn't the same old garbage—something like gin Gwai (which is basically perfection to me) or that new one about The Village with its weirdly specific population count... I wasn't a huge fan of that movie, but the concept was solid.

The smart ones are the ones who actually enjoy life.

stormyviper11 said:😠 Ari, I thought I was the king of unionizing people on this forum—damn... 🙂

Angela Garcia36 - hey there, handsome 😎

Back to the point: How the hell is music supposed to be a turn-on?
Maybe some muted MTV videos, sure.
But the actual music? 😕
Even Ravel's Bolero feels more boring than anything else before it gets exciting...
And don't even get me started on those 70s soul tracks. 🤮

Well, music works for me. Honestly, certain sounds are way sexier than any visual of someone smoking or having anal sex. 😳

Dana Anderson4 said:😲 🙏 You coming with me to grab some stress relief on the train to a small town in the Midwest? 😬

Wait, what? 😬

So, I’ve been listening to Lemmy Kilmister lately—got a concert coming up, too—and man, their music and lyrics just hit different. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there’s something about how brutally honest they are, instead of all that manufactured crap about love. They’re basically the ultimate middle finger to romance; they'll talk about hooking up or tell a girl she's hot even if she isn't "classy," you know? It’s raw, and honestly, that's just how people actually act. I’ve never really experienced that perfect, cinematic kind of love you hear about in those other songs—I can't even remember the titles because I don't listen to them. I also love B. B. King’s stuff—how he sings about chasing money or how he keeps hurting his wife because of a gambling problem. It’s heavy, sad stuff. It doesn't get you hyped up like Lemmy’s tracks about raw sex, but it's the same thing: it's real.

These aren't exactly my favorites—but I'll throw my vote toward Conan the Barbarian. Honestly, it's a crime they didn't include Bruce Lee or Mad Max!!

Diablo. Just... Diablo. Charles Taylor10 said:🙄 Watch Truman—it’ll help you realize that Breakfast at Tiffany's is basically semi-autobiographical, and that his "writing" was always just a job. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing you can tell from it just how much effort went into crafting a hit novel—purely business.
She isn't a scientist, an artist, or even "at least" a singer—which, let's be honest, is barely a job anyway. 😕 And what about blues singers? Are they just "singers" too? You're generalizing here—that's why I'm asking. And she sings, if we're being technical. Moon River. 😛 Look, if she’s one of those "high society" types who gets men to foot the bill just for her company and some sex—she isn't exactly unemployed.
Look, let's call it what it is—that job has a name, and honestly, it's way tougher than being some secretary or a preschool teacher.

Honestly, I’d personally loathe those bureaucrats tucked away in their gray cubicles—you know, the ones hidden behind flimsy partitions, clocking in from 8 to 4 under the watchful eye of some miserable, soul-crushing middle manager with a permanent scowl. But then again, that’s just my take on things.
I don't have the standing to judge—so I won't.
I’ve always had a soft spot for the outsiders—the ones who don't quite fit the mold—kind of like Holly Golightly and Paul Varjak. (Forgive me if I'm off on the names; it's been ages since I actually sat down with the book or watched the movie, though I've seen it plenty of times.)
In this world we live in, love is a rare plant—and when you can't find it, shallow society and its "rules" become an easy substitute. These two vulnerable souls just took the path of least resistance because of their own baggage... which doesn't make them any less worthy of contempt. And yeah, I know they’re fictional characters—I liked the movie, but seeing those same people shoved into a real-life context and mocked... that actually bothered me.
As for Holly—this girl who basically carries the whole social scene on her back because she’s charming, sweet, and a total fashion icon—she’s actually pretty trashy at heart. Maybe even malicious, if you really look at it.👎 Just a bunch of lost souls—people struggling to find their footing, too sensitive for their own good, or carrying around baggage that'll never let them go. They’ve got great hearts, really, but they're basically dead ends. And the burnt-out ones? That’s the bottom of the barrel—just more victims looking for someone to blame.
I went off-topic—not that I really care. (Though, honestly, it feels like the topic is both anyway.)
Not trying to be mean here—just giving you my two cents on your post. It’s way too long—yeah, definitely!

On topic—the movie is great. 😍

You didn't go off-topic—you actually made some solid points. But while you're busy analyzing these literary heroes, I'm just looking at the real world. Not everyone "wastes" time for no reason. When I mentioned singers, I wasn't talking about actual professionals with talent—I meant the ones who just pick up a mic because they have nothing better to do, despite having zero musical sense or rhythm. If I'm right, there are ten times more of them than the real artists.
Honestly, that mindless worship for people who just "entertain" the rich drives me nuts—call me weird, but whatever. I’d much rather be working as a janitor or a cashier than living in some pink bubble, playing nice with wealthy people I don't even like or care about just for the sake of money, money, money. I’d honestly take a life out in the middle of nowhere, maybe raising sheep or farming—yeah, it’s grueling work, but at least it's real. Not to lecture anyone, but you can find plenty of legendary artists who created masterpieces without ever selling their souls or their partners for a paycheck. Same goes for how people look down on scientists or even basic bureaucrats. Look, someone has to do those jobs—they aren't romantic or glamorous, but they're honest and absolutely essential. Honestly? All those paintings, songs, and books aren't nearly as useful as the work of a single government clerk.
So you’re calling me jealous 🙄 — easy way out, attacking people like that. Why would I even be jealous? I can still pursue music, art, literature in my downtime... plus I actually have a job where I do something useful (which I enjoy: if I were a musician, I could teach kids and make art on the side). And yeah, sure, entertainers, artists, writers—they all do "useful" things by entertaining us for centuries, but then again, bureaucrats, cashiers, janitors, delivery drivers—they’re the ones making life livable and keeping civilization from falling apart.
And as for what you said:
"that job has a name, and I think it's significantly harder than being a secretary or a preschool teacher."
Please... what a load of nonsense... first you claim they just take the path of least resistance, then you turn around and praise their craft as some peak, grueling profession. They chose it themselves.
The whole lives of people like that are just pure melodrama—endless drama... like when that one American actress joined those Carmelite nuns. Total "drama queen"... and I honestly despise it. Honestly, Holly is the perfect embodiment of that self-importance; constant planning, daydreaming about things that don't exist, ignoring the importance of the real people who love her, closing her eyes to responsibility and reality... Holly is only charming because of the actress... it's a movie, after all. You really think someone like Pamela—you know, those girls with the overfilled lips and everything else—would be charming? And yet you're so obsessed with Holly. Give me a break.
Then there's this idea that life is hard, and you can't make it easier by taking the easy way out; you'll just end up feeling more miserable. That's the whole point of the movie... because in the end, Holly is left with nothing but that poor cat and a guy who knows he's broke but chose her anyway. That's it. That's life. It's not about dreaming of stupid diamonds, tacky sparkly dresses, champagne, caviar, and all that junk that has nothing to do with happiness. He'll still create, he'll still write, but he'll probably have to work as a journalist just to feed them, and she'll have to get a real job too... maybe they won't have any diamonds from Breakfast at Tiffany's, damn it, but they'll have each other. And then, say, she gets pregnant, and they won't even have money for diapers... jeez... 😳