Posts by briskhound2

cosmicgull said:Look, they're all categorized under Sci-Fi, so can you really just call it Sci-Fi?

Sci-Fi. It’s kind of like theoretical physics... everything is technically possible, even if it sounds totally wild, as long as you stick to some sort of internal logic. Like, time travel or going faster than light—both are impossible by our current standards, but you can still build a foundation for them. Fantasy, though... that's got elements that basically have zero connection to actual science; we're talking magic, sorcery, throwing in mythology for good measure. Sometimes the lines get blurry—take Star Wars, for instance—but you can't exactly claim something like LOTR is Sci-Fi when there isn't a shred of either concept in there... then again, you can't say Transformers is fantasy because the whole movie is practically screaming science and fiction tropes at you.

That opening list basically breaks down into what we’d call "realistic" Sci-Fi—films that actually lean on some kind of grounded reality (well, except for Blade Runner, which is just pure noir at its core)—whereas the fantasy list is really for movies that ditch any sense of realism altogether.

What's the connection between votes and ratings anyway? Plus, you set up this poll all wrong—we usually have a rule about adding "some other title" at the end because otherwise, it just looks totally random...

cosmiclynx57 said:For the most part, yeah, I’m with you. But honestly, not everyone feels that way, which is kind of hilarious when you think about it because it feels like a total rule of thumb that those older movies just have this level of believability that the newer ones completely lack. Don't you feel like they just hit different?
Look, like I was saying before, there are definitely some older flicks out there that just aren't worth your time—you know exactly what I mean, so don't even try to argue with me on this one! But hey, let's not get totally sidetracked and go off on a tangent about that right now, alright?

Just to refresh your memory, we were actually diving into the whole question of believability here, right? I wasn't saying one is strictly better than the other, though let's be real—usually, those older flicks tend to hold up a bit better, don't they? But hey, it’s not like every single vintage movie is automatically superior to every modern release, is it? It really just depends on the craft!

And what part of that was unclear? Seriously... Twister just looks better and feels way more grounded than Storm. Plot-wise, they're basically playing the exact same stupid tune. I don't care about other movies from twenty years ago. Even with all the fancy modern CGI, Storm looks more plastic than something built on a Commodore 64.

cosmiclynx57 said:What does age even have to do with how believable a movie is? This film isn't hard to believe just because it came out in 2014; it’s hard to believe because it's just... fundamentally unbelievable. I mean, come on, there are plenty of movies from twenty years ago that feel totally unrealistic, right? Getting older doesn't automatically make a movie more convincing.

That being said, I'm totally with you—the lack of realism is a massive flaw. Honestly, the characters pull such ridiculous stunts that I found myself rolling my eyes more than a few times while watching.

Enough to make the older movie look way better than the new one...

Brandon Fox2 said:It’s a bit underwhelming, I guess. It feels like maybe Armitage was just taking a breather after playing Thorin in the Hobbit! There isn't much here that we haven't already seen in Twister and similar movies. It might be okay for some light viewing, though.

Honestly, even though Twister is twenty years older, it still feels way more believable than Storm... It's a decent enough flick if you just want to zone out for a bit—there are some cool moments—but when it comes to actually being convincing? Zero points.

Nicole Fox35 said:well, someone actually posted in that thread yesterday for that exact reason, and it got moved over to the documentary recommendations thread, where people mostly just list them. (there aren't any ratings or actual deep thoughts involved either)

Honestly, this tells me you haven't even glanced at the original thread—which, by the way, has over 700 posts. In that thread, people recommend documentaries they've actually watched, share their opinions, and leave ratings. Your thread is basically the same thing, except you added "recent" to the title, which kind of limits the scope. So, what, if someone watched a doc a month ago, they aren't allowed to post in your thread and have to go to the other one instead?

it was actually really easy to follow and way more interesting than that messy recommendation thread that's currently sitting there without any direction. plus, there clearly was interest in a review thread since people were posting, sharing pics, and rating docs. there were even some pretty cool insights from users about certain documentaries.

Recognized by who? Even the other users pointed out there’s an identical thread already. The view count was only at 50 before I moved it... and it sat there for almost a week with only 8 posts total.

so I really don't get why a moderator would just delete it without any explanation or talking it out first?

It wasn't deleted at all. Every single post, from start to finish, is still right there—they were just moved to the proper thread, which is active, organized, and actually useful.

Nicole Fox35 said:if that's the case, why not just combine movie reviews with the movie recommendation thread? you could just make one big unified thread for both recommendations and reviews.
does that not work?

Because you clearly don't get the difference between recommendations and reviews. Let me break it down for you.

When someone asks, "can you recommend a movie like alien," other users can just drop a few titles. They don't need to write full-blown reviews or deep dives. When someone does want to share their thoughts on something they recently watched, those need to be actual thoughts—because we scrap posts that are just "this was awesome." You see the distinction now? Your thread would've been fine if the recommendation thread only had lists, but since you didn't bother reading it, you missed the fact that there are already reviews, deep dives, and ratings in there. It really just feels like a case of "I want my own thread." Having two identical threads isn't just redundant, it's pointless...

The same logic applies to documentaries—they're two totally different beasts...
So why does one follow this rule while the other doesn't?

I already broke it down above.

If you’re insisting the topics are identical, then be consistent—apply that same logic to movie reviews too. You should bundle the review threads with recommendations so people can actually discuss them there. That's the only way it would be fair.

Like I said, check my previous post.

Hopefully that clears things up...

Cheers

Alright, let's take this one step at a time.

- First off—where did all the good stuff go? I'm talking E.T., Star Trek, Star Wars, The Abyss...

- Secondly—it’s been pointed out a dozen times already that we can't just include random stuff like this because (refer back to my first point) there just aren't enough options to cover everything.

- Thirdly—since making an exhaustive list is basically impossible, you should just add an "Other person/movie/director" option to the poll. So, I'm locking this thread for now while I wait for the inevitable "hey, you forgot this!" or "what about that?" comments to start rolling in... if you really want to do this right, just reorganize it properly and toss in that "other" category so it actually works.

Cheers!

James Garcia50 said:Please, give me a break. He's just pre-cool to me, end of story. 🍿
Action stars are everywhere—Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson... but there's only one Macon.

Now for something completely different...





Brad Dourif

That's fine. For you. Not for everyone else. Just look at my avatar. Miles Matheson. Billy Burka. It's basically Kulerčina squared—but just because I love him doesn't mean I'm gonna post him here...😉

You can find action heroes everywhere—Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson... but there's only one Macon.

What does being an action hero even have to do with this? Arnold and half that whole crew aren't even "cool," they're just straight-up macho guys. Half of them don't even belong in this conversation, including Macon, and especially not Dourif.

Chow Yun-fat, though... now he's a legend in every single movie he's in.



He might be practically unrecognizable by now, but honestly, nobody holds a candle to R. J. MacReady...

That whole makeover thing? Honestly, didn't do much for him—he still looks like he’s terrified of actually pulling the trigger. And man, Clint Eastwood is just in a league of his own... nothing else even comes close. 😁 Sorry, but your guy is basically the poster child for being uncool—both the look and the attitude. He’s just got zero swagger. It’s not even about being embarrassing, some actors are just built that way...

With that beard and the way he's holding that gun, it’s like he’s picking up a weapon for the first time in his life. Honestly, he looks totally lost—like he’s not even sure which end the bullet comes out of. And that beard, plus the greasy hair... it just isn't working. It's... man, seriously, go take a shower.

This is what a total loser looks like trying to act tough with a gun 😁

What's actually cool about that guy? 🤔

What do you mean Bud? Or Statham? Or even Terrence Hill... Mickey eats them all for breakfast.

It’s definitely not Jimmy Carter.

Gritty, hard-boiled noir vibes...

Terry Morris41 said:I mean, what kind of loser actually goes out of their way to report posts that are perfectly fine? Seriously...

Look, if you think this kind of communication is totally fine, then there’s really nothing left to discuss. I personally told you a day or two ago to dial it back a notch, and honestly, other users had already voiced similar concerns before I did.

and again, NOBODY gave me a heads-up that I was getting a partial ban, so I'm telling you—show me that message if it even exists, because from my end, I just got hit with a restriction today without any prior warning.

The reality is, I had to publicly warn you several times to chill out because you were crossing the line of decent conversation. The fact that you didn't get a formal warning before the partial ban is just the inevitable result of all those warnings being ignored... which, clearly, weren't working.

you're just dodging the facts and making stuff up now,

Here are the facts: every single one of your strikes is tied to poor communication in the Movie section—which, frankly, is unnecessary since you're actually a decent contributor—and the facts are that there are at least three public warnings on Reddit regarding how you address other users (can't speak for other mods, though)... plus, other users have also openly expressed they aren't happy with how you act. It's all right there in the open, just like the deleted posts. No need to invent a different story.

Rebecca Harris said:I don't care who got banned or why, but I do care about what you just said. So, does that mean I can tell someone: Your mom's a slut. and not get flagged, simply because I highly doubt some random user's mother has an account on Reddit? 😳

Is that how it works?

Not quite.

You'll get flagged because you're directing it at a specific person.

silvergardener6 said:This isn't really a debate. 😂 I don't particularly feel the need to engage in a massive, drawn-out argument with someone who insists that > times deeper than is complete trash.
There's a general consensus on Rotten Tomatoes;

Smart, smoothly directed, and enriched with a deeper exploration of the franchise's thought-provoking themes, Catching Fire proves a thoroughly compelling second installment in the Hunger Games series.

But why? In my opinion, it seems pretty obvious—at least to anyone paying attention to the regimes and conflicts within that world (interestingly, I recently read a news story about protesters using a hand gesture identical to the one seen in the THG series http://www.wired.com/2014/06/hunger-...lute-thailand/—which shares some DNA with Divergent—regarding facing fear and embracing individuality 😂). One could probably find much more detailed analyses in any of the hundreds of reviews out there, which are likely far more thorough and insightful than anything I could write here regarding a topic that isn't even about Catching Fire or The Hunger Games, but rather Mockingjay part 1.

Maybe you thought I was begging for your opinion just so I could back down... but I'm not.

If you want an actual discussion, try meeting me halfway, otherwise there's no point in talking. Skip the personal jabs, and honestly, everything else—like your constant failure to explain yourself or constantly hiding behind critics—isn't my problem to solve...

@silvergardener6

Seriously, quit with the ''you live under a rock'' or ''you're twelve years old'' insults during a debate. If someone is laying out a perfectly solid case for why a certain movie works better—or even just giving their take—those little jabs aren't actual arguments... they don't really mean anything in a real conversation. Just explain your point—what, how, and why—or if you can't quite get there, maybe just don't go after the other person. I'm deleting any comments like that moving forward.

Sam Chase3 said:So, basically just asking for recommendations—give me a solid psychological thriller... something creepy that actually sticks with you, you know? Just looking for something that'll really blow my mind... 🙂

We're all just here to help out.

Casey Cox2 said:you definitely have to mention this one—it's easily one of the best films ever made (though, obviously, it doesn't quite top The Deer Hunter)

Honestly, the movie would’ve been way better if they’d just given it a decent edit and kept things moving... instead, we got all this unnecessary dragging out of an already pretty slow plot.