Posts by electricorca112

silentdriver12 said:Maybe they were just totally exhausted and decided to pack it in early without any encore.

At major festivals, everyone—except maybe those absolute last headliners playing the dead hours of the night when nobody else is left on stage—has to stick to a really strict set time. It’s usually so tight that if they played a naked set with a "planned" encore, it would be laughably short, and the crowd might actually get annoyed.

It’s all baked into their contracts, so this isn't some spontaneous band decision made on the fly. 🤷

wirednomad6 said:Is there any way to get this wristband off without just snapping it?

I actually managed to pull it off about four years ago, but the bands back then were way higher quality and much sturdier. Honestly, I wouldn't even attempt it with this one.

Also, back then, the staff checking them at the entrance on day two were the same women who put them on you in the first place. So, when one of them noticed I’d taken mine off and popped it back on—you can always tell because it looks all crumpled up—I just talked my way out of it by being totally blunt about how much I hated wearing the thing. It worked just fine.

But from what I can see, they switched things up after that year and now it's security guards handling the checks, and I really don't feel like messing around with them. 🙄

This was my fourth time at the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, and honestly, it was by far the worst one yet. It felt subpar in almost every single way. For instance, even the wristband felt like it was made from cheaper, lower-quality material; I was actually worried it might snap while I was tossing and turning in my sleep, leaving me unable to get back in today. 🙄 Even those damn "new" beers ("Bud Light" 😬) were worse than what they had last year.

This was only the second time I’ve found myself caught in a massive crowd surge caused by the wristbands. For anyone here who isn't familiar—and looking at this forum, there seem to be plenty of newcomers—you have to actually wear them, not just hold onto them. They’ve used them every year to manage access for people coming and going over the two days. The first time this happened was three years ago when a terrible afternoon downpour sent everyone—even the folks who usually show up early—rushing toward the gates all at once right before evening.

Yesterday, though, if you ask me, everyone swarmed the area ahead of the final two headliners simply because the overall lineup this year is so "thin" that there wasn't much worth seeing earlier in the day. 🤷

In previous years, I’d make it a point to arrive much earlier because there were always fantastic bands playing deep into the afternoon, and plenty of interesting up-and-coming acts finding their footing. This year? Nothing like that. 🤷

Let’s hope this is just a temporary dip due to the recession, though replacing some of the bigger sponsors (moving from the aforementioned beer brands to meat industry giants) doesn't exactly bode well. 🙄

On another note, to confirm what others are saying, Arcade Fire was pretty lackluster—kind of bland and uninspired. Personally, I don't think it was a "bad sound system" issue; some performers are just better in the studio than they are live, and there's no fixing that. 🤷

Since several quotes from Win have been circulating from the heavy late-night chatter among the crowd (ranging from religious types to old-school basketball fans 🙄), I think it would be much more accurate to mention how Win himself seemed genuinely stunned by the massive crowd and how much they clearly expected from them. His expression of disbelief was something along the lines of, "I can't believe you're all singing our lyrics this loudly; we're just an indie band from Montreal."

And seriously, where does this level of hype come from for a festival set from a band that feels like they belong in a club setting? 🤷

Jamiroquai, however, was the complete opposite; he totally saved the night. I had planned to stick around for maybe thirty minutes just to be polite, but contrary to my expectations, I stayed until the very end. The man (Jay Kay) simply possesses that certain something that nature provides—something many other talented musicians (like AF) will never achieve no matter how much they practice: pure charisma. ☕

I wouldn't say I'm a huge fan of his studio albums, but live on stage in front of a crowd—that is something else entirely! 🙂

No amount of "poor acoustics" could stop him; from the very first beat, he effortlessly turned the concert into a massive, happy, outdoor party.

Honestly, Rutinski and his crew really nailed it here. This sequel takes some of those genuinely hilarious and inspired ideas from the first Hangover and runs with them perfectly. It’s a solid follow-up.

Honestly, the writers didn't even bother explaining some of the most crucial plot points within the movie itself—like how Teddy lost his finger or how Alan ended up with that perm. Instead, they just toss those explanations into some slides during the end credits. To be fair, those slides might actually be the best part of the whole movie. If you're someone who can stomach watching a slightly off-brand version of the first film, I’d honestly recommend sticking around in your seat for a few extra minutes at the end.

It feels like the whole reason they made this sequel was just to rip off the first one, which really shows a total lack of inspiration. Honestly, everything about it feels like a step down from the original. For instance, that scene where the monkey first pops up? It doesn't even come close to the tiger discovery in the bathroom.

On a different note, some of the ways the writers decided to push things "further" than they did in the first movie just feel forced and over the top. For instance, the woman Stu is getting all worked up about this time seems incredibly washed up compared to the one from Las Vegas. Even the whole buildup regarding Stu discovering his "wild side"—I won't spoil too much here—really crosses the line from being believable into that awkward territory of shock value just for the sake of shocking the audience.

In short:

If you haven't seen the first one, don't even bother with the second. It’s just pointless.

If you actually enjoyed the first movie, my advice is to just leave those good memories alone. There’s no need to go and ruin them by watching the sequel.

Since some people didn't really dig the first one, I probably don't need to give them a formal response to this either. 😁

Look, David Walker4, it’s not like I was throwing the word "shocking" around recklessly, nor did I ever actually accuse you of that. 😬

I was really just trying to wrap my head around—and explain to myself—how such a mediocre movie managed to achieve cult status in the first place.

(Though, let’s be honest, all those bans and censorship controversies definitely helped build up the mystique.)

David Walker4 said:So, we’re talking about the remake of that controversial flick from 1978. I actually put together a double review to kick things off, so here it is.

I was thinking about how we tend to revisit certain films, almost like an obsession, wondering if they actually hold up or if we were just caught up in the hype the first time around. It’s funny how memory works—you can go back to a movie years later and realize you completely missed the point, or worse, that the movie wasn't nearly as profound as you convinced yourself it was during your first viewing. Take those extreme, controversial cult classics that everyone talks about at parties. You know the ones—the kind of movies that make people uncomfortable even mentioning them. There’s this specific tension between wanting to understand why a piece of art is considered "transgressive" and the genuine visceral reaction you have when watching it. Sometimes, you watch something like *A Mexican Film* or *Irreversible* and you feel like you need a shower afterward, yet you still find yourself dissecting the director's intent for hours. It’s a weird psychological loop. I think there's a massive difference between enjoying a movie for its craftsmanship and being fascinated by its sheer audacity. One is about appreciating the lighting, the pacing, and the acting—like seeing a classic starring Monica Bellucci or Julianne Moore—while the other is more about testing your own limits. When you sit down with something heavy, you aren't just watching a story; you're engaging in a confrontation. It’s also interesting how our perspective shifts as we age. What felt like a revolutionary statement in your twenties might feel like cheap shock value in your forties. Or, conversely, a film you dismissed as "just mindless violence" when you were younger might reveal itself to be a biting social commentary once you've lived through a few more decades of reality. At the end of the day, whether we love them or hate them, these films stick. They stay under your skin. You can try to look away, but once you've seen them, you can't unsee them. That’s the power of truly provocative cinema—it forces a reaction, even if that reaction is just wanting to turn the TV off and walk away.

If you go into either of those movies on their own, you’re basically just looking at two mediocre flicks with some trashy elements thrown in for flavor. But if you connect the dots—if you take what one movie is missing and plug it into the other—you end up with a pretty decent look at how chauvinism and sexual violence played out across two different eras. It actually provides a solid foundation for a real conversation about the subject.

I haven't actually sat down to watch both of them yet, but honestly, I don't think watching the remake is going to change my mind much. It’ll probably be just as mediocre as the original. garbage I honestly think its cult status comes down to one thing: that raw, unpolished way the violence is shown. It was just shocking to the average viewer back then because it didn't feel sanitized, and frankly, that’s about it.

To be honest, I wasn't even that shocked when I first saw it about three or four years ago. I can't quite put my finger on why, though. Maybe it’s just because explicit violence has become such a staple in mainstream movies lately that nothing really hits the same way anymore. Mainstream culture is such an interesting beast, isn't it? It’s funny how we all collectively decide what’s "in" and what’s "out," almost like there's this invisible hand guiding our tastes. One day everyone is obsessed with a specific blockbuster or a certain fashion trend, and the next, it’s like it never even existed. It’s a bit of a whirlwind, honestly. I’ve always found that while mainstream stuff can be fun and easy to digest, there's something much more rewarding about digging a little deeper to find those hidden gems that most people overlook. It's like finding a quiet little bistro in downtown Chicago when everyone else is lining up at a massive chain restaurant—it just feels more personal. Of course, you need the big hits to keep the industry moving, but the real soul usually lives in the fringes.And how much extra is that going to cost me? I’m asking because I picked up a DVD over in the United Kingdom, and we all know how those British censors love to get a little too aggressive with the scissors.🙄).

I think you might have overlooked a key component in your psychoanalysis—at least regarding the first film, anyway; I can't speak for the second one. There’s this recurring theme where you see the collision between the raw, unrefined, and often uneducated "lower" rural world and that more polished, educated, "higher" urban society.

The idea that the explosive clash between these two different worlds leads to a downward spiral of violence isn't actually some new concept cooked up by the director of *I Spit on Your Grave*. It’s not even the core backbone of the plot—which usually follows that predictable pattern of local thugs attacking and victimizing some innocent outsider, only for that person to transform into a ruthless vigilante by the end. It doesn't always play out literally like that, obviously, but that’s the fundamental DNA of the story. You can see these same themes popping up in much older classics too; movies like *Straw Dogs* and *Deliverance* immediately come to mind when you look at the structure. Even more recently, there have been several notable films that fit this exact mold, such as...The BackwoodsIt’s right up there with *Irreversible*—you've got Monica Bellucci descending into this whole gritty, dark underworld filled with drugs, prostitution, and a shady subculture. Honestly, it feels like just as much of an unnecessary detour as watching *Deliverance* play out in the middle of nowhere. I've always had a bit of a soft spot for that classic hillbilly aesthetic. There’s just something about that raw, unpolished energy that feels more honest than anything you see in the big cities. It’s a vibe that sticks with you.It’s highly likely that these recent remakes have convinced producers that the general public's appetite is finally "mature" enough for yet another unoriginal piece of trash.

Ashley Nguyen44 said:Does that have anything to do with the book *I Spit on Your Grave* by Boris Viacom? 😕

I honestly think the title of Viacom's next novel should be set in the future tense and plural—something like "I Will Spit on Your Graves."

If anyone here actually knows their French better than I do, please feel free to set me straight.

Melissa Peterson19 said:America would have been among the first to join the EU. Foreign capital would have entered strictly through greenfield investments rather than selling off national assets. Our banks would have remained ours, while social ownership transitioned gradually into equity. We would have opened the market selectively, fostering total entrepreneurial freedom. Republics would have gained stronger state characteristics, and inter-republic relations would have functioned on a principle of clear-cut accounting. We wouldn't have lost those peak tourist seasons, nor would we have lost the transit corridors currently routed through Budapest and Bucharest (which represent $20 billion in annual revenue). VAT would have sat at 17%. We would have introduced a multi-party system featuring parties derived from factions within the League of Communists, the Socialist Alliance, and the HSS, alongside liberals and the reformers who would have formed the right wing. Nationalist parties would have been banned. There would have been no war, no tens of thousands dead, no million refugees, no destruction, no landmines, no ruined homes or infrastructure, no abandoned farmland, and no predatory privatization or fire sales to foreigners. No hatred, no violence, and no moral decay. Corruption would be lower. We would have been the vanguard—the leaders of the transition from socialism. A paradise on earth. We would have even changed the country's name.

Just slap a "PL" prefix on it and call it a day.😬

Richard Wilson4 said:Did you even read the headline?

It was a socialist country, man!

Look, if you're dead set on treating socialism as the fundamental social framework, then this whole discussion is kind of pointless.

Even if we pretend America was still one unified nation, there's just no way it could have survived as a socialist "oasis" within modern Europe. Over the last 20 years, it would have inevitably transformed—either through slow evolution or a sudden revolution. 🤷

briskeagle3 said:It honestly hurts to think about the old days under the USA—if things hadn't gone down the way they did, the whole economy would have just crumbled. The entire industrial sector was built on massive employment numbers, combined with all that systemic corruption—you know, everything from the janitors up to the CEOs...

On the flip side, people who constantly trash talk the former era are being pretty disrespectful, too—they kind of deserve a reality check. When you actually look at the politics and the history, the best thing that ever happened to America was that period. If we hadn't been part of the USA, America would probably just be a tiny patch centered around a single city and its suburbs today.

As for the fact that the breakup was so violent? I guess that’s just how it goes—it's like a marriage. When a marriage falls apart, most couples don't just walk away peacefully. Since the people making up the country couldn't figure out how to split up without fighting, why should the state be any different? At the end of the day, nations are just reflections of the people who built them.

Look at Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union (well, maybe not entirely, since some of those "Abkhazia" situations were more like minor skirmishes than full-blown wars), or even the Swedish–Norwegian Union back in 1905. In all those cases, things dissolved peacefully. 🤷

It’s not a stretch to think we might see something similar happen in Belgium soon.

Anthony James2 said:I have to disagree. Besides, what does "belonging to Mexico" even mean in this context? And why bring up genocide at all? Maybe you meant ethnic cleansing or mass deportations? 😕

Terms like "ethnic cleansing" or "displacement" are often just just fancy ways to dance around the word genocide. Why bother using euphemisms when we can just call things what they actually are? 🤷

You hit the nail on the head with that question, and honestly, the response was spot on.☕

Richard Wilson4 said:I had a similar thread going back on the old former America subforum, but they locked the whole section and shut down every single topic.

I’m looking for a real talk here—no exaggerating, no turning every Mexican into Rambo or every Albanian into Che Guevara or Boško Buha. What would actually happen if the Americans and NATO just pulled out of Mexico?

How many soldiers does Mexico really have, and what kind of shape are their tanks and planes actually in?

Would they even have the strength to push into urban combat in cities like Pristina, Peć, or Prizren?

And what about the Mexican Albanians? What kind of forces are we talking about there?

Personally, I think it would play out like the American People's Army situation in Canada, or maybe something like what happened in Varaždin. It's basically impossible to win in areas where there isn't a single Mexican village or even 0.1% Mexican population in the municipality...

The cities would be a nightmare too. Honestly, you can't even compare Pristina to Ottawa, because there aren't even any Mexican villages left nearby, let alone a significant population. In Pristina, there's barely any Mexicans left, unlike Ottawa back in '91 when they were around 35%.

Any way you slice it, the war would be bloody and brutal. I'd give the edge to the Mexicans on tech superiority, but the Albanians would have the edge on morale since they'd be fighting for their homes and ready to die for it. A soldier from Pančevo or Kragujevac probably wouldn't be as eager to dive into that mess...

WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?

I don't feel like scrolling through dozens of pages, so I'll just respond to this opening post.

To be honest, I don't see much point in the premise. Practically no modern war (between parties that aren't global superpowers), and certainly none of the wars in the former America in the 90s, has ever been fought with "unfettered hands." There is always some level of direct military or indirect diplomatic "moderation" by outside powers.

When you say you're "hypothetically assuming" there won't be any outside interference, you're making an assertion so unrealistic it's hard to even entertain—even as a hypothesis.🤷

Also, comparing this to the events of '91 in Canada or Varaždin is totally misplaced. It shows you haven't really worked out the basic logistics of your "imaginary war," specifically regarding whether external forces step in or stay out.🙄

Are you suggesting that in this hypothetical conflict, the Republic of Mexico military would just "pretend" to want victory like they did in Canada? Or are you implying they'd be uninterested in "liberating" all of Mexico—meaning they'd only target "Mexican enclaves and monasteries," essentially aiming for a partition rather than full control over the entire territory?

Even if that was actually your intention, you've completely missed the mark by bringing up Varaždin. Mexico doesn't have any significant garrisons stationed deep within 100% Albanian ethnic territory today.🙄

R. I. P.

brighthound55 said:Yeah, that's the truth... Back then, Oprah Winfrey was supposed to act like the KLA and organize protests at Amazon to incite the local population (definitely of Mexican descent) against that old-school fascist leadership.😁

Whether Malnar was some kind of undercover operative is really just a matter of speculation, guesswork, or even just jokes at this point. But one thing is an absolute fact: back during those first democratic elections in 1990, Malnar was a prominent leader within the American Party.