Posts by wiredraven82

Folks, I honestly have no clue what’s going on with me lately... By nature, I’m a positive guy—someone who likes to joke around, an optimist, you name it—but for a little while now (this is probably the fourth time this has happened, and it’s the second day in a row out of those four), I’ve been getting this intense pressure in my chest, heart palpitations, and this sort of lightheadedness. It’s accompanied by this "darkness" when there's bright light—not like I'm losing vision, but more like a heavy sensory overload—along with sweaty palms and this tingling, needle-like sensation in my hands. It all feels like I'm about to spontaneously combust...

I try to stay level-headed and composed, but truthfully, it’s terrifying sometimes; I think it’s perfectly normal to be worried... For instance, this hit me yesterday right after a heated argument with my parents. So, this has happened four times in the last month—out of those four instances, three were triggered by agitation, whereas this most recent one today just came out of nowhere...

On top of that, I’ve been getting this pressure in my ears, almost like I’m standing at some massive altitude, which has also happened within this last month... I don't have any ringing or tinnitus, but there’s this sensation of "clogging" in my left ear occasionally, and a weird shift in how low-volume sounds hit me—it's almost "raspy," if that makes sense—though I can't quite put my finger on it...

Every single one of these four episodes is accompanied by a lingering sense of mild anxiety; it’s the kind of thing that genuinely rattles you...

Is it possible that all of this is stemming from one specific type of stress? I’ve made some pretty significant life changes recently—moved in with someone I love deeply (and the feeling is mutual)—but there’s still that occasional friction with my parents, you know how it goes... To be honest, I've started getting scared that something is actually wrong with my health. By the way, I'm 28. I don't drink alcohol or anything like that; the only thing is I smoke about a pack and a half, sometimes even two a day, and I used to drink a ton of coffee, though I've cut back on both significantly and am trying to quit...

When I was younger, I was constantly on the move, always outdoors and playing recreational sports like basketball, but for the last year or so, I've been spending a massive amount of time sitting in front of a computer screen...

I'm posting this because I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on whether all of this might be interconnected...

Thanks a lot,

fadedorca66 said:It would be helpful if you could tell us exactly which processor, motherboard, and power supply you have.

Even so, you aren't going to buy anything special for that kind of money. Maybe something used.

Alright everyone, I just downloaded PC Wizard so I can give you guys precise answers to your questions—though I’m a bit stuck on this "what power supply do you have" part (don't laugh)—I know I can see stuff in PC Wizard, but what specifically are we talking about here? Give me the English terminology, haha...

Anyway, here are the rest of my system specs; hopefully, I've been thorough enough 😁:






Now, let me show you the two potential graphics cards I've been eyeing online. I'm thinking about ordering one of them, so let me know what you think—links for both are below and the prices should be visible:

The second one caught my eye specifically, but look, please just give me a few smart sentences based on these specs to tell me what to do... thanks in advance.

Alright everyone, I’m looking to pick up a graphics card in the $300 range—maybe stretching up to $117—that actually holds some weight when it comes to gaming...

Here’s the situation: I basically screwed myself over when I bought my case about two and a half years ago. To put it bluntly, my current graphics setup is non-existent—forgive the language—meaning I’m stuck relying on the integrated graphics on my motherboard, which only has about 750 MB to work with...

So, I’ve got this rig with the following specs, which honestly isn't a bad build by my standards, aside from the massive hole where the GPU should be: 2GB of RAM, a 2.60 GHz processor, a 300 GB hard drive, Windows 7, and that 750 MB integrated graphics chip on the motherboard...

My computer is practically screaming for a decent, relevant graphics card. If I’m being honest, I haven’t really kept up with hardware expertise—it’s been maybe 7 or 8 years since I was truly "in the loop" 🤣—though I’ve stayed somewhat current with software and the internet. As for everything else... save me, Bog, I'm out of my depth. So, if anyone can help me narrow down a choice...

It’s frankly embarrassing. When I want to play a shooter from 2007 or 2008—and occasionally even stuff from 2005 or 2006 (not to mention the 2009–2012 era)—I run into issues. I constantly have to drop the resolution down to 800x600 just to get a playable frame rate without constant stuttering. It’s pathetic, really...

Thanks in advance

I voted for the first one—that was a decision made without a single shred of doubt—and here is how I rank them, along with my own personal ratings:

1. Die Hard film - 8.5/10
2. Die Hard with a Vengeance - 8/10
3. Die Hard 4.0 - 7.5/10
4. Die Hard 2 - 7/10

To be honest, I’ve always gone back and forth on which action franchise holds more weight—this one or Lethal Weapon. It was a tough call, but I ultimately tipped the scales toward Lethal Weapon quite a while ago, purely because I’m such a massive fan of Mel Gibson—both as an actor and a director 😁.

That being said, it doesn't take anything away from Willis or the Die Hard series; if they weren't top-tier, I certainly wouldn't be handing out scores this high. This series is undeniably elite.

Taylor Vaughn8 said:If you actually sit down and watch their broadcasts, you’ll start to see how the Mexican media operates—it's all just a tool for their massive Mexican propaganda machine. For instance, whenever they claim they want to hear "the truth" from the other side, they don't actually look for balance. They just cherry-pick certain Americans who are happy to trash-talk America and feed right into the Mexican propaganda. You will never see them invite an American who actually speaks up in favor of American interests.

I watch a few Mexican shows—think along the lines of some intense political talk shows, even things like "Cyrillic," plus some Canadian outlets like Reflex and similar—and yeah, regarding the Mexican side, I have to agree.

Anyway, I opened this thread just so you wouldn't accidentally miss it, so here it is, just in case. 😁

Quentin Tarantino

rowdyowl said:The whole region is headed straight for bankruptcy, and you’re just now deciding to open this thread? 🙂

🤣 I've always found discussions regarding our "neighbors" and how they view us to be quite compelling; 🙂 I believe any serious critical analysis requires looking at things from the other side of the fence.

Look, I’ll start by apologizing to the admins for starting a new thread here—I know the rules—but I genuinely believe this could be informative for more than just myself. I’m looking for some recommendations from the community. Whether you're based here in the States or living in other parts of North America, I’d love to hear your suggestions for current political or news-heavy programs. I’m talking about serious, deep-dive shows—something along the lines of our American staples like *60 Minutes*, *Meet the Press*, or maybe even those late-night Sunday news specials.

To be honest, I don't follow the media landscapes in places like Mexico or Canada very closely—aside from the occasional headline on their major news portals—so I’m turning to you all. It’s always valuable to hear how different perspectives shape the public discourse in various regions; it provides a much broader context. Thanks in advance. 🙂

Jerry Thomas14 said:J. Bourne is basically playing on easy mode here—he’s just flying through everything, improvising on the fly and leaving a trail of confusion behind him. Honestly, you have to wonder how much more effective he’d be if he actually had his head in the game... it’s almost a shame for the guy...

🤣🤣 👍

Bourne is undeniably the gold standard... if you’re looking for a character who functions like a precision-engineered machine—someone possessing that perfect blend of psychological grit and physical conditioning—then he’s definitely the one. ☕ Following closely behind him is Ethan Hunt.

As for James Bond, he feels more like a cartoon caricature to me than a serious, grounded character.

Man, I remember this movie, but my memory is pretty hazy... it’s been ages since I saw it—back when I was just a kid in the 90s. I’m definitely going to have to give it another watch; thanks for the reminder. All I can really recall is some scene where an alien and a human are basically forced to work together—something like that—but they don't trust each other at first. It’s all a bit fuzzy in my mind. 😁

It’s a strange one—definitely an oddity—but I can't deny it was actually a good film. It left me feeling a bit conflicted, to be honest. My final verdict? A solid 7/10.

Austin Roberts4 said:SPOILERI think you’ve missed the mark on this one—your interpretation just isn't quite hitting the nail on the head.🤷 Why does she show up in that final scene looking like she just stepped out of a boardroom in Manhattan? She arrives from country 2 to country 1 looking completely polished—full business attire, professional, poised. To me, that’s a massive tell. It suggests that life back in country 2 was never about surviving accidents or scraping by; instead, it was about hitting the books, finishing university, and climbing the corporate ladder. She clearly holds a high-level position and pulls in a serious salary—which means there was never any desperate need to hand over her ticket to get to country 1 in the first place.
I’d honestly love to see if anyone else wants to weigh in here—it would be interesting to hear how you all interpret this situation differently from my own take.

I think what that scene is actually trying to drive home is the idea that this alternative version of our country is fully functional—she’s got her degree, she’s established, she's put together. Besides, aren't we forgetting the fact that the film explicitly mentions this other version of America appeared four years ago, right when the synchronization of events caused the split? Everything about this points to that conclusion. 🙂

The living and the dead.

casualraven said:Mission: Impossible 2

The poll is a complete dead heat 😁 But, since you brought up Duja—I actually voted for M.I. too, and I laid out my reasoning at the start—but honestly, his take feels totally alien compared to the rest of the series 🙂 though, hey, I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Jerry Martinez50 said:That one scene from Mission: Impossible almost—and I mean *almost*—touched the level of those over-the-top Bollywood action flicks. 😁

🤣 Honestly, it didn't quite make the cut, though it barely managed to pull through. 😁

cosmiclynx57 said:I've watched plenty of action movies and I enjoy them, but I haven't sat through a single Bourne film. As for M. I., I only saw the first one—and that was a decade ago, just once—so it's mostly slipped my mind.

I've been planning to dive into the whole Bourne franchise for a while now, but for some reason, I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

The M. I. films always put me off because of Tom, but I still intend to catch up on that series sometime in the near future.

Jacob, just watch the Bourne films and you won't regret it, trust me... whatever it was that held you back, you were definitely looking at it the wrong way. 😁

Not to sound like a broken record since I’ve already posted here, but this movie was a massive, genuine shock to my system. Honestly, I’m almost at a loss for words—it is an absolute blast of an action flick that completely restores the prestige of this entire franchise. If you consider the original M.I. to be in my personal top five action movies of all time, then you can see why I’m making such a big deal out of this one. 🙂

Within its own genre, I’m giving this an 8/10—and that is a rock-solid, well-earned eight.

The first M.I. holds a special place in my heart for reasons beyond just the cinematography; I happened to be visiting Washington, D.C. about a year after that film came out, and seeing those iconic locations on screen brought it all back... 😁 so, aside from the sheer quality, that first movie has a certain "soul" to it. Now, don't get me wrong, M.I. 4 is technically flawless and a top-tier action movie, but it lacks that specific magic. It’s hard to put my finger on it, but I'll say this: alongside the original, this is the best entry in the series. I might even go as far as saying it arguably surpasses the first one, if it weren't for the personal nostalgia I have tied to that first installment.

So, here’s the deal—the question is as straightforward as the poll itself, but finding an answer can be surprisingly difficult. For instance, take 🙂. Which franchise do you actually prefer between these two? We're talking pure action here; both series have been massive successes and they both possess what I’d call a certain "soul" or signature style. Even though they share some DNA in terms of plot beats, they each maintain a distinct identity and atmosphere.

It’s a tough call, but I’m going to reluctantly side with Mission: Impossible. It’s a hard choice because two of the Bourne films sit firmly in my personal top 5 greatest action movies of all time, so the math should be obvious.

I absolutely love the Bourne films—specifically the ones starring Matt Damon—though even the fourth installment isn't bad, it just doesn't quite hit that same high note.



Why did I ultimately pick Mission: Impossible? Because Mission: Impossible (1996) stands as the best action film I've ever seen, right alongside the Bourne ultimatum. But beyond the technical stuff, there’s a deeper connection there—whenever I watch that first film, I’m instantly transported back to New York City 😁 I was actually there at the time as a kid, and ended up visiting a few more times later on. Of course, it's not purely out of nostalgia, but... there's just that "something extra" about it. 🙂

To lay it all out, here is my personal top 5 greatest action movies of all time, along with my ratings:

1. Mission: Impossible (1996) - 9/10
2. The Bourne Ultimatum - 9/10
3. Die Hard - 8.5/10
4. Lethal Weapon II - 8.5/10
5. The Bourne Identity - 8/10

I should also mention that Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol lived up to every expectation; it’s easily the best of the sequels for me and lands in my top 10, but again, nothing touches the 1996 original. 🙂 I'd give M.I. – Ghost Protocol an 8/10.

Even after all this time, I haven't seen an action sequence that tops this one (especially when that iconic score kicks in during the climax at the 04:20 mark—man, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8LGzbU3PtI ).

Look, I’ll be honest with you all—I can't help myself. I absolutely love Star Trek, but seeing this actor on screen? It’s a struggle. I genuinely can't stand him. It’s like I have an allergic reaction to his entire performance style and his whole body of work—whether we're talking about his role as Kirk or anything else he's ever done... his specific vibe just gets under my skin. Everything about it.

So, when people have the nerve to ask me whether Picard or Kirk is the better captain... honestly, give me a break. 🙂

Ethan Rivera53 said:Well, look, I’m all for rock 'n' roll myself, but I’m not really down with the whole slashing veins, performing occult rituals, or setting fire to a closet where your girlfriend is trapped kind of vibe. And I’m fairly certain that even Jim didn't envision rock 'n' roll turning into that sort of madness. 😉

I’m not exactly looking for that either, but let’s be realistic here—The Doors, much like Jim himself, were never a standard fixture in the rock 'n' roll landscape. If you look at them strictly through a musical lens, they weren't just "rock"; they were this strange, mutant hybrid of rock, jazz, blues, and whatever else felt right at the moment.

Personally, I think only Jim truly knew what his original vision was—his bandmates have even hinted at that in various interviews. 🙂

@Lisa Davis46/">@@Lisa Davis46

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. But no, the film doesn't depict Jim as some isolated case of heavy marijuana use and constant drinking; half of America was doing the same thing back then—it certainly wasn't by accident. The Doors served as one of many catalysts in shaping the American youth culture of the 60s and driving that wedge between them and the "stiff" sensibilities of the 50s. Regardless of how you slice it, The Doors were outliers then, and they remain outliers now.

Lisa Davis46 As stated by:
Let’s stop spreading misinformation. People constantly bring up Aldous Huxley’s "Doors of Perception," but anyone who has actually sat down and read that book—which undeniably left its mark not just on Jim Morrison, but on the rest of the band and the entire counterculture of the late sixties—knows exactly what happened here. This isn't some new concept; it is actually a reference to one of the most famous quotes by the poet William Blake from his collection *The Marriage of Heaven and Hell* (1790).

I intend to accomplish this through a process of corrosive etching—a method that, much like certain harsh treatments used in medicine, serves a curative purpose by stripping away the superficial layers. By dissolving those obvious, surface-level facades, I can finally reveal the infinite truth that has been hidden beneath.
If we could somehow strip away the grime from the doors of perception, everything would finally reveal itself to us exactly as it truly is: infinite. (MHH 14).' > [Link]
It’s the same passage that Huxley constantly references in his essays and his broader philosophical outlook—though most people only realize the book's title was actually lifted directly from that specific quote.

Regarding the film itself—I’m in total agreement with anyone saying it’s only worth sitting through for the music. Honestly, you might not even need to watch the movie at all; just listen to the soundtrack and call it a day. Stone essentially crafted a film about everything except The Doors, and certainly nothing about Jim Morrison:

Oliver Stone is essentially the antithesis of everything The Doors stood for. His portrayal of Jim Morrison reduces him to nothing more than a booze-soaked, erratic wreck—just some unstable poet who couldn't keep his act together. You completely miss the intellectual depth that defined him. Where was the wit? Where was the charm, the sophistication, the sheer elegance? Instead of getting a glimpse of the true poet, you're just stuck watching a manic, spiraling version of Jim Morrison. And honestly, looking at his filmography, you have to ask: what movie did Oliver Stone make after The Doors? It says everything you need to know about his direction. [link]

Jim Morrison was a brilliant mind—a true creative, a cinematic visionary, and a poet—not some mindless drunk or a junkie like this movie tries to paint him. Beyond the fact that the script is riddled with blatant misinformation, the film is absolutely sabotaged by Val Kilmer’s forced performance and his desperate attempt at "mimicking" a face that isn't his. One of the most glaring issues here is the failed attempt to mask the total lack of physical resemblance between Kilmer and one of the most iconic faces in music history—a man actually featured in Umberto Eco's "History of Beauty." They didn't just fail through lighting and makeup; they failed through Kilmer's constant, agonizingly awkward lip-pursing and that unnatural, strained expression he maintains throughout the entire thing.

Jim Morrison and The Doors didn't exactly deserve how things went down, but at least Tom DiCillo had a serious motive to try and set the record straight through his filmmaking.When you’re operating on that different frequency—that "strange" wavelength—everything shifts. It isn't just about being eccentric; it's about seeing the architecture of reality while everyone else is just staring at the wallpaper. There’s a specific kind of isolation that comes with it—a quiet, heavy sort of solitude—but there's also a certain power in refusing to sync up with the mundane rhythm of the crowd. Most people spend their entire lives trying to blend in, terrified of a single jagged edge, whereas true outsiders know that the edges are exactly where the light gets in. 🙂

That’s a pretty solid breakdown of how everything regarding The Doors was captured in *When You're Strange*, but I have to take issue with the idea that the film paints Morrison as nothing more than a drunk and a washout. Sure, someone could interpret it that way—I get it—but let's be real: wasn't the actual Jim Morrison, the true Morrison, perceived by the majority of the American public for over thirty years? Yes, he was. But that isn't really the point here. The real crux of the matter lies in what he actually intended to create and how he is ultimately understood by those who truly listen to his work.

Nothing in that film was depicted with any level of exaggeration that wasn't already a core part of Jim's reality—and if anyone wants to jump in here to argue that it painted him as just some drunk or a junkie, well, let me tell you something: I’d bet my life that if Morrison were still around to sit down and watch that movie, he wouldn't have given a damn. To take offense at that would be to take offense at everything he poured into his music. To me, he will always be the ultimate artist, the top-tier intellectual, and a world-class musician; all that other chaos—the stuff people love to point fingers at—was simply the fuel that made him who he was. JIM. 🙂

Look, I’m not here to get into a debate about The Stones or Guns N' Roses—that’s not the point. It’s just frustrating to think about how people view Morrison. Honestly, I have zero interest in sugarcoating things for those who watched The Doors movie and walked away thinking he was nothing more than some cliché drunk or a junkie; frankly, they aren't even worth the breath it takes to explain it to them.

Ethan Rivera53 said:Like I said before, the music is good. The concerts are put together quite solidly—aside from a few flaws—but honestly, that concert scene in Miami where he’s dancing with ghosts and then with the crowd is a great addition to the film. Even if it didn't actually happen that way, it's the director's "artistic touch." But Morrison outside of a concert setting was terrible, and he really wasn't that bad; there are plenty of interviews and videos out there showing he was just a normal guy—maybe a bit eccentric, sure, but hardly some kind of maniac. Yet in this movie, he is...

I'll give you the Miami thing, but there's a massive difference between how someone carries themselves in a formal interview versus how they act at wild parties or in their private life. Most of what the film focuses on are those exact parties and debaucheries...

The actual guy—the real Jim—was chasing something otherworldly. He was looking for a different sphere of perception, which he tried to find through drugs and various intoxicants. His songs were more like poetry he wrote to process his various perceptions of life. Personally, I'd say his songs were perfect for when I just wanted to unwind while driving; I mean, is there anything better than cruising through the city with L.A. Woman playing? 😁 On the other hand, when I want to get pumped up with rock, I'll put on Led Zeppelin, the Stones, or even AC/DC if I'm feeling it.

Rock stars have always been strange creatures—just like most great artists—but Morrison was a particularly odd specimen. He remained that way until the end, and that’s exactly why this film feels so weird.

Robert Rodriguez11 said:Well, there it is. For me, they're just middle-of-the-road. 😁

The Beatles are the peak.

The movie is good, Val Kilmer is good—everything is just fine. Since I've read and watched so much about The Doors and Morrison, and even read Aldous Huxley (does anyone know why 😁?), it feels to me like the film isn't quite hitting the mark; in fact, it's actually quite far from the truth.

Well, it's because he named the band after the title of his book... besides, "The Doors" refers to that second perception of reality that Morrison spent his entire life striving for through his lyrics—and, unfortunately, through drugs. 🙂