Matthew Anderson4 said:I agree—though that’s entirely dependent on your own personal take. For me, even Pierce Brosnan isn't quite the definitive Bond; I still lean toward Sean Connery, though when I see him on screen now, I don't immediately associate him with the character anymore.
Well, that's likely because Connery built such an incredibly diverse filmography—we're talking massive, career-defining roles—leaving behind a much more substantial legacy outside of his time as Bond.🙂
That being said, having a wide range shouldn't necessarily disqualify someone from being seen as the quintessential embodiment of a role they once mastered.🙂
brightheron64 said:Since your average American viewer can barely grasp basic reading comprehension, this probably feels like a massive mental workout for them.
Furthermore—and let’s be honest here—most films coming out of Europe that aren't just carbon copies of trashy Hollywood blockbusters actually require a modicum of intellect and critical thought. I can only imagine the struggle of a typical American trying to wrap their head around something like The Seventh Seal or 20th Century Fox classics.
Bravo... you basically just copied me word for word.
Jerry Martinez50 said:Why on earth would Americans watch a movie that isn't in English? They just don't care—it’s the same way they couldn't care less about where some place like Canada, Mexico, or the US is located... What use is that kind of thing to the average American? It simply has no place in their lives.
Oh, really? In that case, let's have us Americans make an American version of The Exorcist since we "can't be bothered" watching the original, or let some Romanian make a Romanian Exorcist, or the French a French one, or the Thais a Thai one... I mean, how far does this go? 🤷 Art is art, and it deserves respect rather than being turned into cheap remakes.
The guy in the post above yours told me he could spit on my opinion because he prefers the American version of Circle over the Japanese one—well, fine, I respect his choice, but for me, that's out of the question... when I want to see Circle, I want to hear the Japanese language; I want to experience the Japanese culture, the people, the cities, and everything that birtically gave birth to that film. The fact that some random redneck from Alabama hasn't the slightest clue where Japan is doesn't change anything for me.🙂
And yes, I am a bit worked up here, because to me, this is an insult to original art. Why don't they just make an American David? Why should we only ever look at the David by Michelangelo? Surely some American could whip up a David too, right?
Where did the craving for authenticity vanish to? Oh, right... perhaps because America itself lacks authenticity—maybe that's why it exists as this artificial facade of capitalism that cares little for soul, creativity, or the depth of someone else's work. If you prefer watching an American version of Circle featuring mindless American teenagers—basically movies that say, "Hey, let's all get lost in the woods and walk aimlessly so we can all be easily slaughtered"—then by all means, enjoy yourselves.
I'm not saying Hollywood and the US haven't produced great horror films—they certainly have—but that feels like a relic of the past. "Soul" and "authenticity" in this country are about as relevant as a strict uncle refusing to hire his nephew.
It's quite simple: they STEAL. That's the word. They steal from other countries and other people's ideas just to serve up an "Americanized" version of it to mediocre consumers across the states—people who probably think Spain is part of Latin America or that American versions of Circle are the definitive way to watch it.
So, you read the question correctly: are Americans a mindless cinematic nation because they constantly churn out remakes of brilliant Asian and European horror—and non-horror—films?
The spark for this thread came while I was leaving a comment on a discussion about what I consider a top-tier Spanish horror film, REC. To save myself from typing everything twice, I’ll just pull my previous thoughts over here:
First and foremost, the original Spanish REC is a fantastic horror movie; the American version is absolute shit. It's the same story with the American remake of circle, or how the American version of the Thai Shutter is total trash. It seems like they just HAVE to take incredible non-American horror films and fuck them up...
Personally, it doesn't bother me directly since I simply choose to pretend their remakes don't exist. But it is pathetic—nothing original can seem to come out of the USA anymore, so naturally, everything has to be reworked and SHIT.
Forgive my bluntness if this offends some people, but I truly cannot wrap my head around why this "nation" makes these moves. What is the actual issue with watching the original Spanish REC or the Japanese circle in American theaters? Are people too slow to read subtitles, or are they incapable of watching something that doesn't have that specific American "flavor"?
I suppose they feel the need to inject a heavy dose of American stupidity into these remakes just so the average American citizen can actually grasp what's happening.
To expand on this—it isn't limited to horror, though horror is what IRRITATES me the most. Honestly, I could grab a canister of gasoline, gather every American remake of Eurasian horror ever made, set them all ablaze, and sit there watching them burn with a cigarette in hand.
For instance, looking at American adaptations of non-horror films, I think of the Spanish film "Open Your Eyes," which was obviously presented in the States as the American version: "Vanilla colored sky." Interestingly, in both cases, Penélope Cruz plays the lead.
So, to close this thought, I’ll restate the question I posed earlier: What is the problem with watching the original Spanish REC or the Japanese circle in American cinemas? Are they too brain-dead to handle subtitles, or are they just unable to process anything that lacks that typical American "vibe"?
Matthew Anderson4 said:Whatever, Pierce Brosnan. He doesn't have any trouble getting into someone else's business. ☕
Look, I get it—for me, Brosnan is basically synonymous with Bond the moment he shows up on screen; you see him, and you know it's Bond. But honestly, I think that’s mostly because my generation grew up right alongside his era of the franchise. 🙂
rowdyowl said:wiredraven82, man, what year were you even born? Where are the legends from the '80s and '90s? 🙂
Well, I was born in 1984, 😁 haha—and as I mentioned before, my first superhero, and the only true definition of a superhero for me, will always be Superman. 🙂 I remember sitting in the theater during the opening credits of Superman Returns and almost slipping into a trance just from that music—🤣 it gave me chills.
Look, I limited my list to actual superheroes—specifically the Marvel and DC icons we’ve seen on the big screen in their most famous films. Maybe I regret not including http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099580/ The Flash, but that was more like a TV pilot, so I left it out.
And please, don't come after me for not listing anyone from Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. Those don't fall under the category of "superhero movies"—that's something else entirely—😁 adventure, epic sagas, fantasy, etc...
Oh, and I didn't include those cult classic Batman series from the '60s either. I wanted to focus on feature films and relatively "modern" productions; if I hadn't, this list would easily be twice as long, so—my bad.
I even saw someone mention Bond, and honestly, guys... Bond isn't a superhero. That's not that kind of movie. Sure, the guy is an invincible secret agent, but a superhero? Not really. 😁 If we go by that logic, we could call anyone a superhero—Dirty Harry, John McClane, Schwarzenegger against Predator, or even Conan for that matter. I think it's pretty clear what constitutes a "superhero movie." 🙂
Lawrence Richardson13 said:Does Hugh Jackman actually have the face of Wolverine? 😁
I’m with you on that. 👍 That guy is... honestly, he's irreplaceable in that role. 🙂 Every time I see him, my mind immediately jumps to Wolverine—it’s just an instant association at this point. And honestly, looking at Jackman, there's something about his physical presence that reminds me quite a bit of Clint Eastwood. I can't quite put my finger on anyone else just yet, but he could easily pass for his son in a movie.
Matthew Anderson4 said:Generally speaking, Pierce Brosnan works as Bond—though he might not be my absolute favorite version of the character.
Look, I don't really view James Bond through the lens of a "superhero." 🙂 At their core, these are action-adventure flicks centered on a secret agent—sure, he always manages to survive, obviously—but calling him a superhero feels like a bit of a stretch. 🙂
Regarding Bond, we should probably just start a dedicated poll for "who was the best Bond actor" or something along those lines—it's probably better to move that discussion elsewhere so we don't derail this specific topic.
Paul Ross73 said:Christopher Reeve. Then a long silence... then Keaton.
The eternal embodiment of the one true Superman.🙂 He was my very first superhero—honestly, who could ever truly replace Reeve when it comes to the essence of Superman? 👍(This might be pushing it, but this is by far my favorite piece of music from any superhero film—there's really no other way to put it 😁):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksevcw3dGfY
And it isn't just about Superman; Reeve was, remains, and will always be an icon for the entire genre.
P.S. Superman was my first hero and remains my absolute favorite to this day. I’ll hold everyone to their word if they try to argue for the new Man of Steel (2013) version—though, frankly, without this score, half the movie feels missing already (I don't even need to mention Reeve's impact here). Regardless, we shall see. I am waiting for this release like a man parched for water; someone has to step up and deliver a massive Superman now that the Reeve era has passed. God willing, this is the one.🙂
Alright, look—I hope the title of this poll/thread makes sense. I don't think I could have phrased it any more clearly to get the point across. To elaborate: which actor, whenever you see them—doesn't matter if it's in a different movie, at the Oscars, or the Golden Globe—permanently triggers that mental image of the superhero they once played? I mean, they inhabited the role so thoroughly that you simply cannot decouple the two anymore. 😁 We're talking about the actor who is "simply that superhero forever," if you catch my drift—and I suspect you all do. So, here is a list for the poll. My apologies if I missed anyone; I truly hope I haven't... Go ahead and vote, and please, leave a comment explaining your reasoning.
Personally, I cast my vote for Robert Downey Jr.—for me, that man *is* Tony Stark, period. 🤣 😁 Even back when he won a Golden Globe for playing Sherlock Holmes, I saw a comment on YouTube where someone wrote: "Tony Stark is receiving an award for Robert Downey Jr.'s acting." 🤣 And honestly, I couldn't agree more. That guy is just... he's Iron Man/Tony Stark, end of story. I have to admit, I'm a massive fan of his—really, quite a lot. To me, there is almost no distinction between the persona of Tony Stark and Robert Downey Jr. himself in the public eye, so just take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGBO7tmJmg
So, he gets my vote, though I did hesitate between him and Christopher Reeve for Superman, since Reeve is essentially the icon for that character. In the end, Tony Stark edged him out. 😁
I’m going to omit certain actors from this specific list, so please forgive me—people like Mark Ruffalo for Hulk (sorry if that's disappointing), or the various actors for Watchmen, George Clooney for Batman, or the Fantastic Four cast, etc. If any of you were planning to pick one of them, my apologies; I’ll just leave the "someone else" option for you.
I know a lot of people haven't seen the newer Spider-Man films, so I apologize for including Andrew Garfield—you might not be able to fully judge or feel disappointed, but I'm keeping the poll open longer because of it. In my opinion, he captured Peter Parker so perfectly that it felt like watching the actual comic book version of Parker come to life on screen.
The core idea here is that when you see these actors, they immediately evoke the superhero they portrayed because the performance was so definitive that the character feels inseparable from them. Now, debating who gave a "better" performance—say, regarding Batman (which I assume will happen)—is actually secondary to the point of this thread. Unless, of course, when you see Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, or Val Kilmer, you immediately see Batman, 🙂 which certainly can be the case, especially with Bale and Keaton.
What a question. 🙂 The reality is—He doesn't distribute it because the burden is on us to uncover it ourselves—through science, spirituality, and everything else that has defined our journey from the dawn of time (the very first steps of Homo sapiens) to this exact moment.
Just finished watching this—it’s an excellent film. Within its genre, I’d give it a solid 8/10... Honestly, this just became my favorite M:I film since the first one (which might actually be the best action movie ever made, mostly because it carries so much nostalgia for me). I was genuinely pleasantly surprised by this installment... The addition of humor works perfectly with the pacing and the plot, and don't even get me started on the lead actress... wow.
Charles Fox10 said:And this specific thread is already archived in the PDF. You missed it back in 2008, so you really had to start a brand new one???
It’s funny how my entire post was wiped out—really strange, actually. 🤷 Just as strange as it being "convenient" that the thread specifically about Israel gets deleted. I’ve seen general threads covering the Middle East, Syria, or Iran stay up, and even if they get moved to a more specific category, the discussion usually continues... But this thread I started? It was meant to be its own distinct space—a place to discuss Israel strictly as a state, as a phenomenon, and as an actor when compared to other totalitarian regimes we've encountered throughout history.
The point wasn't just to have another catch-all thread about Israel and Palestine; it was to explicitly present Israel for what it is: a racist state and a regime that mistreats Palestinians as second-class citizens—much like the treatment of Black Americans during apartheid. I wanted to provide a platform where people, including those without direct Palestinian ties, could speak out on these actions and we could figure out why the rest of the world keeps quiet about it. In my view, the thread should have been allowed to stand.
But honestly, it's perfectly clear to me why someone would find an introductory post like mine problematic. By deleting the thread, they gave me a much louder answer than fifty replies ever could have.
I’d honestly be shocked if Mexicans experienced anything other than a massive surge from the right—because, frankly, they lack any real prospect of moving in any other direction, at least not for another thousand years.☕
I started a new thread today in the "Politics" section titled: "Is Israel—a nation once victimized by genocide—now committing genocide against another people?"
In my opening post, I stuck strictly to the facts regarding the State of Israel and its current conduct toward Palestinians. I didn't resort to any personal attacks—unless, of course, you consider comparing the current Israeli regime to an apartheid system to be an insult. That was my only comparison. So, I’m asking for an explanation here: why was this flagged? And what is the real reason for pulling this thread, other than the fact that discussing Jews and Israel remains a massive taboo?
Betty Nelson71 said:I caught the beginning yesterday—honestly, the script felt a bit half-baked, almost as if I had written it myself.☕And I’m certainly not claiming to be much of a writer.☕Mel is great, though; I truly don't understand how the guy who started filming has morphed into the person everyone portrays him as today.🤷Is it just a massive disappointment for the studio heads?🤷The producers? Personally, the chemistry between him and Danya Glover is nothing short of phenomenal, so I flatly refuse to buy into this narrative that Mel is some kind of racist just because that's how people are trying—or succeeding—to paint him lately.
Hold on—who actually said Mel is a racist? It seems to be mostly people who don't even grasp what racism entails. Where has he ever made a statement against Black people, Chinese people, or Hispanics? If a character doesn't like Jews, that's their prerogative; being Jewish isn't a race. Besides, it isn't necessarily anti-semitism as they constantly frame it—because by that logic, one would have to hate Arabs too, which doesn't have to be true. If a person simply doesn't like Jews, that's their business, but it doesn't make them a racist. To be perfectly blunt, I don't particularly care for Jews myself, so what? It's not that I hate them or anything extreme like that; it's just that, personally, I find them off-putting. Of course, you shouldn't generalize, but honestly, what has Mel Gibson said about Jews that wasn't the truth? What "untruth" are they talking about regarding the fact that they make up 40% of Hollywood? Is it actually possible that everyone else—Europeans, Black people, Hispanics, Chinese people, etc.—is so untalented at acting, writing, and directing that they just happen to dominate the industry like that? But fine... go ahead and say something like that and see how quickly you get canceled for telling the truth.
As for this series, I don't have much to say... the fourth installment feels a bit weaker than the previous three, but hey... it's still my favorite duo.
I honestly cannot wrap my head around the fact that the odds for Oklahoma playing Dallas tonight are sitting at 1.35... I mean, if you don't see the red flag waving in your face right now, you’re asking for a massive headache—seriously, who is actually setting these lines? I remember the last time Oklahoma took down Dallas at home; it was a total fluke, a buzzer-beater three from Durant at the death. I was actually riding with Oklahoma back then, but even then, the odds felt much more grounded—around 1.60—which actually made sense.
So, there is no way in hell I am touching this game. My plan for tonight is to stick to some straight bets: taking Chicago over Indiana and Denver over the Kings. The only thing I’d love to get your take on is the Rose vs. Ellis matchup—do you guys think Rose is going to outscore him?
I’ve sat through this one three times now—it’s a genuinely solid piece of filmmaking. The narrative is compelling, the acting is top-tier, and there’s just an intangible quality to it—that certain "je ne sais quoi"—that keeps you hooked. My rating: 7.5/10
It wouldn't be such a miserable night if the Los Angeles Lakers hadn't decided to play mind games just like Orlando Magic did earlier tonight... honestly, those Phoenix Suns have been a massive headache for me more times than I care to count.