Posts by wiredraven82

If you take everything on the table and run the math—adding it all up and subtracting what doesn't fit—you're left with one thing: Halloween.

electricridge6 said:I haven't seen that one yet, but man, what a bummer I missed it right when it aired. Guess I'll have to catch it later, right?

Personally, I think the second one is the best, right after the original 😁

I hope the mods don't give me grief for reviving this thread again; I just rewatched the first one and the fifth one yesterday—the first one for maybe the tenth time now, and the fifth for the third—and look, I'm just saying... I'm definitely a fan of this franchise.

mistyseal8 said:Everyone seems to be getting quite a bit wrong regarding the Latin language and the actual nationality of Roman soldiers.

Back then, almost all Roman soldiers came from the Apennines and were of Italian descent; they didn't start recruiting from all over the Empire until much later.

As for Latin, there wasn't just one version, but two: high-class Latin and the vulgar Latin spoken by the lower classes. The former eventually evolved into what we call Classical Latin with a few tweaks, while the latter naturally developed into today's Romance languages.

Classical Latin differs from high Latin mainly in the pronunciation of certain sounds. In high Latin, "C" is pronounced as "K," diphthongs like "oe" or "ae" sound like "oy" or "ai," and "s" sounds like "s," and so on.

"Caesar" is pronounced as "Cezar" in Classical Latin.

In high Latin, "Caesar" is pronounced as "Kaiser." Now you see where the Germans got their "Kaiser," which is pronounced "Kaiser."

Gibson made a mistake here; we are listening to Classical Latin, which didn't actually exist in that form until the 9th century. I really wish we had the chance to hear high Latin, vulgar Latin, or even some of the Italian dialects.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned "Jesus of Nazareth"? 🙂

Man, you’ve completely missed the mark here—no offense intended, brother, but this is a massive blunder on your part:

First off, during the era of the Western Roman Empire, people spoke CLASSICAL LATIN/used Classical pronunciation. Period.

That’s the version with: Kaiser (not Caesar), Lunae (not Lunae with a soft sound), Cicero (not Kicker-oh), etc.

This other way—this "Caesar," "Lunae" thing, with the diphthongs like ae, oe, io, and the "C" being soft instead of a "K"... that is: TRADITIONAL (ECCLESIASTICAL) LATIN/pronunciation. This is the version that developed once Latin was practically a dead language—not totally gone, but certainly on its last legs—evolving into ECCLESIASTICAL LATIN during the Middle Ages, long after the Western Roman Empire had fallen (leaving only the Byzantine Empire, which is a whole different story).

I have no idea where you got the idea that different social classes used different pronunciations during the Western Roman Empire (or the Republic). You’ve confused social status symbols—the distinction between Patricians and Plebeians within the Latin ethnicity—with linguistic variation. Those distinctions weren't about how they spoke Latin; everyone used the CLASSICAL dialect. It was about something else entirely. 🙂

silentviper19 said:No, I don't find that quasi-authentic Latin or quasi-authentic Aramaic any better, because they just aren't authentic. That hack Gibson just declared them authentic because he's banking on the audience having empty heads—and, of course, on the believers.

That’s why I much prefer that good old California accent used in the old classics where both Jesus and Dracula spoke; there isn't that fake pretension of authenticity that was pushed so hard for the Passion.

When it came out, I immediately heard people saying, "Wow, it was exactly like that in the movie! The film is just so incredibly authentic!".
Personally, I’d say that 60s film with the styrofoam sets and the standard American accent was more authentic than this one, because the very attempt to be authentic ended up costing him all authenticity. And don't even get me started on the interpretation of the story itself, which is just plain nasty.
Technically, it’s okay, but he stuck to that old rule where all the white actors play both Jesus and the apostles. Meanwhile, the Romans are portrayed as pure Western European whites, rather than some Greek, North American, or Middle Eastern face wearing a Roman uniform—Gibson didn't slip up there like he did with the Jew.

Now we just wait for the new Gibson film about Dracula, where everyone will be wailing in medieval Old English, and the audience will just soak up the "authenticity."😁

Well, looking at it genetically (via Y-DNA), the original Latins/Romans were actually closer to the Celts than to Mediterranean Europeans. Later, of course, through the expansion of the Republic and Empire, anyone who gained Roman citizenship was practically Roman.

But honestly, from an anthropological standpoint, those guys in Roman uniforms in the movie (based on phenotype) don't all belong to the Western European white category; they look more like they're from northern or central Italy, or maybe even parts of the North America.

Sure, he could have cast someone Semitic in a Roman uniform, but whatever—it was still a time when the Empire was just beginning; it hadn't reached that level of multi-ethnicity (racially and continentally speaking) that it saw in later eras.🙂

Noah Roberts46 said:Better than what? ☕
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095497/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_37

Personally, I’d say yes—and even if I already explained my reasoning, I’ll tip my hat to that particular film, but for me, nothing touches Passion when it comes to this subject matter. 🙂

silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.

First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.

I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?

What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.

As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.

At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."

I’m not making a mistake here—because I am speaking strictly in terms of cinema (since that is the subject of this PDF at hand)—so:

You’re getting the cinematic details wrong, even if you’ve actually got the history straight.

You’re right about that—I’m not disputing your point. But honestly, did you really expect them to obsess over specific Latin dialects from that era? Give me a break. You should be grateful they even bothered using official Latin at all, especially when you look at the track record of other "linguistically authentic" period pieces out there. 🙂

silentviper19 As I was saying:
Everyone can get behind the idea that Aramaic was the spoken tongue, but trying to reconstruct its exact nuances is a massive uphill battle—it would be like claiming we know precisely how ancient Germanic tribes spoke just because we have the records left behind by Cyril and Methodius.

If we’re going to follow that line of reasoning, then we wouldn't be able to claim that so many extinct languages have been "reconstructed"—but they have. They're dead, sure, but they aren't gone. We can bring them back enough to make sense of them—not perfectly, mind you, but sufficiently to grasp their structure. Take the Etruscan language, for example; unfortunately, we still haven't quite cracked the code on that one.

silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.

First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.

I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?

What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.

As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.

At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."

I could agree with you there—but let’s be realistic. During that specific window of time, maintaining stability in Judea was absolutely not in Rome's best interest from a purely pragmatic military standpoint. If you look at the sheer logistical nightmare a rebellion would have caused their legions, it makes sense. Besides, we all know exactly what happened to the Jews just a few decades after they decided to stage an uprising.

P.S.: I really hope that while we’re hashing this out, you understand my intention here—I am not bringing Jesus into this discussion at all. We are sticking strictly to the linguistic, archaeological, and historical facts. 🙂

silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.

First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.

I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?

What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.

As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.

At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."

👍

silentviper19 said:Sorry, but I think you're missing the mark on a few things here.

First off, it's just totally impossible to claim official Latin was the everyday tongue for soldiers and common folks. Even back then, Roman citizens were always speaking their own specific Latin dialects. And since the soldiers stationed over in places like Plestina were mostly coming from Crete, their speech would have been some sort of Latin-Crete dialect mixed in with Greek.

I can give you the win on Aramaic, but honestly, trying to reconstruct that language is a massive stretch. It would be like claiming we know exactly how ancient Slavic tribes spoke just because of how Cyril and Methodius recorded it. It's a bit of a leap, right?

What really bugs me about this whole narrative is that hidden, old-school Christian antisemitism bubbling under the surface. It makes it look like the Roman soldiers were basically just working for the Jewish kingdom, and like the Romans were merely bystanders in a Jewish state ruled by clerics in their own complex way. It's a weird vibe.

As for the clothing, sure, maybe, but we don't exactly have direct records or photos of what ancient Jews wore. We *do* know how the Romans dressed, though, so I'll give Gibson credit where it's due—he nailed that part.

At the end of the day, this whole idea of "linguistic authenticity" feels a bit silly to me. It feels more like a trick to dazzle the casual viewers and, of course, the religious crowd, just to make the movie feel more "authentic."

That sounds a bit harsh, and I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Even if we agree that the Romans in that era wouldn't have been speaking official Latin, you'll have to admit—both you and I would much rather hear something resembling the period than standard modern English.

Gibson’s *Passion of the Christ* is the gold standard—and there's a very simple reason for that: the sheer level of archaeological and linguistic authenticity. I’m not sitting here debating theology or whether Jesus was the Son of God; that’s not the point. My point is the grit and realism of the era itself—the way they handled the language, the clothing, the footwear, the weaponry... everything. As an archaeologist, I have massive respect for Gibson’s eye for detail, just as I do with his work on *Apocalypto*.

If he hadn't ruffled the feathers of the Jewish community, who knows where his career would be today. He might still be the undisputed king of historical epics, but instead, we've essentially been left with *Apocalypto*.

Kenneth Jackson30 said:Does anyone remember that one Classic Western where it all kicks off with four outlaws riding up to a ranch and slaughtering an entire family? There’s this one boy who manages to hide under a stagecoach just in time—he witnesses the whole thing, obviously—and he memorizes the specific details about the killers, like their distinct tattoos or certain physical traits. He spends years stewing on it until he's grown, eventually setting out on this calculated path of vengeance to hunt them down one by one. I watched this back in the 80s when I was just a kid, and it left a massive impression on me, but the title has completely slipped my mind. Any leads would be greatly appreciated.🍿

Man, I remember that movie. I know exactly what you're talking about—it's burned into my brain—but damn it, the title is just slipping through my fingers right now. I can see that specific scene as clearly as if I watched it yesterday, and it’s driving me crazy that I can't wrap my head around the name.

bluenomad2 said:I think we’re talking about the end of Season 8—that moment where they toss that Alien into a recycling truck parked right next to the buildings.

Just give me the rundown on that first movie. That Alien who took out the scientist—which Season 6 episode does he show up in? Was it somewhere near the beginning? I know there was that whole subplot involving the bald kid.

Yeah, we’re looking at the end of Season 8.

And here’s my take regarding the Alien from the movie:

So, if you look at the structure, the movie essentially serves as the bridge between Season 5 and Season 6—it’s the connective tissue. And that Alien (I mean, look at what that creature actually looks like) shows up right away in the season premiere set in Arizona during that specific incident...

Think about that scenario where some guy is just heading home from work when that Alien completely wrecks his life—and then you have Fox Mulder and Dana Scully out there hunting it down. Since the creature has this obsession with heat and radiation, they end up tracking it straight to a nuclear power plant.

And that kid—Gibson Praise—is essentially a hybrid, born with Alien DNA spliced right into his human genome. He’s been an invaluable asset to Fox Mulder, helping him track down various types of Aliens and those specialized Alien hunters over and over again. Even in this very first episode of season six, Gibson is stepping up to give Mulder the edge he needs.

And he was essentially the linchpin of the whole thing—because he served as direct, undeniable proof that Aliens actually exist. Since he was Gibson Praise, he was constantly living under the shadow of being hunted by Hunter.

Actually, if you look closely, that first episode—"The Beginning"—serves as a direct, almost seamless sequel to The X-Files movie. 🙂

bluenomad2 said:Think about that scene where he’s talking with Deep Throat—the tension is thick, they're actually arguing over who gets to take out the captured Alien, flipping a coin like it's some high-stakes game of chance, only for it to land on Deep Throat as he slips away into the shadows. Meanwhile, you have the Cigarette Smoking Man, casually peeling back that anti-nicotine seal on the door, pulling out a cigarette, and lighting up with a lighter that probably has some dark significance written right on it. Just imagine the sheer weight of those moments. "Trust no one." And right as he’s firing away, he lights up. 🙏 I mean, those scenes are specifically crafted to give you chills—the kind where you find yourself watching with a smirk on your face, even though you know, deep down, you really shouldn't be enjoying it.

It’s legendary, truly—but for me, one of the most iconic moments had to be that scene involving the Cigarette Smoking Man. He’s younger then, listening to Martin Luther King Jr. on the radio, and right when Luther makes that point about how Black Americans shouldn't be sent to fight in Vietnam, the Cigarette Smoking Man just looks at his own mustache and mutters to himself, "Man, why did you have to say that... why..." It’s such a perfect, subtle beat.

And even when they confront the Cigarette Smoking Man—one of those shadowy figures lurking in the background—asking him who he’d actually trust to take out Luther, his response is just classic, unhinged behavior from him. He drops this absolutely LEGENDARY line: I'm going to be the one to take him out—I have far too much respect for the man to let anyone else handle it. 😁 Good grief—what kind of sentence was that? 😁

bluenomad2 said:To me, he’s arguably the biggest TV icon from any series. I always wanted him to make it through, and you have to admit—he’s one of those characters who practically had nine lives. Alex Krycek 🙏 evolved from being a mere errand boy for the Cigarette Smoking Man into a man with actual vision and purpose.

Life is like a Box of Chocolates—the ultimate irony in that episode is that even the most powerful man can't betray the book, which ultimately lands him in the gutter. 🤣

You’re reading my mind; I was trying to point out that exact scene to you in my last post. It’s legendary 😁 but man, how do you even begin to explain that whole bit with the box of chocolates? Just look at the facial expressions, the voice, the cigarette... haha. What a character... simply put: an ICON, the Man. The Cigarette Smoking Man was the embodiment of competence and that archetype of "the man who knows everything"—you know, the kind of knowledge that isn't meant for public consumption. He doesn't say much, but he says everything in a single sentence, followed by that sigh at the end of every phrase before he pulls the smoke... haha.

With Alex Krycek, we never knew where we stood, but I actually spent the entire run thinking he was a good guy—and I still do, even though he always played his own game. Mulder despised him, sure, but he also knew what a snake he was because he was painfully capable.

But do you remember that episode where the Aliens in human form basically take over the entire FBI building? Mulder entrusted Dana Scully and the child to Alex Krycek to watch over while he and the others secured an escape. Krycek actually proved himself as an ally to Mulder there. It was honestly a great feeling to see the cup finally overflow—with Aliens everywhere—and realize everyone was standing together in that moment. 🙂

bluenomad2 said:When you hear this: X-Files - Modern EDIT although I suspect they'll stick to the classic vibe.

That kind of intro is great, but personally, I’d prefer if they went with the old-school classic. This remixed music might work as something fresh, but... nothing beats the original intro. Even if the show just starts, that music—the original version—has to be there. Whether they go with this remix or the vintage version, we'll see. Still, it isn't bad—really, it's quite good—this entire intro works as a fantastic tribute to the original nine seasons.

bluenomad2 said:I honestly have just one single wish here. Monster of the Week episodes. I realize that’s probably asking too much—given they've already committed to six episodes focused entirely on the overarching mythos—but maybe, just maybe, they can squeeze one in somewhere along the way.

I’m basically living in a state of pure delusion—or perhaps just desperate hope—that once those six episodes wrap up, they might decide to greenlight another 🤣

Anthony Ward44 said:I still haven't wrapped my head around how things spiraled so far out of control—I mean, Mulder already stopped an invasion once, didn't he?

He didn't stop the invasion.

The invasion actually already started; those "Aliens" in human form have been systematically taking over everything. The syndicate (the one run by Cancer man and his crew) had been gone for a long time. According to the story from the final season, the total takeover of government institutions by the Alien was supposed to happen on December 21, 2012—and looking at the state of the world today, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually succeeded 😁. By the final seasons, Cancer man was the only one left from the old syndicate group; in that scene where he dies in the flames, he tells Mulder that he knew this day would come and that he specifically wanted to see the look on Mulder's face when it finally arrived.

There should probably be some kind of connection now—at least in my estimation, we'll see—within these new episodes (good grief, I can hardly believe I'm even typing the words "new episodes" regarding The X-Files...🍿🙂)

briskhound2 said:To be honest, I love that I'll see them back on the small screen, but I'd much rather they had put the money toward crafting a killer script and filming a brand-new movie. That first film was excellent, even if it suffered a bit from being tied so closely to the series. These new episodes might not make much sense, though, since both of them were kicked out of the FBI—which was already established in the second movie.

Personally, I thought that film was great, but I always viewed it more as a bonus to the series rather than a standalone movie, even though it technically is one; it functions as the bridge between seasons, and I found that concept brilliant.

Come on, briskhound2, it’s better that they’re doing new episodes because they'll last longer. I mean, seriously, ALOOO, we're getting new X-Files episodes 😁 We really need to raise a glass to that.😁

Kicked out of the FBI? You never know when the Bureau might need them again—I can already envision a hundred different scenarios for their return.🙂

Just imagine the feeling when a NEW episode of The X-Files starts... Seriously... you're sitting there, watching the opening of a NEW EPISODE OF THE X-FILES, and it's practically... pure ecstasy, haha.

Angela Alvarez10 said:Well, that's about all there is to say, I suppose. Just... ehhh.😍 I’m telling you, they really are the absolute best—it's almost hard to put into words how much I enjoy them.🙏

I have to agree—it is absolutely vital that they bring back the original writers. If they could actually get the A-team back together and let them do the job properly, we wouldn't be stuck with this mediocrity; they could easily drop six solid episodes on us every single year.😁

😍🤣

👍

I still can't quite wrap my head around the fact that I'm actually going to see them again... Honestly, once it happens, I think I might just... throw a massive party to celebrate. 🤣

I'm not sure if you've had a chance to check this out yet—and honestly, if you haven't, you're missing out (by the way, my comment on this video is sitting right there among the most upvoted ones, haha). The X-Files 20th anniversary reunion panel at San Diego Comic-Con 2013 was quite the moment—really something to wrap your head around if you were there. It wasn't just a simple nostalgia trip; it felt more like a deep dive into why this show still holds such a grip on the collective psyche decades later. Watching the cast navigate those questions, you could see the weight of the legacy they built together.

P.S. Honestly, Thursday remains my absolute favorite day of the week—it’s a bit of a nostalgia trip for me. Back in the 90s, while I was still in elementary school, I used to sprint home every single Thursday evening, driven by that singular, frantic goal: making sure I was settled in front of the TV before a new episode of The X-Files aired. 😁 I actually remember spending quite a bit of time trying to imitate Fox Mulder using my cell phone—back when having one was actually a thing, before everyone was glued to them. I got my first phone in 1999, right after I finished eighth grade, and I couldn't help myself. Haha.

bluenomad2 said:And let's be honest, The X-Files constantly lands on those top lists—the only things even remotely capable of competing are the original Twilight Zone and Star Trek.

Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for Twin Peaks—it’s my all-time favorite—but The X-Files offers such an incredible breadth of storytelling because its scope is just so damn diverse. That whole horror tribute was brilliant 👍
.
Lol, now I'm reading rumors that they might actually bring back the Cigarette Smoking Man. I mean, how on earth 🤣
?

For me, The X-Files is just... part of who I am, what can I say... It's my favorite series, period.

My second favorite show of all time would have to be the original Twilight Zone 👍. But The X-Files is number one for me. It’s hard to put into words—it’s just my absolute favorite, end of story.

But regarding the Cigarette Smoking Man... man, where do I even begin with that guy? I absolutely loved every single second he appeared in an episode—every facial twitch, every line of dialogue...

He always carried that vibe of being "The man behind everything"...

He had this very specific way of speaking; in his own twisted way, he seemed to care for Mulder—even protecting him at times—despite the fact that he dropped that bombshell in the final episode. But god, the way the Cigarette Smoking Man exited was pure style: while Aliens are firing rockets from helicopters in some old Anasazi town, the Cigarette Smoking Man pulling the last smoke through his throat before vanishing into the flames 🙏.

The episode dedicated solely to him, "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man," captured his essence perfectly.

P.S: I honestly have no idea how they plan to bring him back... but frankly, I don't care about the mechanics of it—just BRING HIM BACK. 😁

David Alvarez26 said:Exactly. For most people, this might just be a solid—or even great—show they enjoy watching, which is perfectly fine. But as you pointed out, it’s more than just some TV series; for me, it carries a specific weight, and much of what happens within those episodes holds a profound sense of meaning. It’s special in its own unique way. It communicates things and leaves an imprint that stays with you. There is something unconventional about its DNA that elevates it beyond standard television—it’s simply incomparable in so many respects.

👍

It’s a show that possesses that intangible "something"—that certain spark—that is nearly impossible to pin down with vocabulary alone. For those of us who consider it our absolute favorite, or who feel it transcends the medium entirely, words often fall short. But I think you get what I mean, so there isn't really any need to over-explain it. 🙂

bluenomad2 said:Six episodes—that’s what I keep hearing. If they actually manage to bring back the top-tier writers, this season could absolutely crush it. Honestly, they had over a decade to cook something up. But if you ask me, the bottom line is getting David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson back on screen. That alone makes it worth watching.

I’ve been in a state of pure delirium for months over this; I still can’t quite wrap my head around it... For me, this isn't just some show—it is, quite simply, the best there is. 🙂

The absolute best video tribute for The X-Files (and naturally, my comment has the most likes on the video 🙂): The X-Files - Serenata Immortale (tribute video)

frozenraven39 said:But let's be real—this list is riddled with massive holes...

Tarantino claims there isn't any 🙂

🙂 🤣

bluenomad2 said:Excellent 👍

The musical score is fantastic—really high energy. I honestly think Leone would be proud, even if this happens to be the worst video ever made; seeing people celebrate his work today by putting together video tributes like this would probably leave him speechless. Unless, of course, he’s against being idealized—but then again, you can't really complain when you become a legendary director. He had to have known this would happen eventually.

Thanks 👍

It's great that there's no music following the dialogue (keeping it true to the original), but I just couldn't resist adding that track in myself. 🙂

bluenomad2 said:It’s not really a film that hits me that hard—even though I brought it up—it was just because you opened this thread about Classic Westerns.

What’s your favorite showdown? Aside from the finale of Once Upon a Time in the West and good, bad, ugly.

Besides the ending of Once Upon a Time in the West and good, bad, ugly, I absolutely love the confrontation in Once Upon a Time in the West—everything about that scene is just flawless. You have Bronson standing there alone, three men waiting for him, and then comes one of the best pieces of dialogue in cinematic history:

"Did you bring a horse for me?"

"Looks like we're one horse short."

"Then you brought two too many."

HOLY SH*T... 🙂 And then there's that entire atmosphere—you know everything that's coming, there's no need for more talk... That would definitely be my top pick alongside the climax of Once Upon a Time in the West and good, bad, ugly, even if it's technically more of an opening than a final showdown that resolves the plot.

I love that scene (and the movie itself) so much that I actually put together a video tribute; I added this music myself after the dialogue I mentioned—maybe I hit the mark, maybe not, but I don't think Sergio Leone would hold it against me 😁, so check it out and see if it works: HD ] Once Upon a Time in the West - Tribute

bluenomad2 said:Come on, it’s not like you’re going to get arrested over Keoma. I just noticed it was missing, so I called you out on it—just a little friendly ribbing.😛

Voted ☕

Look, my bad regarding Keoma. Seriously, man, I watch that movie—of course I do. I grew up on Classic Westerns and I absolutely love them. I just thought this list hit my specific taste, which is why I wanted us to kick off the voting for the best Classic Western on the forum.

Cheers, 🙂

P.S. So, I see now that I voted for everyone on the list except A Fistful of Dollars and Django? Haha, fair enough.

bluenomad2 said:I’d go with Keoma and Once Upon a Time in America.

But the point stands—Keoma is arguably the most critically acclaimed film in the genre following the Leone era. That’s the crux of it. It doesn't matter if you personally enjoyed it or not; by sheer status, Keoma sits right there at the top tier, which makes its inclusion on any serious list mandatory. By your logic, you might as well have just listed nothing but Leone films.

And for God's sake, 😁Tarantino—look, there are countless specialized forums dedicated to these classics where people debate them because they are cult hits and people actually care. In other words, you don't really know the genre, because if you did, I am certain you would know about Keoma. 😛

As for "not knowing" Keoma—give me a break. Of course I know it; I was watching it as a kid, especially with Charles Bronson headlining.

I’ve been browsing lists of other classic Westerns lately because, frankly, you start to lose track of all the titles as the years pass. But after weighing everything up, I decided to stick with this Tarantino list. I've seen every movie on it (including Keoma), plus several others that didn't make the cut. To be honest, I feel a bit bad that you can't vote for Keoma, though even if you could, it probably wouldn't get very far anyway. And I know your pick for the best is Once Upon a Time in America. 🙂

Besides, my gut feeling is that if this thread actually gains some traction, the real battle is going to be fought between Once Upon a Time in America and Once Upon a Time in the West and good, bad, ugly (maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it). 🙂

P.S. As for my obsession with Tarantino—that's my business. 😁 I simply stumbled upon his list, which sparked the idea for this whole thread, and boom... I thought, well, I agree with everything he put down except for the ranking. Look, if it’s really that terrible, then @Deckard can just shut the thread down; what else can I say?