Posts by rapidskipper9

I mean... ☕

John Carter21 said:I honestly think there are three massive reasons why this is happening... I mean, if you really sit down and look at the whole situation, it’s pretty obvious, right? First off, I guess you have to consider how much everything has shifted lately, like, things just aren't what they used to be at all. And then, maybe it's also about how people are reacting to the news—it feels like everyone is just constantly on edge, which makes everything feel way more intense than it actually is. Plus, you can't ignore the sheer scale of the mess we're dealing with, because honestly, it's kind of overwhelming when you stop to think about it. It's just one of those things where everything is connected, and I really believe that once you see those three main points, the whole thing starts to make sense.

1.

2.

I mean, when you're dealing with someone who can barely count to ten, I guess you really can't expect them to come up with anything remotely resembling a logical argument, right?🤮

brightridge19 said:I mean, I'll just be the one to come clean here.

I’m not out here acting all grown-up and serious or being some kind of hardcore virtual activist or whatever... mwahahahahaha... 😛

*puts finger in mouth and gives you those big puppy dog eyes* sooo, what's your angel's name?

😵

shadowgardener12 said:Honestly, everything is just becoming so rural and unrefined... unfortunately, those types really do represent the average of American culture these days.

Man, you really have the ultimate perspective on things, I guess, coming from your high horse in Denver or Vienna or wherever the hell you're hanging out...

Look, I get it, nostalgia is a thing, but just be careful you don't end up getting kicked out of the club for being too stuck in the past, because honestly, it looks like you're heading right down that path. 👋

brightridge19 said:Go ahead and all go stand outside the United Nations building if you want to foam at the mouth like that. 😁

🙄 Look, this isn't even about some teenage angst phase or that whole "fight the system" cliché, you know? And honestly, I probably shouldn't even expect someone like you to really get where I'm coming from, since in your tiny little world—now that you're finally through that hormonal storm—it feels like there's nothing left to worry about besides whatever trivial stuff is sitting right in front of you. 👋

brightridge19 said:And honestly, do I even look like I give a damn?

I mean, I guess you really just had to get that off your chest and tell us all, didn't you? ☕

Maria Peterson said:So, you seriously don't think this was just some marketing stunt by Eminem's label to distract everyone from the actual song and music video?

I mean, I really don't buy it. The song was already written way back when Banderas penned it. Like, are we honestly suggesting Eminem was sitting there thinking, "Man, I should totally drop some profanity in the chorus so when they ban my video on MTV, I'll suddenly become a superstar!" I mean, HELLO?!? 😵

Besides, this whole thread isn't even about marketing gimmicks, it's about censorship.

Maria Peterson said:Do you think the fact that Let 3's video for 'Rado ide Srbin u vojnike (motherfucker)' wasn't aired on national TV counts as censorship too?

From what I know, they're basically playing ass in that video. And if that's considered the same thing as swearing... well, damn, if it is... uh, I'm done. 😳

Maria Peterson said:man, it’s honestly crazy how easy it is to get people riled up and manipulated—you just mention the word censorship and everyone immediately shuts their brains off and jumps to your side.
shadowgardener12 - 👍
everyone else is just throwing out cheap clichés because you all totally fell for a low-effort stunt.

I’m telling you again—they didn't even expect the TV station to play this slow burn; this whole thing about 'censorship' is nothing more than some cheap, extra publicity.

don't be so naive

I'd much rather be considered stupid than "smart" by your definition. 👎

coastalorca3 actually dismantled all those weak conspiracy theories and that whole "protecting culture" nonsense that people are using to justify why they won't show this video; honestly, they're spot on at every single point. 👍

Delvecchio said:shadowgardener12 👎
Jason Chavez32 👍

Hmm, I feel like you're being a little too formal here....

shadowgardener12 🤮
Jason Chavez32 🙂
I mean, maybe I am a bit too refined, but hey, whatever works. 🙂

Raymond Barrett12 said:People would probably just remember him as some kind of Pop Rock act!
😂

Man, what a total joke! 😂 🤣 🙏

I was actually gonna ask you what you’d recommend in that private thread... but I see where you're coming from now. 😎

Look, if you think rock and roll basically started and ended with Uncle Joe's vinyl collection back in '76, I’m honestly worried you might be headed down the wrong path, not me.

Larry Martin11 said:...it’s probably because there was way more "rawness" and actual reality captured in Korine's movies, so after "Gummo," Ken Park felt kind of "fake"—like this artificially constructed controversy designed for American teenagers from wealthy families who drop tons of cash at multiplexes but still want to believe they, and characters like them, are somehow alternative in their own way... I mean, the movie isn't bad, but it feels way too "polished" for my taste...

Yeah, just like I was trying to suggest earlier, "Ken Park" feels polished because it wasn't shot in that Dogme film style that I think "Gummo" definitely used.

The cinematographer actually talks about this in a commentary, so you should check it out on the DVD. It’s similar to how in other works, some filmmakers eventually ditch their own technical skills—stuff like set design, makeup, lighting, and all that—because they feel those things are just extras that cloud and leech off the "magic of cinema." Some people even claim it was all just a marketing move from the start, who knows?
Anyway, the cinematographer Ed whatshisname 🙏 mentions that, in his opinion, it's actually a much bigger challenge for film techniques to try and capture true reality rather than just coasting on some kind of authentic graininess, which, let's be honest, is actually just bad technique.
Larry Clark, though, says the movie looks way more expensive than it actually is, which he’s super happy about, and he gives direct credit to the cinematographer for that. According to Clark, the explicit scenes are really just "simulated sex scenes," and after watching it, I think he’s totally right. Honestly, I was really impressed by Clark's comments because the guy was basically explaining why he filmed it and what he was trying to say, and he pulled it off completely; every word feels genuine. 👍

I'm with you on that, I really missed having a cohesive plot too, because maybe that would have gotten rid of the feeling that they were just shoving "every shocking scene we could possibly imagine" into one movie; in the end, it felt like there were too many scenes and not enough actual film, which is a bummer.

Regardless, you should give it a watch. 👍 It's worth it just for Tate, who is such an intense character in every sense of the word. 😱

It’s available on DVD. I think I got hung up on some review in the paper, where they basically claim the whole movie is just provocation for the sake of provocation because of those explicit, shocking scenes that seem to be the entire point.

I’m not really sure why people are bringing up "Happiness," though it is an awesome movie. Is it just because both films have those shocking—or maybe even disgusting, if you want to get technical—scenes?

I actually tried watching Bully once, but I just couldn't get through it 😢 Some movies really do demand your absolute, undivided attention.

"Kids," "Bully," and "Ken Park" all share the same writer, that wunderkind Harmony Korine (I think I spelled that right, hopefully), who apparently wrote the script for "Ken Park" when he was only 19, according to what the director mentioned in a commentary.

WARNING: You can't talk about this movie without SPOILERS.

To be honest, I found the director, cinematographer, and actress commentaries at the end way more interesting than the actual film. In fact, after hearing those, I ended up giving the movie a higher rating.
I know it has nothing to do with the plot itself, but I guess sometimes we all get trapped by these unconscious biases. While watching, my mind kept jumping to all these shocking moments because it felt like the whole point of the film was just to provoke, so I totally fell for that newspaper critique. I have to admit, though, it wasn't easy to come up with anything even more shocking or depraved to throw into the mix. On the flip side, the scenes aren't so intense that you have to look away; some of them are actually kind of funny.

The movie is definitely lacking a cohesive plot or a central thread connecting everything. There are four main characters—three guys and one girl: Claude, Shawn, Tate, and Peaches. They live in a small town in California and probably go to the same school. But in the film, they only really share one scene, which feels a bit clunky, though I guess it makes sense since that's where the title "Ken Park" is explained. We mostly just follow their individual lives, catching glimpses of their family situations:
Claude deals with a stepbrother who bullies him and calls him names, and obviously, he has his own struggles with his sexuality, plus a mom who provides zero support.
Shawn is involved with a married woman and her daughter; his storyline is probably the most wild thing here, if that even makes sense.
Peaches matured sexually pretty early on, and she has this super religious, fanatic Dad who’s a widower, so she has to hide her true self from him.
Tate is a really well-written and acted character; he lives with his grandparents and is dealing with a ton of issues.
Like I said, the movie jumps between these four characters, and their stories aren't really connected, so it feels a bit like an omnibus film, which kind of bothered me... for example, if you look at "Sun," where you have a bunch of seemingly random characters and situations, they still feel tightly knit because everything revolves around a specific physical object, like a little suitcase. "Ken Park" doesn't have that, so the movie feels a bit loose in places and struggles to hold your full attention.

Again, those end-of-movie commentaries are super interesting. Those quotes in the text are just my best memory of them. When asked why the film includes such explicit scenes, the answer was "for visual honesty." I mean, I hadn't thought of it that way, but once I heard it, it actually made a lot of sense. It also aligns with how they moved away from "Dogme film" philosophy; the movie is actually quite beautifully shot because they didn't want to approach a "documentary subject in a documentary style," since they felt that "manipulates the viewer" and "tries to manufacture credibility." Since the creators wanted to keep final cut, the film was funded by Dutch producers, and hey, that's just how it goes in America. 🙄

While watching, you get this feeling a few times like they're trying to pull a fast one on you—like, who are they kidding? Nobody acts like that, that only happens in America, stuff like that...
The response to that comment was simply, "How would you know?" And honestly, that's a pretty great comeback. 👍

Even though "Kids" is definitely the more intense, raw eye-opener featuring the amazing Chloe Sevigny, I honestly think this movie is totally worth checking out too. You might actually find yourself pretty surprised by how much some of the most shocking stuff, just on its own, ends up feeling kind of... I don't know, almost banal. 👋

Jack Harris3 said:It’s pretty useless, honestly. I feel like philosophy is just spinning your wheels on nothing at all. 😁

I guess I'll be philosophical enough to let yours be the final word on the matter. 😍

Jack Harris3 said:Man, rapidskipper9, it’s always easy to laugh when you actually get the joke... 😁

I don't want to sound like I'm being way too serious or anything, but isn't that basically what Philosophy is for?

I mean, I guess it's more about understanding than just laughing at things. 😁

Jack Harris3 said:Yeah, I mean, they’re basically the only ones who actually take the whole circus thing seriously. 😍

But honestly, they just don't have that total clown reputation yet. 😢

If things were different, I guess they’d probably be those favorite, super popular entertainers everyone actually wants around, instead of being viewed as these boring, gloomy types who just end up killing the vibe for everyone else. 😢

It's such an injustice! 😠

What was that line, oh man... something about a trapeze? 😍

Mr. Pes said:Honestly, those philosophers don't have a clue, but they sure know how to juggle their ignorance like pros. 😁

So, are you basically calling philosophers circus performers? 😲

I mean, I'm pretty sure there's nothing closer to the truth than that, no matter how you look at it. 😍

Arthur Grant4 said:there's basically nothing written there at all.

🤣 😂

Man, I am just so incredibly glad this forum exists, because honestly, there's actually some substance here 🤣

Anyway, Ashibad 🙏 🙏

ruggedcrane22 said:Oh man, seriously? It sounds like a total rip-off of Gift🙂 if my ears aren't playing tricks on me—like, the exact same mix and those same guitar tones.

Man...😢 If this turns out to be true, I’m honestly speechless. 👎

Look, let's be real here, the Jam are just untouchable😍

And how on earth did AD not catch onto that? 🤔 (just a rhetorical question here 😁 😁 😁)

Congress said:. honestly, from just hearing them for the first time, I’m getting some serious The Jam vibes,

No way. ☕

I don't really listen to that stuff, honestly. 😎