Posts by dustywolf32

shree_kali said:Hey ladies... I’m hoping that despite everything you guys just listed, none of you actually have quite AS many damn issues with jeans as I do. I’ve got incredibly long legs—seriously, like a mosquito on stilts—and not much of an ass to work with. If I try to find a pair tight enough so I’m not just swimming around in them, they end up being capris that hit somewhere below my knee. But if I actually manage to find a pair with enough length, I could probably fit my sister, my cat, and a freaking refrigerator in there. 😠

It’s driving me absolutely insane!

It’s at the point where I could go a year or two without ever wearing jeans—mostly because I don't even own any. There's just nowhere for me to actually go out and buy them. 🙄

But Miss Selfridge has been trying to sort out my mess lately. 😍

I’ve got that same build—super long legs and narrow hips. It’s one of those body types where, if you aren't careful, all the extra weight just decides to settle right on your midsection. I deal with that little bit of belly fat myself; it just gathers there because there's nowhere else for it to go. 😛I know exactly what you mean. It’s that classic catch-22. If the stuff at the top looks good, then the length is way too short, but if you actually get the length right, then everything above it starts floating around me like I can't focus. It's frustrating.

I’ve got another gripe to air, and it’s this: I absolutely loathe all that lace, those little pearls, and every other bit of useless junk they tack onto jeans these days. It’s like one look at those embellishments and half the stuff at Miss Selfridge or similar boutiques is immediately off the table for me. Just give me some standard blue denim with two pockets in the front and two in the back, and honestly, nobody would be happier than me.

It’s a bit of a mixed bag with Coldplay, honestly.
Then there’s Hey You and Nobody's Home by Pink Floyd.
After that, I'd go with Exit Music (For a Film) by Radiohead and some David Gray, as someone smart once pointed out.
To wrap things up, Word - Low.

Maybe I'll think of a few others later...

James Reyes said:5. Your mom too, too.

Personally, I found that movie to be a complete disappointment. The narrator was the only decent part; 🙂everything else was just garbage.

I hit the local AMC theaters pretty often, so I honestly can't even keep track of everything I've sat through. But from what I can recall being actually worth the ticket price, I'd pick out (not necessarily in order)

The Pianist
Talk to Her
28 Days Later
Identity
Mystic River

...I still haven't gotten around to Kill Bill, nor have I seen Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely stunning 👍 👍

A total masterpiece. Honestly, I feel like this movie gets overlooked way more than it should, even though it’s easily one of the best Kubrickian films out there... and we all know what kind of genius he was. You really have to settle into the pacing, which I know trips some people up, but calling this film boring is just wrong. The cinematography is phenomenal, and watching the rise and fall of such an incredible personality is just... beautiful. O'Neal is incredible in the lead role; his character really hits you right in the feels.

Too good! :clapping:

Richard Hernandez13 said:Because he's the only doctor on board. Who else is going to patch them up after they run into the Acheron?

Ha, 🙂fair point. I just don't get what the hell they were waiting for. They let the doctor lose half his blood before anyone bothered to suggest pulling that bullet out, only to conclude that Higgins couldn't handle it—which everyone already knew. Then, only when the doctor is practically staring God in the face and knows he's the only one capable of doing it, does he finally step up and say, "Fine, I'll do it."
It’s probably just there for tension.
Oh well. The movie didn't really click for me; I would have handled it differently, but hey. Degustibus 🙂

Well, the movie explained why quite clearly.

By the way, being a scientist doesn't mean the doctor isn't an atheist... just because he's a naturalist doesn't mean he's "blaspheming against God."

True. I only brought it up because that's usually how things go. The whole science vs. religion trope. In this context, the doctor is the most rational person there, making him the perfect target to be labeled a "blasphemer." Plus, the moral dilemma would have been much more intense. Maybe Aubrey wouldn't seem so one-dimensional if the film allowed him to hesitate on a decision for even a second.

I read through all your posts before heading to the theater, and since everyone seemed so hyped about it, I was honestly expecting some kind of absolute masterpiece.

And while the movie isn't terrible—I mean, at least it doesn't follow that mindless Fast & Furious formula, which is already a massive win in my book—I don't see anything here that's actually going to stick with me.

Russell Crowe is a total powerhouse, as per usual (that bleached hair, the tan, that deep, gravelly voice, shoulders that barely fit on screen... plus he plays that wise, noble, honorable, stern yet fair, macho but sensitive type perfectly). The cinematography holds up and the film looks realistic, but let's be honest, that's pretty standard nowadays.

The script, however, is fundamentally flawed. (Yeah, okay, I know this is probably a ***SPOILER***).
He’s obsessively hunting that specific code, then suddenly changes his mind once the doctor's wounds are handled in such an absurdly convenient way, and suddenly that ship doesn't matter anymore. Then you've got the doctor collecting animals, and the crew playing cricket on the Galapagos when they were explicitly ordered to intercept and destroy the vessel. Thank God those Frenchmen practically sail right to them, otherwise, the movie probably would have just trailed off into nothingness.

As for Hollo - Jona—I honestly have no clue what the point of that was. Why make it Hollo - Jona who "defies God," rather than, say, the doctor being an atheist scientist? That would have actually provided some real tension.

The ending was the only part that really worked for me, though it wasn't exactly unpredictable.

Overall, it's not a bad watch, but 🙄 maybe my expectations were just set too high.

Imagine if the main computer was just some ancient Atari running on an obsolete format... honestly, what a way to go out. Best ending ever.

I’m still not quite sure how I feel about movies like this. I mean, I can't call it bad when the production value is top-tier and they’ve loaded it up with every possible special effect imaginable (which, let's be honest, is pretty much mandatory these days). But man, we act like we're being all intellectual, when at its core, the story is as simple as that. Everything could have easily fit into a single movie. (Though, obviously, they wouldn't have made the money...) And I don't see what the point of a sequel even is, other than to grab more cash and show off how far tech has come.

It's a textbook example of those films that lean into the whole "the emperor has no clothes" vibe. The framework is relatively straightforward, which is fine, but then they build this massive, pseudo-philosophical tower on top of it. In the end, nobody wants to admit that all this deep nonsense basically doesn't align with the plot—it's just making a mountain out of a molehill.

If it didn't have those pretensions, The Matrix would actually be a great film. As it stands, it's just pseudo-intellectual megalomania wrapped in flashy packaging. I don't care for movies you forget the second you walk out of the theater, especially when that wasn't the intention.

I have a feeling you shouldn't watch these kinds of movies sober... maybe they'd actually be good then. 😉 😁

yesss!

finally!

👍 😎

dustywolf32 said:It's true... hatred stems from love, specifically from an excessive love for oneself. Why do you hate someone? It’s because they screwed you over, cheated on you emotionally, ripped you off financially, or just caused you pain. Basically, they did something that disrupted your life without any regard for your comfort... and nobody likes having their peace disturbed.
You hate someone because they didn't act the way you wanted them to, and you hate them even more if they actually hurt you and then walked away acting like nothing happened.
You hate someone when you loved them, gave them everything you had, and they betrayed that trust or just ruined things... essentially bruising your ego. Everything revolves around us—around the "me" as an individual. When things don't go according to my expectations, it becomes an undesirable situation, and that's how hatred starts... it's that simple.

Why would hatred resulting from being screwed over be caused by "excessive" self-love? Is it really okay to love someone who consciously mistreated us? Everyone loves to trash talk the ego, but the ego is the foundation of personality. Without a personality, there is no love or any of the stuff we discuss here. Only once you have a sense of self do you actually have something to offer someone else. To consciously subordinate yourself to another at any cost—to act "unconditionally," going against your own ego, your dignity, and your backbone—that is quite literally losing yourself.

But before we can determine what hatred is and if it’s truly linked to love, we first need to define what love actually is. From my own perspective and experience, love isn't just a feeling toward someone; it's the relationship we build with that person. A relationship characterized by respect, affection, tenderness, and trust. Furthermore, any relationship requires at least two people. If one person isn't participating, there is no relationship. If one person keeps trying to build that connection while the other refuses, then what we're talking about is unrequited love—which is really just a polite euphemism for obsession. Love doesn't just happen; it is built. It is earned, just like trust, respect, and affection must be earned.

In my view, hatred is a volatile reaction to unrequited or undeserved love. It serves a purpose in that it acts as the fastest, most effective "ointment" for an open wound. Of course, it's destructive and corrosive in the long run, but it functions as a natural defense mechanism, serving its purpose as a form of first aid.

There’s this one line floating around that says "never underestimate the healing power of hatred". It’s an interesting thought because hate and love actually share a common middle ground: obsession. I've seen it happen plenty of times in my own life—how something that starts out as genuine, pure affection can slowly morph into this all-consuming fixation. It happens way more often in human relationships than people care to admit.
When you find yourself stuck in that loop, sometimes the only way to actually break free is to lean into temporary resentment. You have to feel that anger just to snap out of it. If that hatred eventually settles into simple indifference, then you know you've finally found the solution to moving on from what was lost.

(Look, this isn't strictly a philosophy topic, so the moderator has every right to move it to whatever sub-forum they think fits better. I just decided to start it here because it hits on something that directly involves everyone hanging out in this thread.)

Since we keep seeing people bickering over whether a thread counts as "philosophical" or not—and clearly, everyone has a different definition of what that actually means—I’d love to just settle this once and for all. It would save us all from the endless back-and-forth on threads where we don't belong.

So, let's get on the same page: Are we talking about Philosophy as an academic discipline? If so, we should stick to the heavy hitters that have been debated for centuries—stuff like God, the universe, morality, truth, perception, transcendence, and so on. Or, are we treating Philosophy as a lifestyle? If that's the case, then topics like "How to achieve success" or "Managing intrusive thoughts" shouldn't be treated like they're "forbidden."

Personally, I'm leaning toward the second option, but I'll let the will of the people decide.

Let's finally focus on the actual subjects instead of fighting with each other... 🙂