Posts by briskjackal5

Jeremy White69 said:Wait, what does "losing muscle" actually mean here? Like, is the actual muscle mass dropping by that exact amount?
Or is it just that the muscle is shrinking, but since they aren't eating any less, they're basically just gaining fat instead?
Or maybe it's something else entirely?

Well, I guess "muscle loss" is actually pretty straightforward... if you aren't using those muscles, they just atrophy, and that’s really all there is to it. I think.

- briskjackal5 -

Jeremy White69 said:A glass can be half full or half empty depending on how you look at it.
I mean, running definitely builds muscle, right? It’s just a matter of whether it builds enough to satisfy those hardcore bodybuilders out there.
And honestly? They probably won't be happy with the results.
Why do I think—and I’m just guessing here, don't quote me—that running builds muscle? Well, because after a heavy run or a massive lifting session, I always end up feeling super sore. And what's sore? My muscles.

But if you ask me, that muscle soreness isn't actually a sign or a predictor that hypertrophy is happening.

- briskjackal5 -

Why on earth are you rambling about running 800m to build muscle?
Why are you claiming that hiking up Mount Rainier is some kind of way to "get ripped"?
And why are you saying there's "no point" in all that muscle mass you get from lifting weights?
Why do you insist that muscles just turn into fat?
Then, like, two posts later, you're like, "hmm actually they don't turn into fat, they just get bulky"?
So what exactly do they turn into then? If it isn't fat and it isn't muscle, what is it?

Why are you giving this guy such bad advice?

- briskjackal5 -

copperpuma96 said:So, how many times have you actually run up Mount Rainier?

And, uh, I mean... how many weighted squats have you done?

- briskjackal5 -

copperpuma96 said:Are you kidding me? I mean, seriously, just think about it for a second...

About what?
About that totally brilliant plan of yours to build muscle mass by sprinting 500, 800, and 400 meters up Mount Rainier?

Well, I’ve thought about it, and man, that is just total nonsense.

- briskjackal5 -

copperpuma96 said:Well, I wouldn't say it's literally fat, but once you stop working out and maintaining all that mass, it just sags... it looks really unattractive, kind of limp and soft. It's not exactly fat.

So, wait... if it isn't muscle, but it isn't fat either?

Could it maybe be bone?

briskjackal5

copperpuma96 said:So, I mean, just think about why you’d even bother hitting the gym... Is it really to impress girls, or is it more about your own satisfaction, staying healthy, and setting yourself up for the future?

All those muscles you build up at the gym are just going to turn straight into fat once you stop working out.

Muscle doesn't actually turn into fat.

I mean, why are you giving people totally wrong info?

- Stipe -

copperpuma96 said:Oh, come on, a gym? Don't be ridiculous...

If you actually want to get in killer shape, you need:

1. A ton of willpower
2. About 2.5 hours a day
3. A bike
4. Solid core strength
5. A whole lot of patience

It’s all about how you mix it up. I mean, grab your bike and head out to some steep mountain trails—you'll be working harder than a pack mule! You should ride in a heavy gear as much as possible since you're training for raw strength. Once you finally stand up after a climb, your legs will just be screaming at you, and then when you sit back down and start pedaling, your lungs are going to absolutely burn...

Your second big thing should be running. If you're looking to build some muscle, try doing 400, 500, or 800-meter intervals, maybe toss in a few sprint sets here and there (just be careful not to overdo it or you'll end up injured), and later on, take those sprints up a hill.

A gym? Please. That's for lazy people and weaklings who just want to bulk up with muscle mass that isn't even useful for anything real.

Totally. There are plenty of downsides to carrying all that extra muscle mass.

This way, you'll build great muscle while staying in peak physical condition.

Nobody is building any muscle this way.

- Stipe -

mistyfox812 said:The movie works because it isn't actually called the Iliad. Back in ancient Greece, it was pretty common to take a classic setup and just spin a whole new tale from it.
But yeah, they definitely sugarcoated it too much, I guess. That silly "happy ending" vibe and the whole "you gave me peace" thing... it feels totally wrong for that character. I mean, Achilles is driven by nothing but pure hubris from the jump, so he really should have stayed that "natural born killer" type—someone who didn't really choose his path, he was just born that way. If they hadn't gone off the rails at the very end, the character would’ve been incredible. And honestly, the whole romance between Paris and Helen was kind of a letdown... Menelaus and Agamemnon were great, Hector was okay, but Priam felt weak. Plus, I really think they missed the mark by leaving out the connection between Patroclus and Achilles, which would've made his rage make so much more sense. Leaving out the gods was probably a smart move, though (even if I personally would've loved a little nod to Apollo when Achilles gets hit by that arrow)...

I don't think priests really need all those deep Apollo allusions. You've seen how they think before! For a priest, just knowing "he angered Apollo" and then "he died" is enough to connect the dots right there >)
It's kind of like that one arrow in the heel being the only thing left. If someone truly believed Achilles was invincible, seeing him dead with an arrow sticking out of his heel would be enough to make them realize, "Oh, I guess he was only vulnerable there."

And the love story? Did you go watch Troy or cursed Marijan? >)

- Steve -

cosmictrucker132 said:so, like... even if you take something almost identical... "Gladiator" (which was honestly such a waste of my time... I mean, it's just hardcore junk... "Troy" is way better, though... but yeah, that's basically it)...

and then there's other stuff... movies like "big crowd in little Tokyo," "American Ninja IV," and those kinds of "mediocre action flicks"
...that are mostly aimed at making money because the action is decent... anyway, that's just my take on it, I guess...

Don't get me wrong... but I'm honestly just kind of baffled by how much you seem to love this whole commercialized, cliché way of presenting the same 🙂

Look, I'm not obsessed with the movie as some grand retelling of myth, I just look at the movie as a movie. I mean, when you're doing adaptations, compromises are pretty much inevitable either way, right?

And as for what you said about "mediocre action films"... bringing up "big crowd in little Tokyo" and "American Ninja" out of nowhere was just totally random, and honestly, you probably shouldn't have even mentioned them 😉

- briskjackal5 -

Thurgood Marshall said:Well, I guess it depends on who you ask. For me, the characters just felt... I don't know, unfinished? Kind of hollow and uninteresting. I feel like none of them were really fleshed out because there just wasn't enough time—everything was just revolving around Achilles. You maybe get a tiny hint of some actual character development toward the very end of the movies, like with the King or Odysseus (though honestly, for like 3/4 of the films, you don't even know his name 😕).

I totally agree about Odysseus, but the King? Man, I don't know. To me, he was one of the strongest characters there! He was a king from the very first scene right until the very end.
You clearly haven't been watching 😉

If I had to pick, I'd say Paris and Hector were actually developed the right way.

- briskjackal5 -

cosmictrucker132 said:Nah... it's not good... and it's not epic either.

It's just some average action flick with totally empty dialogue.

Total bullshit, honestly... this is probably one of the dumbest complaints I've ever heard about this movie.
I mean, I can't think of a SINGLE other film that has characters this strong and clear—it showed through everything they did and everything they said!

Just because you already KNEW what everyone was likely going to say since you're familiar with the story, doesn't automatically make them "empty." That's just, I don't know, a bit unfair, right?

Btw, calling it an "average action film"?
What else would you call "average" when it comes to action movies? Give me some examples!

The only upside is how brutal the combat looks.

But hey, to each their own... I won't go there... I just want to say that there are plenty of people out there who, just like you, are really into American mythology... and to them, this movie is just... meh.
🙂

I know my way around American mythology pretty well myself.
And for me, the movie was awesome.

- briskjackal5 -

Richard Hernandez13 said:The very first thing that popped into my head the second I walked out of the theater was just... wow. I mean, seriously, Peter Jackson is GOD !!!!

Man, whenever I hear this kind of blind worship going on, I just know exactly where this is headed...

<snip>

I guess most of the "historical" research out there for... Troy I mean, I guess it all just boils down to watching the LOTR trilogy. Seriously, there isn't a single thing in that movie that hasn't been touched or borrowed from Jackson's films. What's so glaringly missing from Petersen's work is exactly what he couldn't just copy-paste from LOTR: that true vision, the willingness to take risks, and just pure, raw passion!

Hey, Bejzikli! Troy I mean, seriously... you've got this absolute powerhouse cast, right? Like, top-tier, A-list talent that belongs on every awards podium. And the production value? Totally incredible—everything looks absolutely stunning on screen. But then... the script. Man, the script is just third-rate. It’s like they had all these amazing pieces but couldn't quite put them together. I guess it's just one of those cases where a great look can't quite save a weak story, maybe. Such a bummer!
The very first thing that hits you—and I mean really hits you—is the dialogue. It is just... man, it is CATASTROPHIC!!! Like, seriously, what were they thinking? Who actually sat down and wrote this stuff? Was it R. A. Salvatore? Robert Jordan? Or maybe even Danielle Steel? I honestly feel like it has to be some super ambitious but painfully untalented fantasy writer who has spent their entire life reading nothing but R. A. Salvatore, Robert Jordan, and Danielle Steel. I was just sitting there, basically waiting for the moment when Paris would turn to Helen and say... Hey! So, I was just sitting here thinking... baby! Seriously, isn't that just the cutest thing ever? I don't know, maybe I'm just being silly, but there's just something about it, you know? It’s like, wow! Just... baby! Anyway, just wanted to share that little thought with you all. Hope everyone is having an awesome day!.

I mean, honestly, all the characters in the movie feel just so... I don't know, incredibly obvious? They’re all super clear-cut and very, very specific, which I guess makes them feel really well-known right off the bat. Because they're so defined like that, it feels totally natural that certain parts of the story seem kind of "predictable" to you, you know? And maybe that's exactly why they don't feel all that convincing or immersive. Just my two cents!
On the flip side, I mean, all the other characters are just as incredibly strong and they’re so well-defined—and honestly, the acting is top-tier—all because of those dialogues. It's really that good!

Alright, look. I’ve heard people saying that dialogue is basically the least important part of any Hollywood blockbuster. And honestly? I get where they're coming from. But then you look at those big action sequences... man, some of them are just a total letdown. They end up looking like a soggy, half-baked dream for anyone actually hoping for something epic. It's just kind of underwhelming, I guess! American GladiatorI mean, I can't exactly say I walked away from this without learning some major history lessons, you know? Thanks to the movie, I finally figured out that back in the ancient world, you'd have two massive armies—like, fifty thousand soldiers each—just charging at one another, hacking away for a bit, and then suddenly they’d just... stop. They'd just stand there and start circling around some incredibly important guy. It's wild! Man-to-man. So, looking at those clashes... you've got Hector versus Ajax, and then that whole messy situation where Hector goes up against Patroclus—who, let’s be honest, he totally mistook for Achilles for a second there. I mean, jeez, they both probably go to the exact same barber! 😁 ).

Honestly, my absolute favorite thing about those "critiques" from people who clearly don't have a clue? It’s when they single out one tiny little detail like they're making a profound point, only to totally trip over their own feet and score an absolute massive self-goal. It’s just so funny!

The whole key to these battles—and honestly, the entire Trojan War—is the one-on-one, mano a mano combat. It really just boils down to that, I guess!
I mean, it’s just not like a regular hand-to-hand brawl, you know? It’s never just two people fighting fairly. There's always some Ares or Aphrodite swooping in out of nowhere to bail out their favorite person!
I mean, if you look at the mythology, those circles around the really important warriors are definitely intentional. It’s like... they were actually drawn there! I guess since they didn't have any other way to show it, the gods probably wouldn't have allowed some mere mortals to mess up their grand plans right when things were getting intense for those fighters. It just makes sense, maybe?

I won't beat around the bush—the battles are just like the rest of the movie... honestly, they feel totally lifeless and pretty boring to me.

I honestly think the battles in Troy are probably some of the best mass combat scenes ever put on film. Like, seriously, maybe even the best there is!
As far as I know, anyway—but hey, please feel free to set me straight if you can think of any movies where they actually pulled it off better!

Man, when the characters were just talking—I was practically counting the seconds until the action started. But then, once the action actually kicked off? I was just sitting there waiting for them to stop yapping!

…
And honestly, maybe the whole thing wouldn't have been such a headache if the cast hadn't almost entirely flopped (like, seriously, looking at 🙂 Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, and Eric Bana).

The acting was actually totally great across the board.
Do you even realize who those characters were supposed to be?

I say "almost entirely" because you've got Peter O'Toole there, who basically outshines everyone by a mile. I guess you really do need like sixty years of acting experience to deliver that terrible dialogue in such a phenomenal way.

The absolute worst part, no contest, has to be Brad Pitt. I mean, look, I like him as an actor and he’s definitely got talent, but who on earth told him that portraying Achilles should look like some narcissistic, prima donna quarterback?

That guy has been the ultimate alpha male for thousands of years.
Just try to imagine a man like that, coming from that kind of environment.

At least give it a shot.

- briskjackal5 -