Posts by mistyfox812

Steven Phillips5 said:Man, you're throwing around all these big philosophy names... honestly, it makes it harder to take you seriously..

Look, I'm just reading stuff and trying to make sense of it. If you think you've got a better handle on this, please, set me straight.

Steven Phillips5 said:The idea that some fanatic would kill 200 kids in the name of God, or someone would strap on a suicide vest for some "Higher Truth" we pathetic people can't grasp—or even an ultra-nationalist giving his life for the flag, or some kid killing himself over heartbreak... none of that actually contradicts those basic survival needs..

But I totally disagree. It *is* a contradiction. It proves that humans don't just ignore secondary needs for primary ones—we actively put them aside. And it’s not just extremists doing this; regular people do it constantly, every single day.
That whole equation of "first fill your stomach and satisfy your urges, then worry about the rest" gets debunked by millions of cases every day. That logic is just fundamentally broken.
It's not just about dying for an ideal, either; it's about living for one. It's super obvious: tons of people fast every day for some cause—whether it's religious fasting to feel closer to God or just starving themselves to hit some model's body standards. If a full stomach was truly the primary driver, none of that would ever happen.

Richard Hernandez13 said:"All Under the Sky" is actually just an old-school way of referring to China.

Basically, back in the day, people there had this slightly chauvinistic idea that their nation was the only one that actually mattered on the planet (you know, "all under the sky").

Look, "all under the sky" is just an ancient term for the world. Before that point, there wasn't even a concept of "China" or a specific nation to claim such a wild title, let alone a single state being the only one that counts. When the Emperor unified "all under the sky," he was essentially unifying the entire world—meaning all the civilized nations known at the time.
The movie's plot is actually pretty straightforward. If it isn't obvious that sacrificing oneself for "all under the sky" means sacrificing for peace in the whole world (the entire world they knew), then honestly, someone's brainwashing is seriously clouding their ability to understand what's happening.

Brenda Gomez62 said:...but honestly, that whole "collective over the individual" rhetoric that Hero keeps pushing on us? It’s just incredibly hard to wrap my head around.

🙄 Man, it's honestly wild... those Chinese people two and a half thousand years ago weren't exactly liberal at all.
We're talking about legends here. People who are just... massive. And honestly? If you're someone small-minded, it’s totally impossible for you to wrap your head around it. It’s just completely unbelievable to you when someone actually reaches that level.
And now I see in the later posts that it's all just "fascism." 🙄 Look, you gotta read Nietzsche if you want to actually wrap your head around tragedy and what it means to be a truly great human being. Plus, he gives you the lowdown on those "last men"—you know, those tiny-minded people who just settle for the bare minimum.

So, what exactly is this "collective" these people are sacrificing themselves for? Is it the nation? The emperor? The party?

"All under the sky" is just... something else entirely.

Here’s the next part:

mistyfox812 said:Coming up next: how logic and science basically feed this idea that there’s only one way to exist—this rigid, predetermined "pre-set" existence. It makes us think it’s the only way things can be, which honestly just pushes this weird, inhuman indifference under the radar. Then, you take that mindset and mash it together with technology that only recognizes one single mode of operation—purely being "handy" or manipulative—and man, things get pretty grim.

Logic starts way back with guys like Yeltsin—I mean, Parmenides and Zeno. It all kicks off with that whole "what is, is; what isn't, isn't" vibe. Just two options, right? A or not-A. Something either exists or it doesn't. There’s no middle ground. *Tertium non datur.*
This whole idea of "being" in logic? It’s totally neutral. Like, it doesn't care what it's talking about. It works just as well for a rock or a thought as it does for a human, a blade of grass, an angel, God, a kid, a smile, a number, a molecule, a red blood cell, or even a chakra. Everything follows the same deal: if it is, it is; if it isn't, it isn't. If any of those things actually exist, they all play by the exact same logical rules. Aristotle basically said that logic talks about what exists, provided it exists at all. So, yeah, everything that exists, exists. That "is-ness" is the same for everything. A stone, a hammer, a lamb, a person—it's all the same. This "being" in logic is just this neutral, indifferent thing. It’s exactly like what Heidegger was getting at when he talked about primordiality. And honestly, you can see how easily you can fake or falsify whatever you're arguing if you just use it in that totally indifferent way.

Science—this whole modern thing we’re doing—it really kicks off with the new era. You’ve got Galileo, you've got Descartes... But if you want to talk about the actual foundation, the first real science in the way we define it today? That’s mathematical physics. It all really came together through Newton.
So, what's the big deal with this modern science compared to how things used to be? It all boils down to one thing: measurability. It’s not enough anymore to just say something is "moving," like Aristotle would have put it. No way. Now, you gotta give it a number. You need a measurement. Like, "it's moving at *this* exact speed." Eventually, it wasn't just about motion; everything physical had to be boiled down to a number. And then it didn't stop there—suddenly, we're trying to measure everything from social trends to psychological states... you name it. Basically, if science is talking about it, it has to be quantifiable. Everything has to be expressed as a number. Period.
Time to get real about your sex life! Seriously, how's it actually going? Like, be honest with yourself—how many times a week are we talking? And don't just give me a vague answer... I want you to rate the quality of every single one of those sessions on a scale of 1 to 10. Let's hear it!
I mean, look—if we can't find some kind of number to pin down our external experiences, we basically don't know anything at all. Like, how are we even supposed to understand how we're living if we aren't measuring stuff? 🙄
We only really know what we can actually measure. Everything else? Just total guesswork. It’s basically the core rule of science, whether people admit it out loud or not.

Okay, so what does it actually mean to "measure" something? Like, what are we even doing here? We measure distance with a ruler or a tape measure, right? Fine. What about time? We use a clock. But how does that even work? The hand moves a certain distance as time ticks by. Wait... so we’re basically just turning time into distance and then measuring that distance. Got it. And mass? We use a scale. But that's just a needle moving a certain amount, too. We take this weird, fuzzy sensation of weight and turn it into a physical distance just so we can track it. At the end of the day, it feels like everything we measure just boils down to length. Everything.
So, basically, we’re just leaning into that whole Descartes's meditation vibe where every single quality of everything outside ourselves gets stripped away until all you're left with is pure extension. It's wild. We're basically taking every single property of existence and shrinking it down to nothing more than some random number or a measurement of length. Just... yeah. That's where we're at.
If we circle back to how those different modes first started developing, it’s pretty obvious which one we’re dealing with here. When you take something like a rock, a hammer, a lamb, or even a human being, and you try to boil them all down to just "extensiveness," you're stuck in that same old trap. That whole idea of measurability? It's nothing more than that cold, indifferent mode of presence. It's the kind of logic that works fine for a stone, sure, but it totally guts the actual essence of a flower or the soul of a person.
I mean, let's be real—that whole "feeling" of love you're talking about? It’s ACTUALLY just a massive pile of molecules. Just a bunch of enzymes and hormones doing their thing. That’s what love *is*. Purely those molecules. It's exactly like that rock sitting over there—just a heap of molecules, nothing more.
Science definitely pushes this whole "everything just *is*" vibe. Like, everything exists in this static, pre-determined way—just like a rock. It’s all about that "pre-given" mode because, let's face it, if you can't measure it, science says it doesn't exist. Period. Honestly, that hollow feeling I get when people stop seeing others as actual human beings and start treating them like some indifferent "thing"? That's exactly what "scientific objectivity" does to us. In that mindset, an object isn't a person; it's just a thing you could theoretically grab with your hands. Just a rock.
Later on, Heidegger drops this heavy line: "Science doesn't think; science just calculates."

Technology isn't some path to objectivity. Nah, it leads straight to what Heidegger called "handiness." It turns everything into just "something for..." If it’s not useful, we basically treat it like it doesn't even exist—which is pretty depressing when you think about it. We've just gotten used to dismissing anything that isn't "useful" as nothing at all. Being "handy" just means it's something we can handle, or in Latin terms, something we can "manipulate." Honestly, I don't even want to get into the dark side of having this kind of purely instrumental relationship with the world; it's too much to write out and honestly just brings me down. But here's the gist: we stop seeing things for what they actually are. A plant, a river, even a person—we don't see them as themselves anymore. They just become "something for..."—just tools we can tweak and control however we want to suit our needs.

So, if Heidegger says science doesn't think and logic doesn't think... then what's left? Who actually *thinks*? Who sees things for what they really are instead of just trying to prove them wrong or use them? Who looks at a person as a person (not just some primate or a data point in an economic spreadsheet), or a flower as a flower (not just a specimen in a textbook), or a rock as a rock (not just raw material for construction), or a river as a river (not just a source of hydroelectric power), or even an angel as an angel (instead of just some hallucination caused by a messy personal life)?

The late Heidegger doesn't find the answer in science or logic. He finds it in poetry. A poet has this sense of "releasement"—this ability to just *be*—that lets them see a person as a person, a flower as a flower, a rock as a rock, a river as a river, and an angel as an angel.
"It is poets who ground what remains."

Presence is this early Heideggerian concept that—if you actually wrap your head around it—basically gives you the roadmap for understanding almost everything else he does later on. And even if you couldn't care less about Heidegger, I honestly think it’s worth grasping what this "presence" thing actually means.

Being "present" is basically anything we can just grab with our hands, stuff we don't experience in any other way. Like, take a rock. A rock is just present. We don't experience it any differently than that: it's just something sitting there in front of me that I can pick up, toss, or smash... just something right there, ready to be handled.
To clear up what presence really is, H. explains another mode that’s different from it. He calls this one "readiness-to-hand." So, if I want to drive a nail into something, that rock isn't just "present" anymore; it becomes "ready-to-hand." I’m experiencing it as "something for something," like a tool. Instead of a rock, I might use a hammer, and then that would be something ready-to-hand. Any device, while it's working, has this mode of being ready-to-hand. But once it breaks or becomes useless, it’s just "present" again—just something neutral that exists, something we can say *is*, but not something we can say is there *for* a reason.
So, a rock, a hammer, or even a wristwatch could be experienced as
1. something present, just something that "is."
2. something ready-to-hand, something that "is for..." like, say, smashing a window or driving a nail.

But wait, are there other ways things exist besides those two?
Take a tree, maybe a cherry blossom tree in full bloom (just my own little example 🙂). We can experience it in the mode of presence—totally indifferent, just like that rock. It's just "something that is," in a neutral way. Or we can see it in the mode of readiness-to-hand: it's "something for..." maybe for eating cherries, or for shade, or for making baseball bats out of the wood.
But is there more to it? Don't we experience that tree in some other way, as something alive, something growing all on its own, something that has a mode of being beyond just those two? Absolutely.
Think about a lamb playing in front of us. Again, in that indifferent mode of presence, it's just "a thing." And in the mode of readiness-to-hand, it's "something for..." (like, for a Sunday roast—which is definitely not that first indifferent way).
But isn't there something else? Yeah, there totally is.
A human being (I started writing "child" but that felt too heavy even for this, honestly), well, a person has all those modes of being that a lamb has. You can see them as just neutral, indifferent, yeah; then you can see them as "something for..." (like, someone to make money off of, or someone to hit, or whatever...), and they also have that unique way of being, of living.
But there's even more. Something where we experience that person precisely as a human being. Not indifferently, as "a thing" or "some object"; not as "something for..."; and not just as an animal... but specifically as a human.

And look, it's obvious that if we miss it—every single time we fail to see them truly as a human and instead treat them as "a thing," or "something for...", or just an animal—that is a massive failure. Like, we failed at our basic task. We were just indifferent. Anyone who isn't completely heartless is definitely going to feel that.

But wait, what kind of talk is this? Don't we have science? Logic? What kind of philosophy is this, just "feelings"? Shouldn't philosophy be about something objective and rational, rather than just leaning on unreliable feelings?

Coming up in the next part: how logic and science back up the idea that that one single mode—presence—is the *only* way to exist, which unconsciously pushes this inhuman indifference. And how, when you mix that with technology that only recognizes one other mode—readiness-to-hand, or manipulation—you end up with some pretty grim consequences.

If we’re talking about clarity being how clear a statement is, and truth being the whole, messy reality of what actually exists, then you get that classic response from Platonists, mystics, Vedantists, Taoists... basically everyone. They say this: the ultimate Being, God, is Truth itself—meaning the absolute reality, totally stripped of any illusions. But honestly? You can't really put that into words. It’s just beyond expression.
You can't look for clarity in a statement like that.
I mean, you only get clarity when you're talking about something specific—that’s where the "definition" comes in, right? That's where the clarity lives.
But when it comes to the totality of everything that exists? You can't talk about it clearly. Because the second you start talking about *something*, you're ripping it away from the whole.
Think about a beautiful landscape. Every single thing you point out—like, "look at that river," "there's a tree," "check out that bird"—it just breaks the scene apart.
The big takeaway here is what Spinoza was getting at: every single definition (or *determinatio*) is actually a negation. That's just how language works. It creates identity by linking something to one thing while separating it from everything else. When I say "cat," I'm basically saying this creature is the same as other things I've heard called "cats," but also totally different from the rest of the universe. So, defining something is inherently a way of denying the whole.

Kate Lee12 said:okay, if matter isn't defined, then what actually is?

But honestly, just asking "what is...?" is basically trying to define it. In philosophy, answering that question is basically hunting for the "essence" of something. So, by even labeling it as a specific thing, you're giving it a definition, a core, a form—you're plugging it into a concept or an idea...
Matter doesn't have an essence. It’s not "something" defined... it’s just that dark, opaque void...
One way to look at it: "it exists, but we can't fundamentally grasp what it is"—that's total Kant, the "thing-in-itself."
Or maybe: "it’s actually nothing at all."
Or even: "it's just the unconscious; once we become aware of it, we're basically translating matter into spirit."
Who knows? There could be a million other takes...

New thread alert! This isn't even really a response, honestly... I'm just kind of spiraling because of what Boba Fett said.

Boba Fett said:I mean, come on, we basically already know the drill. We know exactly which chemical cocktails trigger that whole love thing, right? Which specific genes or hormones are pulling the strings on our personalities, and which ones are calling the shots when it comes to how smart we are... stuff like that. It’s all just science at this point.

So, here’s my attempt at this: I'm basically trying to show that if you actually follow the whole "materialistic worldview" thing to its logical conclusion, you end up somewhere that barely even qualifies as materialism anymore. It just kind of breaks down.

So, let's look at that opening line: "which processes and which chemicals cause love." Okay, look—nobody's arguing that love is tied to specific chemical reactions happening inside our bodies. That part is a given. But here’s the real kicker: what actually causes what? Like, could we flip the script and say "which processes and chemicals does love trigger?" Is it possible that love is the actual starting point—the primary spark—and all those messy chemical shifts are just the aftermath?
If you look at this from a purely materialistic standpoint, what even is love? It’s basically just a process designed—you know, via evolutionary programming—to get the male and female reproductive organs together so the species keeps going. But wait, don't a ton of other living things have their own version of this? They all have processes that lead to the same end goal: merging two sets of DNA. And isn't it true that for some species, that whole thing happens through totally different chemical pathways than ours? So, couldn't we argue that what’s actually the SAME across many species—this "love" thing, if we define it as the drive to fuse DNA—actually MANIFESTS IN DIFFERENT WAYS through different material processes depending on the organism? Like, can't we say "love manifests itself differently"? And wouldn't there still be something fundamentally the SAME within all those different manifestations... which is, well, "love" itself?

Alright, let's dive into round two. We're talking about which genes or hormones actually call the shots on our temperament, or even what dictates how smart we are. Honestly? It's the genes that kill me. What even *are* genes? Are they just some physical molecules sitting there? Or... I don't know. Here's the kicker: genes are basically information carriers. But when we say "information," what does that actually mean? Think of it like "shaping" or "patterning." That word alone implies there's some kind of "shape" or "form" involved. To me, information is really just a blueprint of that form.
So, think about it: at the moment of conception, you’ve got a male egg cell and a female egg cell smashing together. Two totally different sets of DNA fuse into one brand new thing, creating this whole new blueprint. This massive burst of information is what ultimately—given enough luck and the right environment—resulted in *me*. Basically, my entire FORM was set from day one. It’s been the boss of my development ever since, dictating exactly how all those material molecules should snap together. Sure, the nutrients and stuff had to be available in the womb, but which specific ones actually get picked? That’s driven by my FORM. Even the way my body pumps out hormones—like growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, whatever—it’s all just following that original FORM.
So, going back to my opening thought... what even is temperament? It’s this Latin word that basically means a true MEASURE. It's all about someone's disposition—their whole emotional setup. And what actually dictates that vibe? For the most part, it comes down to the ratio (which is *ratio* in Latin or *logos* in Greek) of hormones. So, we aren't just talking about hormones themselves, but the specific RATIO between them. And what sets that ratio? Our genes. Basically, my own biological FORM.
Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like this? Like, seriously, am I alone in this head space? Honestly, probably not. Tons of people out there have this exact same vibe. Even my old man—he’s got the same temperament as me. It makes you wonder, right? Could we basically say his personality was what actually dictated my genes? And look, if I really did inherit that temperament from him—which, let’s be real, I totally did—wasn't that whole disposition already potentially baked into me from the very start? You know, the moment of conception when my DNA and my entire physical form first kicked off? If that's the case, isn't it technically true that my temperament is what ultimately determines my hormones? Just a thought.

Look, I’m gonna double down on this: form absolutely trumps matter every single time. It’s just how it works. If you look at it through an Aristotelian lens, form is the essence—it's what actually makes a thing what it is. Like, think about it: if you're looking at a human being and a pig, what's the actual deciding factor that separates them? On a molecular level—the "matter" side of things—they're pretty much more or less the same stuff. But the form is totally different. Aristotle would say it's the form, and honestly, even today we'd just call it the genetic information. It's all about the form.
When some new DNA kicks in, some new biological blueprint, it takes those molecules—which obviously have to be there first—and shapes them into a human or a pig. But within that raw matter, you don't actually have a human or a pig yet. I mean, it's POTENTIALLY a human, or a pig. Or a million other things. If you really look at it: it could be anything. So what is that matter, then? It’s just everything, or if you follow that logic to its end, it’s actually NOTHING. It's just the possibility, the POTENTIAL, for something to exist. The thing that actually *is* something? That’s its FORM.

Can we dig even deeper into the matter? Particle physics has basically shown us that particles can transform into one another; they can swap identities. Honestly, there isn't any single particle that couldn't turn into something else. "Matter" is essentially that which hasn't been defined yet—it’s nothingness, pure potentiality. It’s that scholastic *potentia pura*, Aristotelian *dynamis*, Platonic *aoristos dyas*, the Pythagorean *apeiron*, or even the Christian concept of nothingness (*creatio ex nihilo*).
In "particle physics," matter gets its definition through conservation laws—basically, the stuff that stays the SAME throughout all those constant changes.
That "same" thing is the form: Aristotelian *morphe* or *eidos*, Platonic *eidos* or *idea*. It's the Pythagorean *peras*, the measure, the ratio. It's the Heraclitean *logos*. (Ratio, or proportion).

Jose Chase2 said:Oh man, yeah—another total gem right here. John Milius's 'Rough Riders.' Sure, it’s technically a TV movie, but honestly? It blows 90% of Hollywood productions out of the water.🙂 🙂

I haven't checked that one out yet, but his TV movie 'Motorcycle gang' is freaking incredible.
And I think I might be the only one here—I just looked up his IMDb and the average rating is a brutal 3.9/10. Someone even left this review:
This is officially THE worst film ever made. It is terrible! The acting is awful, the sets are awful, the editing is awful, the plot is awful, the props are awful, the soundtrack is awful, I simply could not state one positive comment about this movie! Set in the fifties, you can blatantly see 90's cars roaming around, the bikes the 'Gang' use are rusting even though they are ahead of their time, this is diabolical. Words cannot describe it! Take my advice - avoid this piece of junk at all costs! It will be the biggest waste of 80 minutes you could ever imagine.

Man, I was just sitting here thinking John Huston is easily one of the top three greats ever, when suddenly his big breakout flick pops up on TV. Awesome, right? So I start watching and... man, it’s garbage. Bogey is totally off, the plot is nonsense, the dialogue feels forced, and honestly, the only thing even remotely salvageable is the girl. Though even she’s kind of a poser.
Then, fast forward a few years, watched it again on DVD and—holy crap. Bogey absolutely kills it. The plot doesn't even matter, the dialogue is perfectly clunky in that classic noir way, and the girl is just effortlessly cool.

Every time I catch myself thinking I can't stand Americans, I just remember guys like Huston, Sam Peckinpah, Francis Ford Coppola, or Clint Eastwood.

It’s basically this messy collision between democratic ideals and pure capitalism. Democracy tells us everyone is equal, right? Like, the good guy is just as important as the jerk, the gorgeous person is equal to the ugly one, the philanthropist is on par with the cheapskate, the genius is level with the average Joe, and the intellectual is treated the same as the guy who just wants to grab a Bud Light and chill.
Because of who we are as humans, we’re all equal. That’s the whole democratic promise.
But then capitalism steps in and says everything can be boiled down to a dollar sign. So, if one person is out there chasing knowledge while another is just focused on drinking beer, that’s gonna show up in their bank accounts. If someone is stunning and someone else isn't, yeah, that hits the bottom line too. Every single human quality gets flattened into a number. It just becomes more or less cash.
When it comes to what we own, we definitely aren't equals.

And honestly? It’s all totally broken. People aren't actually "equal" when you look at their flaws or their strengths, and you can't take the crazy spectrum of human personality and turn it into a spreadsheet or some net worth.

Secundo said:I don't think Maslow’s hierarchy and Frommian theory are fighting each other at all—they actually fit together perfectly. It’s almost like people who are obsessed with just *having* stuff are basically stuck in an underdeveloped phase.

So, Maslow’s whole deal was that we have these basic needs first (food, clothes, a roof over our heads), and once those are checked off, we look for security, then finding our purpose, and finally, that peak level of self-actualization.

So, if someone manages to get their basic needs met but still spends their whole life obsessively chasing more material junk—not even useful stuff, just hoarding—they haven't actually moved up the ladder. They're basically just stuck at the bottom. Like, is that just a total developmental fail?

Honestly, that pyramid is kind of silly. I can think of endless examples where people choose freedom, love, God, their country... all of that over those "basic" needs.
Like Plato said, humans are plants with roots in the heavens.

What are we even talking about here? People have been collectively trashing American movies for years. Seriously, ask anyone what they think about films made in the States—the answer is usually some kind of groan. How many have you actually sat through in the last five years? "Zero." Or maybe "one—and honestly, that one wasn't terrible, but American movies generally suck." From my own experience at the theater: your average American flick isn't any worse than your average movie from anywhere else.

I mean, it really is wild that since we gained independence, we haven't produced a single truly masterpiece-level American film.

But look, after all that constant bashing, it’s about time we give them some credit now that they’ve actually hit it big.

Luchino Visconti actually had Burt Lancaster forced on him for his movie; apparently, Visconti was yelling, "I don't want that cowboy!"
I mean, let's be real, Lancaster totally crushed it in that masterpiece, and then Visconti ended up working with him again later—totally by choice this time.

I swear, I haven't seen a single bad movie with Pacina (at least none that I can recall). Honestly, I can't even think of any other actor from the last thirty years who deserves that kind of credit.

Rachel Wood said:Has anyone actually sat down and watched this yet? What’s the verdict—is it even worth borrowing?
I mean, I know Lynch's stuff is usually pretty cool, but I haven't seen Blue Velvet, so I'm not sure if there's even any point in checking this one out...

Well? Did you end up grabbing it? Was it actually worth the time?

Carol Jackson45 said:... man, they could even throw in The Big Wave too...

Oh, "they could," sure...
Francis Ford Coppola is the GOAT!

MrBeast said:Priests don't need all these fancy hints about Apollo. I've seen how they think before. You just tell a priest "he pissed off Apollo" and then "he died," and boom—they’ve already built this whole cause-and-effect thing in their heads. >)
It's just like when people believed Achilles was invincible, and then they see him dead with an arrow sticking out of his heel and suddenly they're like, "Oh, he must have died because he was vulnerable there." Like, duh.

And the romance part? Did you actually watch Troy or maybe some cursed Mariana flick? >)

- Steve -

Oh, Steve...

The movie works because it’s not actually called the Iliad. Back in ancient Greece, it was totally normal to take a classic setup and just spin a whole new tale around it.
But yeah, they definitely sugarcoated it way too much. That fake "happy ending" vibe? The whole "you gave me peace" thing? It’s the complete opposite of who that guy really is. I mean, Achilles is driven by nothing but pure hubris from start to finish—he should've stayed that "natural born killer" type, someone who didn't choose his path but was just born into it. If they hadn't messed up that final character arc, he would've been legendary. And don't even get me started on the Paris and Helen romance... it was honestly nothing. Menelaus and Agamemnon were great, Hector was okay, but Priam felt weak. Plus, they totally missed the mark by leaving out the bond between Patroclus and Achilles, which is what actually justifies all that rage. Leaving the gods out was a smart move, though (even if I really wanted to see some nod to Apollo when Achilles gets hit by that arrow)...

Man, those two who started this thread almost talked me out of watching it. But honestly? It’s actually good. The story is super engaging, and the cast is top-tier—though I gotta say, maybe Nicole Kidman wasn't the perfect fit for this specific role; she just didn't quite nail that exhausted look they were going for. Still, it’s better than most of those overhyped Hollywood dramas we've seen lately.