1336 posts shown.
Jesse Thomas7 says:
Whether you look at this from a personal or a global perspective, one deeply concerning fact—in my humble opinion—is that movie studios seem to be the only industry completely absolved of any accountability, whether moral or financial, toward customers who aren't happy with what they bought.
Jesse Thomas7 said:HALLELUJAH! Amen to that. Seriously, WHY on earth should I have to spend days playing detective, scouring forums, and reading reviews—which, let's be real, won't actually tell me if *I'll* personally enjoy it—when I could just walk in, feel the vibe, sense the direction of the film, and decide for myself whether it's my thing?
It's like people have stopped caring about the actual cinematic experience itself. Now, everyone's obsessed with the chat threads, the bonus features, trivia from the set, how much weight an actor lost for a role, what the director's next or previous projects were, and so on and so forth...
neonsurfer6 said:One segment of film production has been focused on pushing content to the widest possible audience since almost 1895.😁 It’s only logical; filmmaking is an incredibly expensive art form, and in any studio system operating on market principles, you have to turn a profit to keep the cameras rolling.
There are plenty of "exceptions," so cinema isn't dying. Top-tier films are produced all over the globe, and nowadays, it’s actually easier than ever to make a movie on a shoestring budget. We constantly hear about innovative concepts where films are shot for next to nothing. Think American indies, Dogme 95, or Romanian cinema... there isn't massive money involved, it's not treated as a commodity, yet great films still emerge.
Today when you film, filmmakers have access to affordable digital technology and the internet acts as a godsend for promoting their work. As viewers, we definitely don't have to rely solely on the major studios anymore. From that perspective, industrial film production isn't inherently bad; if anything, we audiences often benefit from the coexistence of true art and the industry.
rustywalker42 said:No, it isn't. Would you actually call that movie sci-fi if you were talking to someone who’s never even seen it? And if you did, what kind of reaction do you think they'd have once the credits actually roll?
In principle? Yeah. It’s all built on high-end tech we just don't have access to yet.Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, fine. Believe whatever you want. Online? Seriously?I'm not saying that... Wikipedia. Some ultimate proof that actually shuts down that "according to your logic" argument? No. That’s not how my logic works.
And the Americans say:
Mad Max is an American cult classic from 1979. Dystopian action films? Really? Who even watches these anymore? Mad Max was directed by George Miller and written by Miller and Byron Kennedy.
Mad Max. That's the one. Pure adrenaline on celluloid. You ever seen anything like it? Just raw, unbridled chaos. It’s basically a high-octane fever dream set in an American wasteland. Total madness.
So, what now?So, here's the thing about predicting the future... Sci-fi.2014? Please. If this were actually 2114, we’d be looking at nothing but wasteland scavengers, desert truckers, and... what else? Bikers? Really?So, you'd probably tell me it isn't even SF either? Please. It’s a drama set in 2114.
Answer me this. Was that drama filmed in 2014 in SF?Matthew Anderson4 Quote: Blue Velvet I mentioned it because of that dystopian movie. Thought it might be worth a debate to see if the comparison actually holds water. But apparently, there’s nothing worth discussing here besides... Trolled. Another forum user sliding in with comments like...Wait, did I just catch that? Someone actually mentioned Christ was a Buddhist? Seriously? 🙂''...
I’m not trolling. If you think I am, that’s on you. I'm just defending my position. And if standing my ground counts as trolling? Then fine. I'm done with this thread.Who knows? Maybe there's some commentary on social segregation or the rise of an underworld happening there. I just can't tell if it's a prediction or if we're already living in it.
"Segregation"? I don't recall a single dystopian element in Blue Velvet.
And you, being a moderator, just love a good troll, don't you? Seriously, which part of my quote was confusing? In your eyes, is Out of the Past a crime thriller or a noir film?I mean, it's not sci-fi, it's a subgenre of sci-fi 😕 and they even bolded it. For crying out loud.
I didn't say it was a sci-fi subgenre; you did. I said Mad Max isn't sci-fi and I'm sticking to that.
rustywalker42 said:🙄
I... Noir. Just noir. It’s a crime subgenre, so what exactly are you trying to say? Out of the Past Is it a crime thriller or what? Noir? Really? Just one word? You trying to be deep or just lazy? So, we're talking about this film? Really?
What kind of sci-fi elements are actually in there? Mad Max So, according to your logic, a drama set in 2014 is somehow sci-fi?So, Beaver mentioned a movie that’s dystopian but isn't actually sci-fi (haven't seen it, by the way). I noticed people online bringing up... Quote: Blue Velvet Feels like a dystopian flick. Definitely not SF.
Quote: Blue Velvet Dystopian? In what way?
rustywalker42 said:How does someone on a film forum not remember Mad Max? 🤔
It's a cult classic. Seriously, it's like saying you don't remember Taxi Driver.
🤦
Give me a break. What "SF elements" are we even talking about here? Mad Max has absolutely nothing to do with SF.
velvetdrifter86 said:Yeah, I did.
Not a huge crowd, but there was always someone acting out.
Didn't happen to me personally, but plenty of kids I knew ended up with major issues because of bullying, broken homes, drugs, or getting into trouble. It's wild how hard it is to believe a school shooting could happen in a movie when you see examples of it all over the US and Europe (maybe even Asia too).
You're jumping to conclusions based on one case. I was just trying to show that a scenario like this is super plausible. And saying that people with mental health issues are the only ones grabbing guns? That doesn't fly with me. A person's mental state is shaped by their environment. They adapt and react to what's happening around them. Like, is a kid in Iraq considered mentally ill just because he's handling weapons and shooting at people?
velvetdrifter86 said:Yeah, I did.
Not a huge crowd, but there was always someone acting out.
Didn't happen to me personally, but plenty of kids I knew ended up with major issues because of bullying, broken homes, drugs, or getting into trouble. It's wild how hard it is to believe a school shooting could happen in a movie when you see examples of it all over the US and Europe (maybe even Asia too).
You're jumping to conclusions based on one case. I was just trying to show that a scenario like this is super plausible. And saying that people with mental health issues are the only ones grabbing guns? That doesn't fly with me. A person's mental state is shaped by their environment. They adapt and react to what's happening around them. Like, is a kid in Iraq considered mentally ill just because he's handling weapons and shooting at people?
velvetdrifter86 said:Yeah, I did.
Not a huge crowd, but there was always someone acting out.
Didn't happen to me personally, but plenty of kids I knew ended up with major issues because of bullying, broken homes, drugs, or getting into trouble. It's wild how hard it is to believe a school shooting could happen in a movie when you see examples of it all over the US and Europe (maybe even Asia too).
You're jumping to conclusions based on one case. I was just trying to show that a scenario like this is super plausible. And saying that people with mental health issues are the only ones grabbing guns? That doesn't fly with me. A person's mental state is shaped by their environment. They adapt and react to what's happening around them. Like, is a kid in Iraq considered mentally ill just because he's handling weapons and shooting at people?
velvetdrifter86 said:Yeah, I did.
Not a huge crowd, but there was always someone acting out.
Didn't happen to me personally, but plenty of kids I knew ended up with major issues because of bullying, broken homes, drugs, or getting into trouble. It's wild how hard it is to believe a school shooting could happen in a movie when you see examples of it all over the US and Europe (maybe even Asia too).
You're jumping to conclusions based on one case. I was just trying to show that a scenario like this is super plausible. And saying that people with mental health issues are the only ones grabbing guns? That doesn't fly with me. A person's mental state is shaped by their environment. They adapt and react to what's happening around them. Like, is a kid in Iraq considered mentally ill just because he's handling weapons and shooting at people?
velvetdrifter86 said:What do you mean it doesn't fit? To me, the ending was actually pretty logical based on how things played out—it would’ve been weird if it went any other way. Don't forget, the whole thing is inspired by actual historical delays.link
Lisa Davis46 said:Me too.
2 against 1 😁 we win!
Has nobody else on this entire sub watched the movie? 🙂
Lisa Davis46 said:Of course it's unsettling. Who knows what Haneke would say about it 🙂
but I feel the exact same way about Peter and Paul from Funny Games...
I honestly don't know if there's any way to "fairly" punish bullies and predators like that. Like, in the case of someone like Luke Ritz getting beaten to death, should we just throw the culprits into juvenile hall—basically a reform school—and give them a chance to do the exact same thing once they're out, like that actually happened? Or should we meet force with force?
Please enlighten me if you know of any solution that actually works somewhere in the world. It would make my day 🙂
Correction: at the end, two girls in Klass are killed. One of them is Rina, who—despite witnessing all the bullying by the class predators (just like all the other girls)—didn't have the guts to push back against their narrative and ended up supporting them instead. Just because they weren't physically attacking Joseph and Kasper doesn't mean they weren't complicit.
The second girl is that eighth grader who ended up being totally innocent and right in front of the main target, Anders. Kasper shot her. An unplanned victim.
Joseph also shot at Kasper's ex-girlfriend, but he didn't let him finish her off...
All the guys in the class who directly bullied them were killed; they went after them specifically. They didn't care about anyone else, so they let them go right at the beginning...
Again, I'm not claiming that responding to violence with more violence is justified, but I think it's impossible to stay indifferent toward the abusers in this movie. They trigger something in you. Definitely not good feelings. And I'm sure you want to see them punished somehow.
+ Plus, obviously, the film pushes you to question your own moral compass, but at the same time, it puts you right in their shoes. You aren't just some outside observer...
Michael Ortiz68 said:Do you honestly believe there's a 13-year-old girl hiding behind my username who needs the actors to be "cute" for a movie to be good? 😕
And where are you getting the idea that most people care about whether the actors are attractive? On this forum, on IMDb boards, or in real life, I have never heard anyone cite physical attractiveness as a primary reason for watching or enjoying a film.
That said, I agree with Roger Allen3 and Joshua Smith5—Zooey is more attractive than Mila. 😛
@Roger Allen3: I preferred FSM because it managed to push through a convincing story about falling in love via a solid comedy. I actually felt a connection to the characters. 🤷
With u 500 dos, everything felt forced; there was such an obvious struggle to make the movie "sweet," but I just couldn't connect with anyone on screen.
I don't like the film for the reasons I've already laid out in two previous posts, and I have no desire to repeat myself. To be clear, I'm not some cynic who hates romance movies. Quite the opposite—I love them. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is one of my all-time favorites. I really wanted to like u 500 dos, but it just didn't happen. I even watched it with my girlfriend, complete with popcorn and a Tomislav beer. 😁
All 5s here. Just out of curiosity—what specifically did you find original about the film (aside from perhaps the split screen mentioned by goldenhound32)?
goldenhound32 said:It depends on the individual, I suppose. Though, if we're being honest, most people probably care more than they'd like to admit. We've been conditioned to stare at conventionally attractive faces on our screens for our entire lives.
But if you concede that Person A is more aesthetically pleasing than Person B, then it remains an objective fact that a film featuring Person A is "better" in terms of pure visual appeal.
So, take your pick—decide for yourself whether that matters or not.
A - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1458345728/nm0005109
B - http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3092154368/nm0221046