Posts by nimblemarlin6

I read this anecdote somewhere once—can't quite remember the specifics of when or where it actually went down.

The story goes that this happened during the early days of filmmaking, back when the Ottoman Empire was still a thing.
Some filmmakers showed up at the palace of a big shot—maybe a pasha, or perhaps even the Sultan himself.
As soon as the cameraman aimed his lens toward the Sultan, a bodyguard—likely misinterpreting what the camera was actually pointing at—stepped forward to take the cameraman's head off.
The Sultan stepped in to stop the guy, saying: "Let the kid play."

If anyone out there actually knows the details behind this anecdote, please drop a note about exactly when and where this took place.

Nicholas Nguyen said:Honestly, that little flick captured the vibe of the 80s way better than those bloated, overpriced Hollywood blockbusters we see every summer😁

If you haven't seen it yet, you really should

Not quite—it just leans hard into that hyper-ironic 80s nostalgia that everyone seems obsessed with lately.

I wasn't really feeling it. It’s trying way too hard.

It’s like going to a stand-up set where the comedian just grabs you by the throat—shoving jokes right into your face while laughing hysterically at their own bits.

The first movie actually hit the mark. Honestly, Die Hard is way better than those last four sequels combined—it just had that spark. Plus, Butler was totally believable in the role and handled the action scenes perfectly, so I'm definitely down for a sequel. 👍

The real question is what we can actually wrap our heads around existing in this universe—and whether there’s some kind of logical mechanism driving it all. We could easily imagine a world like Arrakis, complete with those massive worms and a space-faring "spice" that alters consciousness (not to mention all the political maneuvering that comes with it), but then you get into something like the Force from Star Wars, which really feels more like it belongs to the realm of religion.
I'm not saying things like chi or prana don't exist, per se, but that's territory for theology—whereas science is what steps in when you start talking about consciousness-altering drugs and the actual physiological mechanics of how they work.

As for superheroes, I’d probably just leave them out of the equation entirely; they’re basically their own specific genre, much like those old-school kung fu flicks where people just fly through the air while trading blows.

Nicholas Watson said:Most American geeks count Star Wars as fantasy rather than Sci-Fi.

And honestly? They aren't wrong. Look, ST has about the same amount of nonsense in it as SW does—let's be real—but ST leans progressive while SW feels pretty reactionary. 😁

It’s the same logic you’d use when comparing the Chronicle to the Avengers. It’s pretty obvious which one falls under fantasy and which one is actually Sci-Fi.

Predator 2 definitely has its own cult moments...
That line "Fuckin' voodoo magic, man" is basically a goldmine for techno producers looking for that perfect sample. 😁

Quincy:

I honestly don't see why people get so worked up about this—it’s just a watch. A timepiece. It does exactly what it’s supposed to do, which is tell you that you’re late for your meeting or that you actually have five minutes to spare before the next thing hits the fan. People treat these things like they're some kind of spiritual anchor or a personality trait—as if wearing a specific movement somehow changes your fundamental essence—but let's be real. It’s just gears and springs. It’s fine. It’s all perfectly fine. Benjamin Taylor6 says: Look, if people decide to collectively agree to strip away someone else's freedom—well, it’s all for nothing. It doesn't work that way. Neither the individuals nor the government actually holds that right to begin with. That's the whole point here—the government's authority is inherently limited. They aren't allowed to just pass laws that strip an individual of their liberty. That's the core issue. Limited government powers. Period.

And just how much should the government be allowed to meddle—who actually gets to call the shots on where that line is drawn?
So, how would I actually pull off the transition from a state with massive, overreaching authority to one where the government stays out of your hair—the kind of limited setup that actually makes sense to me? It’s a tricky one. Personally, I find the whole democratic process to be a bit of a wash—honestly, it feels pretty pointless when you consider that most voters are just indoctrinated sheep or, frankly, just plain clueless—but then you look at the libertarians and they aren't exactly forcing anyone to adopt their worldview either. So, if the ballot box is a dead end and the activists won't push, how do you actually get there? How would I execute that shift?
What is it with you and this obsession with "infringing on freedoms"? To anyone else, things like paying taxes or having access to public healthcare, schools, and a police force are just... normal. They're standard parts of a functioning society. But based on your usual posts—where you constantly link everything back to collectivist madness, socialism, and mass executions—it’s like you view a tax bill or a local clinic as being on the exact same level as sending people off to the Gulag. And honestly? It just isn't.

Quincy:

It’s all essentially the same thing—when people start shouting about wanting a "strong state" to crush civil liberties, or a "strong state" to trample economic freedoms, or even a "strong state" to stomp all over Jewish freedoms—it’s just different ways of saying the exact same thing.

No, those aren't even in the same universe. Look, we’ve already touched on this—to you, being taxed on the same scale is somehow comparable to passing laws that classify Jews as a lower race and force them to wear identifying marks. You're putting business regulations on the exact same level as the mass deportation of Jews to concentration camps. It’s completely deranged. Human life carries more weight than corporate profit—period.

Quincy:

My freedom to wave my fist around ends right where your head begins—and honestly, that logic should apply to the state as well. Or at least, it *should*—but we all know what happens when collective madness takes over, grabs a monopoly on force, and starts looking down its nose at individual liberty...

It’s true—this whole "collectivist madness" thing, where you have a monopoly on force paired with a total disregard for individual liberty, always leads to ugly outcomes. The only real question here is what exactly you define as collectivist madness.
Look, paying your taxes, supporting public goods, and living in a regulated economy—that isn't some kind of collectivist madness. But shoving Jews into camps? Yeah, that’s definitely where you draw the line.

crimsonwolf20 said:And what happens if the citizens—think German National Socialists—decide that capitalists and Jewish people deserve to be shoved into gas chambers? Does that capitalist or that Jewish individual actually have an inherent right to freedom, regardless of what some regime or a majority of the populace might decide to strip away from them?

None of you socialists have given an honest answer to this yet—so go ahead, be the first one to step up. ☕

Well, I suppose we’ve learned from history—and hopefully there are enough safeguards in place, ranging from basic morality, religion, and upbringing to Constitutionally guaranteed rights and the separation of powers, to prevent a society from turning into a pack of cannibals and mass murderers overnight.

But still—what do you do when the people say, "We don't want the kind of freedom you are peddling; we want a strong state"?
What then? Then you’d have to force the kind of system you prefer onto them. And who does that? Some single individual? An elite class?
Look, most people are idiots—it's just how it is. Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best thing we've got for now. You got anything better to offer?

Maybe after years of being disappointed by attempts to convert everyone to the Truth, the libertarians will finally admit they're actually pro-monarchy.

crimsonwolf20 said:Nah, you’ve totally mixed things up with that classic socialist excuse about why socialism fails everywhere and every single time.

You socialists are always the ones claiming that "true" socialism has never actually existed—arguing that those socialist sociopaths and dictators weren't the "real" deal—so then you retreat into these tired clichés about an American conspiracy, sanctions, Western saboteurs, or bad actors being at the top of the socialist power pyramid every time. It's the go-to move, right? Because otherwise, there's no other way to explain why your centrally planned paradise on earth consistently turns out to be a literal hellscape that impoverishes and ruins billions of unlucky souls who just happened to be born into these unnatural social experiments under the boot of socialist totalitarianism.

At the end of the day, people are people. American "capitalists" (whatever that even means—capitalism isn't some mystical cult, it's just the natural, voluntary exchange of value for value) and socialists are all humans. Everyone is greedy, selfish, good, bad, kind, cruel, or whatever else you want to throw at them. There's no such thing as "real" capitalists; there's just a rule of law that sets up the framework where a free market can actually function—a state that punishes crime and protects private property.

In America, that often doesn't exist, which is a massive failure by politicians—people are going to exploit any gap in the system for their own gain, whether they call themselves "capitalists" or socialists. People are people! If there's an opportunity, they'll grab it. And if the government is incompetent, sluggish, and meddling in the market in a million different ways—hey, that's great for them! It just gives them way more room to maneuver and pull shady deals compared to a minimal government with limited authority.

..

And let's not forget the USA—which, after a period of crisis that wasn't nearly as apocalyptic as today's right-wingers try to paint it, was actually on a solid path toward economic recovery by 1989. But instead, it all got derailed by this irrational nationalism rooted in deep historical grievances. From 1991 onward, that irrationality just became a playground for criminal, cancer-like structures of corrupt elites in power.

Quincy:

There is no such thing as "true" capitalists; there is only a rule-of-law state that establishes the legal framework for a free market to function—a state that punishes crime and protects private property. ...In America, that often doesn't exist, which is a failure of the politicians...

Well, obviously it's a failure—that's why we need people in charge who actually know how to do their jobs. How small the government should be, who runs it, and what its actual purpose is—well, that should be decided by the citizens. You get the kind of government you deserve based on the kind of citizens you are.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Sure, maybe some ultra-successful American tycoon is thrilled by the idea. But let’s be honest about how things work here in the States—local capitalists aren't exactly jumping for joy at the prospect, because once you introduce real accountability, there’s suddenly nothing left to skim off the top.
In principle, those companies that actually managed to pull off employee stock ownership programs only did so after the "new money" bosses had finished bleeding them dry and brought everything down to a mediocre baseline. It was basically a desperate move by the workers to save their own jobs from being gutted.
A few examples:
An electrode plant in a town like Columbus
Zaprešić

I'm willing to nagađati what the response from the crowd will be:

"Sure, but American capitalists aren't the real deal—they're actually socialists in disguise. In America, it isn't true capitalism; it's actually socialism."

😁

I caught "Blackhat" at the theater yesterday, and man, I’m still reeling from how good it actually was.

The movie follows the classic thriller blueprint.
The core subject could have been any international crime spree, but they went with cybercrime—now, I don't know the first thing about coding or high-level hacking, but knowing Mann's obsession with detail, it’s highly likely the technical side is airtight and all those procedures are actually doable.
But the story isn't some boring, uncinematic slog.
The lead—played by Thor himself—is basically the ultimate archetype for programmers—even though he's a hacker, the guy can clearly hold his own in a fight, handle a gun, and he's got some Jiu-Jitsu skills too. The film is packed with explosions, shootouts, and brawls. And let me tell you, the action sequences are executed brilliantly!
HOWEVER. The one thing that really sets this apart from the mountain of other modern thrillers is the sheer maturity and adulthood of the characters—it honestly felt like I was watching a gritty thriller straight out of the 70s.
When conflict breaks out, it’s treated as something serious and grueling with actual consequences, rather than just mindless entertainment.

What makes this film truly standout, though, is that phenomenal visual style and this sort of apocalyptic atmosphere.
"Blackhat" looks incredible; there are these stunning panoramic shots and everyday locations that Mann manages to make feel surreal—almost like you're watching a sci-fi flick instead of a contemporary drama.
If I had to imagine a film adaptation of a newer William Gibson novel, like "Spook country," this is exactly what it would look like.

The plot is intricate, and the characters are layered—at no point did I feel like I was watching something designed for teenagers or someone with an attention deficit, which is a massive plus in my book.

I am honestly disgusted by those incredibly low scores on Rotten Tomatoes for what is, in every sense, a top-tier thriller and a total visual masterpiece!
Definitely recommend seeing this on the big screen!

Back in 1990, posters for Predator 2 started popping up all over Washington, D.C.—it was being handled by some big distributor from the old Soviet Union era.
It was pretty standard back then—you'd see movie posters plastered everywhere months before anything actually hit the big screen.
Since we didn't have the internet to tell us what was coming, everything felt kind of random—basically just whenever a distributor managed to snag the rights to bring a flick to theaters.
I spent months getting myself worked up, just counting down the days until I could catch Predator 2 in a theater.
But then, the war broke out and the whole Hollywood distribution machine just ground to a halt.
Honestly, even the hardcore Predator fans got screwed over by the collapse of the Soviet Union—we were stuck watching Predator 2 on some grainy, terrible VHS tape instead.

Nicole James said:Theft is theft, period—it doesn't matter if it has popular support or not. In certain radical fundamentalist circles, a majority might actually support things like child marriage or other absolute atrocities, but we don't pretend those actions are any less horrific just because a local majority happens to agree with them.

Right... so, in your book, a specific way of organizing production that you happen to dislike is somehow equivalent to—well, let's be blunt—genital mutilation?

Let's look at some hypotheticals here. Imagine a country holds an election and a party wins that runs on a platform of supporting worker cooperatives and self-management.
Say the Green Party wins in America. Their platform isn't about seizing assets; it’s about fostering community-run cooperatives.
Who exactly are they stealing from?

It honestly feels like you're attacking even those kinds of hypothetical scenarios.

And then there's a real-world example—the Democratic Party in Greece is clearly a leftist organization.
In your view, is the Democratic Party just as evil as those extremists in Africa who mutilate children—meaning, would it be considered "moral" to invade Greece and liberate the Greek people from their legally elected government?

Sam Martinez9 said:Let’s be honest: capitalists aren't losing any sleep over the idea of worker self-management.

First off, tearing down a system of worker control is surprisingly easy. Look at how quickly the self-managed socialism in the USA collapsed—it fell like a house of cards.

The workers didn't stand a chance of keeping their companies, either. They were basically told their businesses were worthless because they were "socialized" assets. Then came the wave of restructuring and privatization, where workers were either pushed into early retirement or left sitting at unemployment offices while the factories were handed over to various people like Rajić or Kulteim.

Secondly, even in a small business, getting two co-owners to actually work together is a nightmare. I’ve seen it happen even with biological brothers. One wants to go left, the other wants to go right; one wants to pay the water bill, the other forgets the electricity... before you know it, within six months, the partnership is dead.

The truth is, humanity hasn't evolved enough for true self-governance. People still instinctively crave a leader, a boss... someone to step up and make the final call.

Self-management requires a level of humanity and maturity that we just haven't reached yet. It demands a genuine hunger for learning and collective knowledge, but we're still essentially shaking off the remnants of a feudal mindset.

Give it maybe five hundred or a thousand years, and things might look different.

Since socialism is supposedly worthless, we might as well privatize everything!

But then, once the privatization was complete, suddenly those companies were worth plenty when it came time to sell them off.

The end result? The owner walks away with the cash, leaving behind no company and absolutely no jobs for the local community. 😁

Nicole James said:The thing is, saying one wants "to organize the entire national economy" is usually just a polite euphemism for "advocating for the seizure of private property." And, frankly, some people aren't particularly fond of the idea of having their property seized.

So, democratic elections don't count for anything then?

If the winning party’s whole platform is built on socialism, communism, or worker self-management—and the majority of voters actually pick those communists at the ballot box—then it means that’s what the people actually WANT.
Look at what happened in Greece. The Greek people made it clear they wanted Syriz.

No outside force has any right to slap them with sanctions or try to destabilize the country just because the citizens want to run their economy differently than some typical capitalist powerhouse.

Gary Martinez2 said:Just a quick question here.
Why does the capitalist class seem so threatened by worker cooperatives acting as competitors, yet they don't have any real issue with competition coming from other private corporations?

Any individual out there who's a true believer in capitalism and free markets will tell you that nobody actually minds if people choose to manage themselves.

Nobody is stopping anyone from starting a business and running it however they see fit...

but...

here's the thing... if you had an election here in the US and a platform won that argued for reorganizing the entire national economy toward that model, what do you think would happen?
Suddenly, every major media outlet in the West would be painting that country as some kind of rogue dictatorship—they'd be rooting for its total collapse. And to make sure that actually happens, you'd see full-blown economic warfare, isolation from the global market, sanctions, or even worse—intelligence agencies orchestrating "grassroots" protests by "concerned citizens" to trigger a coup and topple the democratically elected government.

Michael Collins said:Even if those twelve guys were heavily armed, they'd still be taking out enemy soldiers—maybe even wiping out a secret base or snatching up some top-secret tech.

I just don't see how an audience in a country where their own people are cast as the villains—even if they are just our anti-heroes—would actually want to sit through that.

You're knocking on the wrong door here; we aren't exactly in a position to serve up a movie about the Axis powers.

Look, it isn't about us catering to them—it’s about us making a damn good movie, and if we do, they’ll recognize quality when they see it.
Back in '68, Germans had no problem at all watching American action flicks about WW2.
Russians were more than happy to watch Rambo 3.

It’s not really about the budget—it’s about how you approach the subject matter.
I mean, look at Robert Rodriguez; he shot his first film, "el mariachi," on a shoestring budget. There are plenty of examples like that out there.
The bottom line is that you have to give people a story and characters they actually *want* to watch.
At the end of the day, political correctness or some pursuit of "absolute truth" doesn't matter if it's boring—that won't bring in an audience. What matters is that the thing is tense and well-made.

Richard Wilson4 said:I'm quoting a line from Number 55 here: "No chance"😉
So, no war film about the Vietnam War made by Americans would be watched in Mexico, just like there's no chance that new series about Ravna Gora would be watched over here.

Unless you want a movie where the veterans are the villains, but that would be like Americans making a WWII movie where the good guys are the bad guys—it's a non-starter. It would be historically wrong, offensive, and the public would hate it (even with our divisions, we had 90% support for the liberation).

Regarding patriotism, in Number 55, our guys are the good guys—young and kindhearted—but the movie doesn't lean into nationalistic cheesiness. Please, just watch the movie before you start dropping opinions on it.
The way you're doing it is judging a film you haven't even seen based on stereotypes you already hold.

As for those critics, you've got me curious. Got a link?

A film where the main heroes are stereotypical American patriots and Catholics wouldn't stand a chance in that region, obviously. But, say, if the heroes were American criminals who get pardoned on the condition that they go to war... now that's a different story—something like *The Dirty Dozen*. It's universal, and everyone could get behind it.
Actually, I'd love to see someone successfully push back against the Mexicans by portraying American female soldiers as action heroes.

Eh, I don't have a link for favorable reviews in Mexico; I just read it in some article saying Mexican critics praised the film. A movie is a movie—you can't judge it based on ideology.