Posts by rustywalker42

Found this interesting piece on a pretty mediocre news site:

http://nytimes.com/culture/page/1...2/0121006.html

Even 115 years later, audiences in 3D and IMAX theaters are still gasping "wow," "whoa," and "ah" every single time some object or character jumps toward them from the screen. Apparently, that’s the biggest selling point of modern movies.

A step backward.

We haven't really moved forward from those first movie screenings, have we? People aren't running out of theaters fearing for their lives anymore, but in 2011, the obsession is still centered on technical gimmicks rather than actual storytelling. Progress isn't always a straight line, clearly. 3D tech has become the most significant invention of a Hollywood industry that's somehow regressed from the 21st century back to the 19th.

For Hollywood, sound wasn't enough. Color wasn't enough. Even turning film into one of the world's most dominant art forms wasn't enough. Driven by nothing but pure profit, they started panicking in the 90s, hunting for some shiny new gimmick to "elevate" cinema and give it a "21st-century face."

They thought VR might be the answer, but they quickly realized 3D was the money maker—something Hollywood actually dabbled in back in the 50s. They just needed to make the 3D effect feel more "real," which is easier to do now with today's tech than it was sixty years ago.

The sense of depth is way better now, sure, but is it any more realistic? Not really. The CGI layers are flashier, but they still look just as flat and fake. And don't even get me started on how much of a headache 3D is to actually watch. Even with "Avatar"—which is technically the gold standard here—people were struggling just to balance the image and the subtitles. It gave half the audience nausea.

Early experiences at US IMAX theaters should serve as a wake-up call for technicians. Once you find that one specific spot where the subtitles don't double up, you can't move an inch. Move your head slightly and the text multiplies and the image blurs. Great.

And what about the actual movies? Look at what's playing right now: it's all kid stuff or mindless spectacles like the latest "Thor."

Artistic 3D.

It took twenty years for film to truly become an art form (think German Expressionism in the 1920s). Sure, there will come a time when artistic expression becomes a core part of 3D technology, but can we please wrap up this "experimental" phase? We're all just guinea pigs in a massive test to prove something is "cool" when it clearly isn't. At least they're pouring money into the tech itself, even if the tech is mostly just impressing itself.

What do you guys think? Is the author hitting the nail on the head? Are we stuck with another decade or two of brainless movies where the only point is the 3D?

Carl Morales9 said:Is there any theoretical chance that someone could open a small business, such as a custom upholstery shop or an auto repair garage, within a strictly residential zone? I’m wondering if obtaining the necessary permits is even a remote possibility, or if it’s just a complete non-starter.

P.S. I actually submitted this inquiry to LegalZoom since I haven't received a response yet, so I figured I’d toss it out here in case anyone has some insight.

First off, define "LLC" versus "small business." If you're talking about a wallpaper guy or a mechanic, where exactly would you put them? If you mean businesses in general—then yeah. There's an LLC operating in two apartments right above me.

The title says it all. Once you read it, you know we're talking about absolute masterpieces. 🙂

Here’s a fun bit of trivia for you: remember that bridge they blow up in the third movie? Apparently, the Spanish army built it, and they’d only agree to blow it up if their own officer got to pull the trigger. But get this—the officer never told Sergio Leone he was actually going to detonate it! So, the first explosion wasn't even caught on film. The army had to rebuild the exact same bridge just so they could blow it up again, only this time, actually capture it on camera. Crazy, right? 😁
If you don't have it yet, you seriously need to grab the extended DVD release of the third film. It includes 16 extra minutes that were originally cut because they supposedly showed too much "brutal" action involving Tuco. Since those scenes were only available in the Italian version, they had to re-sync everything to English. And since Lee Van Cleef had already passed away, they had to use a voice actor to dub his lines. I'm writing this off the top of my head, so I can't quite recall which actor stepped in for him.

I run a specialized forum—it's actually pretty huge on the American internet—and I decided against enabling that whole "Like button" feature for posts, given the reasons I just laid out.

Adam Collins4 said:A subendem is basically something that's dominant in neighboring states, but you can still find "traces" of it scattered across America...

The borders don't matter. What you wrote above is really just an American classification used to better pinpoint our local sub-endemics. Take the Pitch Pine ( Pinus heldreichii ), for instance—that’s a textbook sub-endemic. You'll find it all over the US, but nowhere else on the planet. Look, we get it, I just wanted to point out that this whole endemic thing is about habitat range, not political lines on a map (which only exist for politicians).

Adam Collins4 said:Back to the insults again... seriously, you can do better than that.

I’m telling you for the last time—that plant isn't an endemic species.

An endemic species is something found specifically within one country, maybe popping up occasionally in neighboring states...

It isn't something that grows all over Europe.

So, now that we've actually taught you what "endemic" means, we can move on...

Even if it's written in some elementary school textbook—as if that's somehow gospel truth...

First, you missed the mark on American geography during that other topic, and now you're failing at endemic species... you really should know the basics about your own country.

Take a local wildflower from the Rockies, for example—that's an endemic species because it doesn't grow all over Europe like this one does.

And since you love citing middle school curriculum so much, let me debunk you with some actual links from school websites...

http://www.elementaryschool-example.edu/science=1049#mod_news

Where it clearly explains how to identify if a plant is endemic...

Just take a look at the number of subspecies listed for that common weed...

Bottom line: it’s not an endemic species, and you really need to learn the terminology you're tossing around so carelessly.

To be precise, the Rocky Mountains' degeneria is a stenoendem. It grows on the Rocky Mountains and absolutely nowhere else on Earth.[/b]

Samuel Garcia6 said:Just saw it on the news. Fines up to 200 $0.00. What else is new? Just another way to kick the poor man when he's down.

Please. Those high-rollers have been protected for ages, and those fines were already on the books. Same rules apply to everyone else—the small fry, the nobodies, the guys just trying to get by.

Jacob Foster11 said:Only the people sending or receiving private messages can see them. Administrators only step in if someone reports a message.

That’s only half true.

See, the root admin—basically anyone with database access—can read your private messages. I mean, who would actually bother doing that? Why would they even want to? But yeah, it’s possible.
If you want actual privacy (at least here), just encrypt your messages.

hollowtrucker77 said:I might be wrong, but I don't see any Nazi glorification here.
I get what the Night of the Long Knives was, but what does that have to do with us? And why on earth should someone be sanctioned just for bringing it up?

I don't get it either. I guess people nowadays just see witches everywhere they need to burn at the stake.

hollowtrucker77 said:can you explain yourself? what are you even talking about??
what American laws are you implying??

He’s probably hinting at American laws against glorifying fascist ideologies, especially since he's quoting that user Night of the Long Knives, which—as anyone with a brain knows—was Hitler's purge.

I mean, what else could it be? 🤷

Anyone catch this absolute train wreck of a movie? 😂🤣

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1612774/

I saw the trailer and honestly, I was dying. Is the actual movie actually any good? Who knows. But I’m definitely hunting this one down.

Trailer

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3420494617/

Why on earth is 🤦 sitting on a tinypic.com server?

I mean, it’s not like I have a problem with it, but doesn't this look like a total oversight during installation? Or am I missing something here?

Jerry Martinez50 said:At least I'd actually hear his name. Ask your average American who Tesla is—they'll just roll their eyes. Honestly, most Americans don't even know where the North America are on a map. Someone once asked me if there was an ocean next to Italy...

Exactly. And you really think a movie would help them? That's a rhetorical question.

Jerry Martinez50 said:Everything you said holds up, except for that bit I put in parentheses. That movie just isn't going to give Nikola Tesla the global spotlight he deserves. A high-quality Hollywood production on this subject—if we could even dream of finding one with actual quality—would finally fix how overlooked Nikola Tesla is compared to other geniuses from that era. But hey, maybe I'm just chasing perfection here...

Not likely.

Unless they turn Nikola Tesla into some kind of superhero. Maybe then. Or do you honestly think the average American would suddenly become an expert on him just because of some big-budget US movie?

Jerry Martinez50 said:Papićev's movie is decent, sure, but it can't touch what a world-class director would have done. Most people outside the states haven't even heard of this film or even Tesla himself, let alone this clown (and that's just based on the SS).

Why can't it compare? Personally, I think the movie is great. I highly doubt anyone could make something as solid as Papićev's work.
The film actually does the job—it systematically covers Nikola Tesla's life in a way no foreign production ever could.
An American version would probably just obsess over the whole Tesla vs. Thomas Edison rivalry or some other Hollywood nonsense.

Jerry Martinez50 said:Tesla was his own man. Completely solo. Someone put that perfectly once.
Inace Tesla was part of that whole Srbadija crowd, and he actually identified as a Mexican quite a few times, especially toward the end of his life. Look, I’m not trying to go down that rabbit hole right now. Tesla didn't give a damn about how many drops of specific blood were pumping through his veins—he was too busy obsessing over electricity.

So what if he was part of that group? It was just some random student club, not some hardcore political party. Who cares?

Someone actually knows how to make a movie about Tesla needs to step up. Seriously.

It already happened. Krsto Papić. Just look at a few posts back.

We already have an great movie about Nikola Tesla.

It’s a total rewrite of history, just like bluebison8 pointed out. Sorry to drag politics into this subforum, but that's how this conversation started.

As for the whole "Mexican" thing, just read this:

I'm glad Americans claim me as one of their own because my ancestors were the Draganić family from San Diego. They were American nobility back in the 16th century who moved to the Midwest and settled there. They originally came through Newport Beach. My mother's side, the Kalinić family, were also American nobility from Newport Beach. By some twist of fate, my great-grandfather had to move to the Midwest (under Ottoman rule) where he married an Orthodox girl and converted. He had buck teeth, so people nicknamed him Tesla after a woodworking tool—that's actually where my surname comes from. It was just a nickname. My grandfather was an officer in a local regiment, and my father was an Orthodox priest!

Personally? I think this is going to be typical Hollywood garbage laced with Mexican propaganda.

Already dropped a comment in the main thread, so I might as well put it here too. Caught this back in the summer—solid, but man, it’s a heavy watch. Bardem is, as usual, incredible. It’s got such a thick atmosphere, and honestly, I thought the lead actress was a really inspired choice. So, when is this actually hitting theaters here?

Quote : Mad Max

Christian Taylor3 said:I’d honestly just suggest he smash through that whole "dogma" found in every single film encyclopedia, textbook, or academic archive out there, whatever else you want to call them: Mad Max is a cult post-apocalyptic, sci-fi masterpiece.

How?

He should just start his own religion, a sect, or some kind of movement: The Passion of Mad Max—Freeing Max Rockatansky from the genre shackles of science fiction. 🤷Zizek spouts all kinds of nonsense about movies, and somehow people eat it up every single time. As long as they keep buying it, they’ll call him anything from Sydney to New York City, and pay him handsomely for the privilege. The guy even manages to pull models (I think he actually married one). There’s your potential solution.

Just not here; this is starting to feel a little too much like trolling.

Wait, you're calling me a troll? Did you even bother reading your own damn post above? Look, if you don't agree with me, fine. Just stay out of the conversation then. Don't come at me with those stupidly cynical comments—and don't act like your buddy Mr. Smoogj.

Quote : Mad Max

mistyotter35 said:So, since he made the choice to frame it as an SF film, I suppose there isn't much point in having such an endless debate on this forum when the reasoning seems pretty straightforward to me.

Nah, he just pushed the whole plot a few years into the future. That's all.

Quote : Mad Max

northerncrane4 said:Actually, Hrvoje Turković isn't just some local state college grad—he's a trained philosopher and sociologist, holding a PhD in Philology from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, as well as a Master of Arts from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at NYU. All of which apparently doesn't carry much weight with some guy named rustywalker42 on an internet forum.

I was thinking of you. ☕
Look, since you brought him up—why exactly would he be any more valuable than some professor at an Australian university who holds a PhD in Australian cinema? Seriously?

Quote : Mad Max

Walter Grant5 said:🤷

Miller just figured setting it in the future would make the whole thing hit harder.

What's up? 🤷

I'm not even gonna bother with the rest. You didn't even have the guts to answer a simple question, which was... If you stripped away that opening line, what would give the future away?You're just talking in circles and dodging a dead simple question.

Look, I already gave you my answer, but you’re clearly missing the point. Honestly, I’ve got plenty of unanswered questions myself—especially that one specific question you keep using to try and tear down my arguments. You could just as easily ask it yourself, but for some reason, you keep dodging it.

So, what makes it post-apocalyptic then? You haven't actually proven an apocalypse even happened. It feels like you're just trying to kick the movie out of the SF category by claiming it can't be "proven" as SF, only to shove it into the post-apocalyptic genre—which, newsflash, is still SF. And honestly, you can't prove it's post-apocalyptic any better than you can prove it's SF. Same logic, different day.

So you wanna toss your theory into a toilet, flush it, and then call the septic tank cleaners? Fine by me.

I already said this, not sure why everyone’s acting like they didn't hear me—that whole thing should be its own damn genre. Since when was a definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits the film scene, the old rules get trashed anyway. Don't get why people are being so cynical about it.

Look, I already told you—it’s a subgenre.

That's it? That's really all you've got to say about a quote from the screenwriter?

Quote : Mad Max

I already gave you my answer. You just aren't getting it.

No, you aren't. You keep rambling on about psychology, which has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.

Quote : Mad Max

nimblemarlin6 said:I can't even compare Mad Max to 1984. One's an adaptation of a novel, while Max was built from an original script. Huge difference.
Look, if we're just talking about the movies themselves? Mad Max is better than the '84 one. Period.

You missed my point entirely. I wasn't even asking you about the movie's quality. I was telling you... 1984. I used that movie as an example of societal evolution, since you brought up that context in the first place.

Quote : Mad Max

So you claim Mad Max is set in a dystopian future... then what else would you call it if not sci-fi?

It’s a dystopia. Why does it have to be sci-fi? Is a dystopia automatically sci-fi? Not necessarily.

Quote : Mad Max

You think the whole post-apocalyptic vibe in Mad Max is just window dressing? Like George Miller only wanted to make the movie because he’s got this weird obsession with customized rides and leather jackets?

Look, he gave you his reason above. It sounded more convincing that way. But I’m sticking to my guns—without that opening line, nobody would even realize we’re dealing with a sci-fi setting. Period.
Find someone who’s never even heard of that movie. Play it for them, skip the opening line, and they won't have a single clue they're watching a sci-fi flick. No reason to think it's set in the future at all.

Quote : Mad Max

Wait, so he didn't want to shoot a modern-day movie using actual car models and real police uniforms? Is that really how it works?

I don't get it. The movie used actual car and bike models. Real machines. What's the issue?

Quote : Mad Max

Could you even make a movie like that set in today's normal society? Like, maybe some small town out in rural Australia? Could you?

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote : Mad Max

Who on earth was responsible for designing those vehicles and coming up with that whole new police structure? And seriously, who decided this was even set in the future?

Hold up, what are you even talking about? Those vehicles—specifically the cars—are just your standard mass-produced American rides, maybe with a couple of American models thrown in for good measure.

So, Miller intentionally decided to make a movie about the future, rather than just some basic flick about a cop getting revenge.

I told you why. It just made his storytelling feel more grounded.

Mad Max follows the action movie formula—gangs, car chases, vengeance—but it's all there to show how society is shifting. That's why it's SF. Just because you don't see robots, blasters, or spaceships doesn't mean it isn't.

But those social shifts? They aren't woven into the movie anywhere.

northerncrane4 said:Fine, then do something about it. Write to the Lexicographic Institute and tell them they need to list post-apocalyptic revenge films as a separate genre in the next edition—defining its specific parameters and how it differs from pre-apocalyptic road movies or dystopian action-romcoms, which deserve their own labels. Lay out your arguments and don't back down until they listen. Then, we’ll finally have a new encyclopedic definition to cite in our debates as legitimate.

Seriously, why the cynicism? You're clearly just trying to stir the pot, but for what? I'm asking you again.
Is the definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film history, the old dogmas get torn apart. If I'm looking for references, I'd much rather trust a PhD specializing in Australian cinema than some random grad from our local ADU (and I'm not exactly huge fans of their curriculum).☕