Posts by rustywalker42

rustywalker42 said:...

Just jumping in here—my info is in the post above.

Just to be clear, I don't care about my total post count, but I noticed 15 posts just vanished from my stats today. And no, this isn't the first time—my count keeps dropping.

All I want to know is: are threads being deleted or moved to subforums where they don't count toward the tally? Basically, are those 15 posts gone forever, or were they just hidden from the average user's view?

rustydrifter10 said:Why don't you just save the messages you want onto your computer?

It’s the same question as why I don't download every single email I want to keep. :P

Because I trust the server way more than my own hard drive. 🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:If we bump it to a thousand, it's just going to be those same people who refuse to clear out their inboxes, eventually running into issues anyway.
Funny how nobody mentions why they don't just install massive 10-gallon mailboxes at their houses then??

I clear my inbox constantly, but honestly? The sheer volume of junk I get is getting ridiculous.
Bottom line, I don't see any reason not to increase the limit (unless we're actually running out of server space), especially since 500 private messages is pretty much the industry standard on most forums.

Why not bump the message limit up to 125? Every other forum I hang out on has a way bigger capacity than this one.
If it’s just a server space issue, then never mind.

stormywolf10 said:I’ve been digging through almost everything there is on rabies—actual medical literature, not just random amateur nonsense.
It says humans are about 20% less susceptible to the virus, but contact with animal saliva through intact mucous membranes isn't even ruled out. So yeah, I'm terrified...
He got it in his mouth 😢
and he was eating with his hands after the dog licked them.
Oh my god, I'm calling the CDC tomorrow to ask what we should do. We don't know the owner, so we can't track down the animal or the person...
Seriously, people are such weird creatures. You ask if a dog is vaccinated and instead of an answer, you get a sudden burst of aggression and they still won't tell you anything. Now you're stuck at home biting your nails...
Horrible.

I get why you're scared. I really do. I wish I could help more, but I'll just tell you what happened to me. I had a similar scare, but with bats—notorious carriers of rabies. They didn't bite me, but I had indirect contact. The next day, I went to the Department of Public Health, and they basically patted me on the head and told me not to worry. Honestly? Stop reading stuff online. It'll just make you more paranoid. Back then, it wasn't even paranoia; I just couldn't understand why they wouldn't give me the vaccine when I offered to pay for it myself. They just kept insisting it wasn't necessary. They'll probably say the exact same thing to you. Please, let us know how it turns out.

Adam Barrett said:Snooping? Please. Behind this whole human trafficking mess, the real story is actually about her. Like, how... yeah, no. 🙄

Not directly related to the movie, but regarding that comment—life has shown me plenty of times that stuff like this actually happens. Just a totally random chain of events. Crazy, right?

Jose White23 said:Look,

this kind of talk isn't allowed here, but give the mods a second to breathe and react. It’s not a permanent ban yet—if we did that, there'd be nobody left talking about Iran. But if this keeps up? Don't act surprised when the hammer drops. Most of you really need to take a deep breath before hitting that "Quick Reply" button.

So, we're handing out 30 points for cheering on a murder now?

Can someone explain why this kind of garbage is allowed on this forum?

Shouldn't posts like these be grounds for a permanent ban?

Golda Meir said:Great news from Washington, D.C.:

Boom!

Kyle Reese said:I'm not a fan of political assassinations, but they happen, and every power uses them. I just hope it was worth it to slow down Iranian armaments and their push for nuclear weapons.

maki83_ said:boom😁

🤷

Waiting for a response from a moderator, supermod, or admin.

wearyowl29 said:Forgive me, Your Majesty,😉for spitting on your precious little documentary financial tricks and calling out this movie of yours.
I’m done...😂
until further notice!

So, she's just completely delusional. Based on a standard FBI psychological profile, a cinematic psycho like that should follow the rules of the seventh art: pointed ears slightly damaged from washing, a loud-ass neon hairstyle, a chain through her ears all the way down to her jaw, and shackled at the tibia with iron... she could probably take out the director and the cameraman in one shot with that. Throw in some Siberian tiger claws and she’d have that Xena Warrior Princess vibe right up until she suddenly wakes up and goes feral....😁

The pimples, the tiny nose, the pink dress, and the lilac lipstick? She can keep all that off-set, in her private life.

In other words, you've got nothing intelligent to say, so you're just trolling. ☕

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, those little details are exactly what make a movie—and life itself—feel real.

If you want pure realism, stick to documentaries. Stop skimming through movies just to find things to complain about and actually pay attention.

Does my point finally make sense now that you've actually read it?

wearyowl29 said:She triggers such strange, almost repulsive emotions that the average viewer just can't bring themselves to care about all the crap happening to her—if that's the case, I'd say they missed the mark there.

And let's be real, it isn't about being "dirty" on the outside; it's about something internal, because it's our own reaction inside ourselves that makes us feel that way.

The director nailed it. You, and unfortunately most people, just see her as that character and ignore everything she’s been through—being assaulted as a child, spending half her life in psych wards, being assaulted again as an adult. Given all that, why wouldn't she be "different"?
Maybe she’d be easier to relate to if she wore pigtails and pink dresses and acted like a cuddly kitten. 🙄

wearyowl29 said:The movie is decent enough, except for the female lead—she’s totally unlikable and comes off as just plain gritty. As far as the writing goes, I found it a bit hard to swallow, especially when they start digging into financial records from fifty years ago. Maybe—and I highly doubt this—but perhaps there's some rule out there requiring those documents to be kept for half a century, though I don't think that would fly here in the States.

I love it when people nitpick the tiny details instead of actually watching the damn movie. 🙄
The guy literally said they keep all the financial books because it's an internal rule for their family business, not because of some legal mandate or whatever.

Carol Diaz said:About a week ago, I started hearing all this noise about how men are essentially pigs, and how feminism is apparently the ultimate cinematic standard based on some book by a rather feminine Swedish journalist. The plot supposedly involves some heavily tattooed, ultra-feminist, lesbian protagonist investigating crimes—while inevitably falling for a "good guy," liberal type—and the villains are always a convenient mix of misogynists, Nazis, and powerful old white men (all at once). Well, that exact film aired on PBS today.

It’s not that I didn't give the movie a fair shake (did I mention there were supposed to be lesbians 🙂 ), but once I laid eyes on an even uglier version of Trinity (how is that even possible?) sporting a bull ring in her nose 🙂

I couldn't finish it. ☕

But you just had to comment on the movie, didn't you? 🤦

Lisa Miller9 said:As far as I'm concerned, when I mentioned the hype, I meant that I wouldn't have even picked up the book or watched the movie if it weren't so famous, simply because this isn't really my genre. People talk about these films and review them as absolute masterpieces and whatever else, but I'm just stating my opinion: they aren't that for me. This version I saw didn't exactly blow my mind. Look, it's a good movie, but I'm not exactly putting it in the all-time greats category.
Besides, what does it even mean to "judge a movie against the hype"? The hype exists because critics and audiences praised it so much that a viewer goes in expecting a flawless masterpiece, not to mention the massive marketing machine behind it. I'm not trying to sound smart; I'm just giving my impression, which is that nothing about it particularly wowed me.
Regarding the "happy" ending—it's just trash. There's no other word for it. I'm talking about the first movie since I haven't seen the others or read the books yet. Once I watch the full trilogy, maybe my opinion will change.
Obviously, it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Sure, the girl is still struggling, but you can't deny that every single situation resolved in the best possible way. Like I said before: that corporation that framed the journalist is collapsing, a sadistic killer gets trapped in a burning car, the girl becomes a high-society type hacking accounts in the Cayman Islands or wherever, and the writer starts writing again despite telling his boss at the beginning that he was totally blocked... The only thing missing is for a cat to show up at the writer's door, jump into his arms, and they both ride off into the sunset. 🙄

That’s exactly my point. You’re letting all that movie hype cloud your judgment. Now you're attacking the film for completely the wrong reasons—I already told you that in my last post.

I’m not trying to act like an expert here. I’m just giving you my honest take: nothing about that movie actually blew me away.
As for "happy"... honestly? It just sucks. I don't even have the words for it. I'm only talking about the first movie since I haven't seen the others or read the books yet. Maybe my mind will change once I actually sit down and watch the whole trilogy, who knows?
Look, obviously it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. Sure, she’s still going through hell. But you can't deny that every single situation got resolved the best way possible. Like I said before: that corporation that framed the journalist? They're circling the drain. That sadistic killer gets trapped in a burning car. She transforms into this high-society lady who hacks bank accounts in the Cayman Islands—or wherever. And the writer actually starts writing again, even though he was telling his editor at the start that he was totally blocked. The only thing missing is for a cat to show up at his door, jump into his arms, and they all ride off into the sunset together. 🙄

Alright, let me quote myself again:

First off, I’m looking at how everyone’s trashing that "happy ending." Happy? Give me a break. Given everything she went through, what exactly was happy about it? What did she actually gain from all that? It’s like people think a movie only counts as "art" if the protagonist gets brutally murdered. Is that the standard now? Does a story need a bloodbath to be taken seriously? Apparently, some people think real life doesn't have happy endings, so why should movies? 🙄

Believe it or not, folks, corporations crumble, sadistic killers get what's coming to them, and people who’ve been through hell actually make it.

Daniel Carter said:Given all the massive hype surrounding this, I was honestly expecting a much better film. If the book is actually on par with this script, then God help the crime thriller genre.

What, you weren't even glued to your seat? You already knew who the killer was from the jump? 🙂

wanderingbison9 said:Exactly...after sitting through this American production, which feels like a somewhat pale imitation of a Fincher-esque style, I can only conclude that the original vision was far superior. This version just feels watered down, and honestly, I'm almost relieved they cut certain elements out because, really... does Lisbeth seriously have a living mother and isn't completely alone in the world? It feels like such a strange sense of déjà vu that just dilutes her entire character...and she ends up wealthy at the end????...Hollywood should be embarrassed by this kind of direction...😬

I haven't read the books myself, but looking at this, I'm starting to get the impression that they might be the work of a wannabe novelist who is actually just a calculated journalist at heart...

Lisa Miller9 said:I watched it yesterday. Someone told me the original version was better than the one currently in theaters, so I figured I’d check that out first. It’s a decent crime thriller—nothing more, nothing less—but I don't really get the hype. The plot is interesting enough and the acting is fine, but it’s all so predictable: happy endings where the bad guy dies, the dead girl isn't actually dead, he gets out of prison, she steals the money, the evil corporation goes bust... blah blah blah. It’s all been done before. Overall, it's worth a watch, but there's nothing special about it that makes me want to dive into the sequels or pick up the book. I might give the American version a shot eventually, if only for Craig and that little Rooney everyone keeps raving about.
I mean, look, it's an okay movie, but it definitely didn't leave me with that "wow" factor I was expecting, especially considering how much buzz there is right now.

I don't get why people judge a movie solely based on the hype. It’s like some people are just itching to trash a film just to prove they aren't part of the mindless bandwagon. And don't even get me started on the complaints about the happy ending. Given everything she went through? How is that even considered "happy"? What did she actually gain? I swear, everyone would be so much more satisfied if the protagonist had been brutally murdered instead. Then suddenly, it’s a "masterpiece," right? Because apparently, in the real world, happy endings just don't exist. 🙄

Look, can we please stop talking about sequels here? Not everyone has finished all three books yet!

Sam Smith3 said:So, I finally sat down and watched that movie last night... mostly just because of all the massive hype surrounding the Millennium Trilogy. Honestly, I probably should have read the books first instead of jumping straight to the film version.
Now, I have absolutely zero motivation to pick up the book. I expected so much more from this.

It was overly commercialized, predictable, and felt incredibly derivative.
Everything about it was dialed up way too high. You’ve got the lead actress playing someone on the fringes of society—who, let's be real, is clearly portrayed as some sort of victim of abuse—mixed with a heavy dose of religious subtext (because apparently, if it isn't in the Bible, you can't solve anything), and of course, the inevitable Nazi references (as if Americans haven't dealt with enough of that already). Then there's the whole Sodom and Gomorrah vibe—maybe those cold, dark winter nights in the States get a little too intense for people—and it all wraps up with a happy ending, which is just classic Hollywood commercialism; she ends up beautiful and wealthy at the end.
On top of all that, they throw in a bit of investigative journalism, some courtroom drama, a few offshore accounts, African cartels, some random tattoos, and an excessive amount of Apple products.

I can't imagine myself ever sitting through the sequels.

😵

Well, if anyone actually follows your advice here, they'll miss out on what I consider a great movie. Basically, you're just caricaturing the whole thing.

This movie is killer! Like everyone else said, those final minutes have you absolutely glued to your seat. I’ve got zero complaints—it’s just one big puzzle piece clicking into place. Even that tight circle of characters didn't bother me. At first, I was like, "Wait, why is the scope so limited?" But once the story starts unfolding, you don't even notice. It just works.
I'm downloading the other two sequels right now. And a quick favor: please, for the love of God, stop posting about them in this thread. 🙂

mistyotter35 said:I believe I said it was overlooked, not unknown. It hasn't been used much for several well-documented reasons, though I guess that landscape is shifting.
I see people listing all sorts of arguments against it, but it seems to me those complaints aren't really about 3D itself; rather, they seem to stem from the playback technology, which varies quite a bit depending on whether you are at a movie theater or using various home setups—active versus passive systems and so on.

Actually, it was used all the time, especially back in 1950s America.

It seems like everyone’s listing reasons to be "against" it, but none of those have anything to do with the 3D itself. It’s about playback tech, which varies depending on whether you're at the theater or watching on TV.

Just look at those first two links. This isn't about playback technology; it's about how the human brain actually works.

mistyotter35 said:I voted for him, since I suppose that high-quality 3D implementation in the film does provide that extra dimension it was seemingly lacking.
Unfortunately, I suspect it might take quite a while before genuine, high-quality 3D actually becomes the industry standard, mostly because people still seem to rely far too heavily on those cheap various conversions.

Which one? 🙂

As far as timing goes, 3D goes all the way back to the 1800s. It's hardly some brand-new tech.

Since I don't see any actual threads dedicated to 3D tech—just endless chatter about specific movies or random clips—I’m starting this one to gauge what everyone actually thinks about it.

I'll also drop two links here that dive a bit deeper into why 3D can be such a mess.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

http://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/3dfail.html

Just to be clear: I haven't sat through a single 3D movie yet. Does that mean I won't? No. I'll check one out eventually just to see if it's worth the hype. That's all.

The concept of 3D makes sense for certain genres, as those links point out. But forcing it into every single blockbuster? (Which, honestly, is my biggest fear right now.) That's just plain stupid.

Maybe this poll is a little unfair, but hey, even national referendums have loaded questions. Deal with it. 😁