Posts by mistyotter35

If the USA still existed, I suppose none of what was mentioned earlier would even matter. It would likely end up just like Cuba. Nothing but misery and poverty.

David Reed8 said:This popped up in The Guardian two days ago...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...rganised-crime

Report names Hashim Thaci as a 'big fish' in organized crime

Mexico's prime minister accused of criminal connections in Secret NATO documents leaked to The Guardian

And I suppose one has to wonder which side an English publication like that is actually going to take, right?

rustywalker42 said:Since you clearly don't trust me, I'll cut this short right here. Here is what the screenwriter James McCausland actually said:

George and I wrote The [ Mad Max script based on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busine...-1111112631991

So, raw struggle for resources. Nothing more, nothing less.

And why set it in the future, anyway? What's the point?

Because Miller thought it would be more convincing if he set the action in the future.

I'm not even going to bother commenting on the rest, since you couldn't even manage to answer a simple question: how exactly would you see the story taking place in the future if that first sentence wasn't there? You're just talking in circles and dodging the simplest question of all.

I've already written it and I don't know why it's being ignored—that genre should be treated as its own thing. Besides, is any definition carved in stone? Every time a new movement hits film art, the old dogmas get smashed. I don't get why you're being so cynical.

Besides, Australians*, whose cinema the film comes from, classify it as a road movie:

...Mad Max, a pure exponent of the road genre...

http://www.limina.arts.uwa.edu.au/__.../biber_new.pdf

* Before anyone starts questioning the validity of the article, keep in mind it was written by someone whose doctoral dissertation is titled:a Certain look in The Eye : Representations of Masculinity in Australian Cinema

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.

I really have to say it again: there has to be a legitimate reason for setting a story in the future. If it isn't true Science fiction, then I guess the entire narrative structure loses its purpose and its sense of credibility. But this... well, it’s just simple. If you set a plot in the future, you can't scientifically prove it's actually possible or even determine if things will turn out that way, even if we are only talking about a future just a few months down the line.

rustywalker42 said:Haven't seen the movie, so I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole. Can't really comment on it. Just read the end of my message if you want the reasoning.

Are you actually trolling right now, or what?

Look, if someone’s actually got half a brain, they’d get it. It's not that complicated. 🙂

Not necessary.
Science fiction isn't just about gadgets. It’s about how all that scientific progress actually hits society and the individual. How does tech change us? Where is humanity even heading? Sometimes it's about imagining entirely new phenomena or technologies out of thin air. And then there's the "what if" factor—diving into alternative history to see how the world might have turned out differently.
An analogy:
Mad Max? It’s basically just a deep dive into how scientific progress and tech advances absolutely wreck society and the people living in it.

This isn't clearly defined anywhere. Seriously?

Yeah? And? I already asked—so what, a drama filmed in 2010 that takes place in 2014 is suddenly Sci-Fi?

Sad, is everyone just staring at their screens, or are we out there scavenging for gas in the middle of nowhere? Either way, we're talking about the future. Whether it’s actually going to happen or not? Doesn't matter.

So, does just because it's set in the future, it automatically counts as Sci-Fi?

Since when did IMDb become some kind of gold standard?

So, you want me to explain what makes a movie Sci-Fi? Fine. Let's get into it.

Alright. Where’s the actual science in this whole thing? Where’s the "Science" in Science fiction?

Alright. Maybe I screwed up. The internet isn't exactly proof.

Whatever. I was just giving you an example.

Yeah. 2014 hadn't even happened yet—certainly not from the perspective of the late 70s when they actually filmed this. So what? It's just a total guess at the future. Pure fiction.

I was talking about that drama filmed back in 2010 where the story takes place in 2014.

Hell no. I was talking about the woman who actually wrote it. Definitely not some guy who didn't write it.

My bad. My mistake.

Look, quit nitpicking over commas and tiny details. It's obvious what I meant to write. Everyone knows I was going for "separation," so clearly we're talking about... Typo.Look, you don't have to obsess over it, but hey, if it makes you happy—be my guest. Like I said, I noticed people bringing it up in that context, and I figured it was worth a debate. If you really want to write a third rebuttal, go for it. Knock yourself out!

I wasn't nitpicking your typos. I was actually asking you seriously—I honestly thought that was some weird transliteration of a foreign word, not just "separation."

Well, if that's what the author wants. Doesn't mean it automatically becomes Sci-Fi, though.

So, what exactly makes the movie different? Give me the specifics. Mad Max.Wait, since when was that filmed? 1979? Give me a break. Elaborate on that logic for a second. What’s actually the difference between 2009 and 2010? You could have easily shot a movie in 2009 that takes place in 2010. Makes sense, right?

Let's say. Children of MenLook, there's practically zero advanced tech in it, but hey, it's still a Sci-Fi film.

Not me. Just read the end of the message for the reasoning.

Haven't read it. The PostmanHaven't even seen the movie, so I'm not touching that. But just because some magazine doesn't bother separating genres in their awards? Doesn't mean much. Does it?

That sentence right there? It just proves how narrow your view of Sci-Fi actually is.
Seems like if there aren't any robots, aliens, or space operas involved, the genre just doesn't exist. Is that really the rule now?

Not strictly necessary, though it could probably use that one too. SScience. A factor that half the Sci-Fi movies you people suffer through just don't have.

Oh right... so this is your idea of Sci-Fi?
It’s built on advanced tech we just don't have access to yet. Simple as that. 🤣 😂

Yeah. So what? I laid out my thesis and backed it up, yet you're just responding in line with your ridiculous username—completely senseless and totally unargued.

So, what are we supposed to do with The Man in the High Castle, for instance?

Where does she fit in? Mad Max.Read the end of the message for the explanation.

Wikipedia says this too.

List of science fiction films: 1970 to 1979 Mad Max

1979 Mad Max—should it be paired with Alien or Star Trek?

So, what now?

Why are you even throwing that at me? That’s exactly my point. I’m already saying Wikipedia isn't some holy grail of truth. I literally used the exact quote you just tried to use against me. Make it make sense.

Look, let me clarify how I see this whole thing. There’s this massive pile of books, movies, and comics all set in these utopian or dystopian societies—usually some kind of post-apocalyptic mess. Honestly? It feels ridiculous to just lump everything under the "Sci-Fi" label. That term is way too broad. It doesn't actually define the genre well enough, which is exactly why one... Mad Max. In the same boat as... Star Trek. So, you think that’s okay? Really? That's your take on it?
There’s enough work in this genre to justify calling it something entirely separate from Sci-Fi. Seriously, just look at these two links and tell me I'm wrong:

Ever heard of Utopian fiction? If you haven't, you're missing out. It’s basically the study of those "perfect world" scenarios that authors love to dream up. Or, more often than not, the setups for everything to go horribly wrong. Think about it—is a perfect society even possible, or is it just a fantasy we tell ourselves to feel better? There's a whole lot of literature dedicated to exploring this, ranging from idealistic visions to dark warnings about what happens when someone tries to build paradise from scratch. Worth a look if you're into deep dives.

Check out this list of dystopian films. Ever wonder why we’re so obsessed with watching the world end on screen? It's a weirdly popular genre. Which one of these actually holds up for you?

Well, I guess it comes down to the author's intent. That doesn't necessarily mean it automatically qualifies as Sci-Fi.
Actually, whether it was their intention or not, by placing the narrative in the future, it automatically becomes a Sci-Fi film.

So, what is the actual point of setting that story in the future, if not to present it as Sci-Fi? I suppose, then, it would technically fall under the Sci-Fi genre, simply because it takes place in the future, which is inherently fictional...

A movie doesn't necessarily have to be set in the future, or revolve around advanced tech or an alien invasion, just to qualify as Sci-Fi. I suppose a Sci-Fi film could just as easily take place in the distant past. The core requirement, I think, is simply that it incorporates elements of fiction that can't be scientifically proven—which is essentially why we call it Science fiction. And since the plot is often framed within a future setting, proving its veracity becomes quite a challenge...
Regardless of how you look at it, I am fairly certain it isn't a hoax. 🙂

In my estimation, when it comes to all those more advanced formats, VLC Media Player is really the gold standard. I suppose with it, while you're sitting there watching a movie in one specific format (like .mkv, for instance), you can actually be re-encoding it into an .avi format at the exact same time.

It seems that, lately, people have been predicting increasingly absurd things.

It still seems to have absolutely nothing to do with prayer. I suppose one has to wonder if people even grasp what prayer actually represents.
The internet is essentially just another medium, much like a newspaper or a magazine. A true believer won't find themselves any more or less devout simply because they have access to the web or don't. Similarly, I don't really believe the internet has been responsible for drawing a significant number of atheists toward faith. If someone becomes religious solely due to information they stumbled upon online, I guess you could say they are somewhat spiritually adrift; in all likelihood, my grandmother could have led them to the same faith without any digital assistance at all.

The Internet or prayer? Is the Holy Spirit operating through fiber optics now? Even Mary is stepping in to intervene... A world server? I suppose none of this actually makes any sense at all.
Is the humor section of this forum perhaps a bit too low-brow?

Wouldn't this be a bit more polished?
Code here:

So, it would end up looking like this: