🙂 That isn't even the point I am trying to make. I suppose I should probably just repeat myself again.
Jacob Cooper5 said:One of those rare indie gems with a level of quality that even Hollywood can't seem to replicate.
So, you are essentially suggesting that they can't produce high-quality cinema in Hollywood, despite the fact that the studio behind this film—small as it may be—is actually based right there in Hollywood?
The core issue here is that a movie's quality isn't dictated by whether it carries a massive budget or if it comes from a major studio like Paramount Pictures versus an indie outfit, which seems to be what you're implying.
I didn't say anything about the humor in his other films, but in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I suppose it was just a bit much. "Ragnarok" really should have been this pivotal Thor film; you have Odin dying, Hela arriving, the destruction of Asgard, an exodus... yet, I find myself remembering the movie mostly for those forced gags popping up every few minutes.
Since Waititi is at the helm, I suppose I should probably brace myself for more of the Thor franchise being dismantled by that forced sense of humor he utilized during Ragnarok.
I suppose they just manufacture their own problems through biased moderation, and then, once people inevitably start complaining, they just lock the thread and shut everyone out. It’s an old pattern we've seen before. I guess that's why I tend to steer clear of those "sensitive" topics altogether.
I suppose it isn't entirely without merit. 🙂 One can't help but wonder how things might have turned out if they had actually stuck to the original source material.
Perhaps others are either observing this as perfectly normal or they simply aren't experiencing these particular issues, which might be why nobody is coming forward.
No, I suppose the receiver handles the chopping just as a precaution. There aren't really any other meaningful differences between the systems, aside from perhaps the specific limitations regarding individual file sizes.
The recording quality remains identical in both scenarios, since we aren't actually performing a true recording here; it’s more like just slapping a stream directly onto a USB drive. When using FAT32, the only real constraint is the maximum size allowed for a single file, which doesn't imply any sort of compression occurs—it simply means the entire 'recording' gets chopped up into smaller segments. As for deleting anything, I suppose I'll just handle that on my PC.
Look, people are going to share their views here, even if those views happen to be incorrect or perhaps even dishonest at times, but this is just an online forum rather than a court of law where one might require absolute, irrefutable evidence. I suppose the whole point of most forums is to allow for a diverse exchange of different perspectives, instead of having a single, monolithic opinion forced upon everyone.
And where exactly did he go wrong? The New York Times; New measures in Germany effective at midnight: You can't even step into a grocery store without a negative test result
wiredmarlin47 said:I have another question here; when I'm formatting the USB drive, it gives me the option between FAT32 and NTFS. I suppose there's a difference somewhere, but which one would be considered better?
Well, FAT32 doesn't support any single files larger than 4GB, though I suspect the receiver might just split recordings into smaller chunks to stay under that limit, if that's even how it works.
That was seven months ago. Since then, he’s either picked up a new version of Microsoft Word 2003 or a different printer... or maybe he just gave up on the whole thing entirely.
It’s a decent enough horror flick to pass the time on a Friday night, I suppose. It doesn't really break any new ground or offer anything spectacular, though I can't help but feel it might have left a more lasting impression if they hadn't gone with such a predictable happy ending.
He’s probably attempting to print images with a resolution of 210x297 San Francisco on standard letter-sized paper. I suppose I just don't see the practical utility in any of this, because if he ends up printing a white image onto white paper, I guess it hardly matters what the resolution was in the first place. 🙂
It’s possible, I suppose, that the underlying issue stems from either the sheer size of the file itself or perhaps some sort of incompatibility within the hard drive's file system.
Raymond Wood77 said:I suppose one could argue that documentaries about Apollo 13 exist, which might suggest it belongs more in that category than in the realm of science fiction. Science fiction would be something like an Apollo 18 mission—if you ignore that absolute garbage of a movie—which was supposedly a mission abandoned from public record. BUT, in the context of a film, it still counts because it deals with a secret lunar mission.😉
I suspect you may have somewhat missed the actual point I was trying to make.
Gregory Brown94 said:I honestly find myself wondering if any film industry out there has ever actually managed to produce a movie based on true events without leaning heavily into exaggeration or inventing subplots just to serve the narrative. It seems to me that this constant tendency toward embellishment is nothing more than the fictionalization of reality for the sake of entertainment.
I suppose it feels like those documentaries are using the exact same narration style, too.
I suppose one could argue that exaggeration and embellishment are inherent components of cinematic expression, but I find it rather tiresome how people reflexively categorize any movie set in space as science fiction. It seems there is this immediate assumption that if a story takes place beyond our atmosphere, it must involve something fantastical or supernatural to qualify. In my view, simply being in space isn't a genre marker; surviving in orbit is a reality we’ve understood for decades, and treating it as mere fantasy feels somewhat reductive.
