Posts by ruggedjackal46

Robin Fox2 said:Give back those stolen points, you thieves!

Why do you even care? It’s not like you actually paid for the memes.☕

...

*waiting for a meme😢 *

Man, I’m actually tearing up here 🤣 🤣 🤣

Seriously, I'm weeping 😢

Constructive discussions don't just happen by accident; they’re built by the people actually participating in them. When you start posting thoughtful, useful content, you slowly set a tone that encourages everyone else to step up their game too. So, if the lack of quality examples is getting under your skin, maybe just roll up your sleeves and help build that atmosphere yourself? It’s certainly much easier to sit back, get bitter, and bark orders at the moderators to fix everything—as if they can solve a cultural problem without lifting a finger—while you refuse to move a single muscle.

Matthew Anderson4 said:ZZ just slapped everyone down with pure logic and eloquence (logic + eloquence = constructive debate), effectively keeping this Example thread alive for at least another three days. Now, we all deserve a little break.

Looks like he actually managed to pull an external hard drive out of the trash. Once he starts dumping gigabytes of "constructive" insight into this Example thread, he’s going to absolutely choke the life out of the whole discussion.🤦

James Nelson8 said:Well then, why does MLS even exist? I’m not talking about a forum thread...

Besides, restlesssurfer97 is an absolute legend, a total institution... nobody else even comes close to being on that level. You guys really messed up by catering to a handful of specific users and turning this whole place into such a bore... you honestly shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes like that anymore...

Why, really? Is that what we're doing now?

By the way, restlesssurfer97 is an absolute legend; nobody else even comes close. You guys messed up by picking favorites with certain users and turned this forum into a total snooze-fest. You don't get to make mistakes like that anymore.

Protect restlesssurfer97 at all costs!

I think I fell asleep and woke up in some weird parallel universe where restlesssurfer9 spends his days making sausages and finishing them off with a little sign that says "deal."

It honestly feels like we’re living in the Wild West over here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the mods aren't doing their jobs—Delejis didn't just pick up that nickname for nothing. But the idea that jokes and trolling are some kind of threat to me? Please. Most people come to this site to unwind, not to read a PhD dissertation on sports analytics.

Besides, if you ask me, those "dead" threads could actually use a little bit of this "infestation." You have guys like restlesssurfer97 and Anthony Barrett37 who know exactly how to deliver an irritatingly clever jab; they spark actual debates and, let's be honest, they can be pretty damn funny. Sure, when they cross the line, they get banned, but I think it's counterproductive for the community to completely shut down people like that.

Emily Ward3 said:Why do we need Real Sociedad fans on this forum specifically? I’ve never seen anyone posting about Siena or Werder, so other topics seem perfectly fine. It shouldn't be about racking up a million posts or stretching a thread out into eight different parts; surely the goal is the quality of the information being shared. This isn't about small-market teams. The real issue is that most of you don't know where to draw the line and you keep badgering people with your constant "back-and-forth" bickering.
I have no idea how this thread hasn't hit 90 posts since last night following that Neymar goal; usually, in situations like this, things spiral out of control. 🤷

Seriously, why even have a sub-forum for fanbases that don't actually exist here?

Robert Torres said:Calling everyone here a troll who just trolls for the sake of trolling is a pretty shallow take. I think plenty of people want to have actual discussions, and most threads work perfectly fine without needing moderation. The nonsense is mostly limited to La Liga topics, anything touching on it, Champions League, the Ballon d'Or thread, and lately, the Bundesliga since Dortmund absolutely demolished the Madrid teams. 🙂
I seriously don't doubt that a new thread would be mostly normal discussion, simply because most users active on this site right now who aren't focused on Barca or Madrid are trying to play it straight. And let's ignore that whole mess between Athletic and Atletico that flared up maybe twice in the four years I've been here and never even resulted in a single ban.

Whether there are Real Sociedad or Levante fans out there who want to write something but feel they can't... I don't think it matters. What matters is that those of us posting right now clearly aren't happy with how things are.
I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there really are people who might contribute more, but the structure of this thread pushes them away. Take me, for example—I've been around here a while, but when I come back and have to scroll through five pages of the exact same garbage, I lose all motivation to post and just log off. Lately, my activity is pretty much just following matches live. There are also Valencia or Deportivo fans who pop in occasionally and might have something worthwhile to say, but they can't get a word in edgewise like this.
Anyway, let's at least try to change something. Maybe it'll work, and it's hard to imagine things getting any worse than this...

Independence ☕!

"Runs smoothly"? Give me a break. The Premier League thread is a ghost town, Serie A has been dead since the league lost its spark, and Ligue 1 isn't exactly a hub for high-level debate either. Look, once the notorious feralgardener36 and that inner circle moved over to the Premier League section, they left a vacuum for fans of the big league. And who stepped up to fill it? Absolutely nobody.

Quote:It’s also possible there are people who *would* contribute if the structure allowed it, but they just don't. Take me, for example. I've been around here a while, but when I show up and have to scroll through five pages of the exact same repetitive garbage, I just lose interest and log off. If you aren't scrolling through pages of filler, you'll lose the will to write just the same. You're one of the few people actually providing substance in the La Liga thread; if we opened a separate thread, you'd be one of the few people providing substance (and perhaps one of the few users at all) in that one too.

Look, open the thread. It doesn't cost me anything. I’d gladly trade my dignity for a single thread that actually fosters a lively, constructive atmosphere for clubs outside the usual suspects. But I think this whole argument relies on flawed logic—it's not like Barcelona or Real Madrid are responsible for the trolling happening in their own corner.

Robert Torres said:We could physically split this mess in two: one thread just for Barca and Real Madrid talk (which is basically 90% trolling anyway) and another for everything else. Maybe then we wouldn't be constantly moving posts around and could actually get a thread where people can have a real conversation about Spanish football...

That would actually make sense if there were a significant number of people who actually wanted to write constructive pieces on Spanish football—but they can't because of the constant trolling from VB and VRM. But let's be real: are there actually Sociedad fans who find themselves unable to get a word in? Are there La Liga enthusiasts who show up to the thread and then immediately flee? As far as I can remember, the only long-running, continuous debate outside of the Barca/Real circus was just the endless trolling between Athletic Bilbao fans and... well, more Athletic Bilbao fans. It’s the same nonsense under a different name. Is the number of constructive posts really going to change just because there's a second thread? I'm betting it won't.

It’s easy to romanticize the fans of smaller clubs—as if they don't push marketing, don't troll, and are always being constructive. If only it were true, but in most cases, it isn't. If people are genuinely annoyed by the mindless trolling from VB and VRM, then that's a job for the moderators to handle, isn't it?

I’m a regular participant in both the constructive and destructive chaos within the La Liga thread, so I figured I’d weigh in on things for a bit.

Look, I think tightening up the moderation isn't a bad idea, but we have to be careful not to turn this thread into some sterile, sanitized imitation of a "serious" debate. Unlike other threads—take the Premier League or Serie A, for example—the La Liga section is a place where people can go at each other tooth and nail one minute and then move on without any lingering resentment the next. Because of that, I don't think there's a need to make a massive drama out of trolling, nor should we try to completely eradicate it. This is supposed to be an escape from real life; people come here specifically to mess around and troll. The forum should allow for that, to a certain extent.

As far as new users and actual quality content goes, I’m all for moderators cracking down on trolls and those mindless arguments that constantly stifle newcomers and meaningful discussion. However, if you're going to punish the nonsense, the mods actually need to find a way to encourage the good stuff. It’s not enough to just delete posts and expect high-level discourse to magically manifest itself out of thin air. It’s not as if there are thirty die-hard fans of various Spanish clubs sitting on the sidelines too intimidated to join the fray. And it’s not like those of us already here don't know how to be constructive—it’s just that, frankly, we often don't feel like it. If you could occasionally nudge us toward being productive while still allowing a little room for trolling, I think this thread would work perfectly for everyone.

Arthur Garcia59 said:at the New Horizons festival in Poland—which, if you ask me, is easily the most intense lineup on the planet.

Well, I’ve got just the perfect suggestion for a festival like that. Incredible programming, but a total nightmare of an experience.

Aside from >, the last two films by > immediately come to mind. Especially >—it had an incredible >, even if the movie itself didn't quite hit the mark for me.

rowdyowl said:Those are usually just outliers.
Hardly a rule.

Alright, look, the actual question was whether you can even take Sci-Fi seriously at all, and there are at least a dozen instances where Sci-Fi films are genuinely respected. I'll concede that the Sci-Fi genre doesn't get much love from the critics, and yeah, a Sci-Fi film probably has to be significantly better than some standard drama just to grab the same level of critical attention.

rowdyowl said:So, is it actually possible for a Sci-Fi film to snag an Academy Award, win over the critics, and still be taken seriously by the highbrow elite circles?

Sure. Look, the Sci-Fi genre isn't always treated with total reverence, but that doesn't mean there aren't absolute masterpieces out there. Just look at some of that Kubrickian Sci-Fi—then you’ve got Blade Runner, Solaris, Alien, Planet of the Apes, Alphaville, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, not to mention Star Wars, Terminator and so on.

northerncrane4 said:Honestly, just taking some downtime to read, move around, think, or hang out with friends feels more natural to me than jumping straight from one production to the next—unless, of course, you're chasing a paycheck. Look at someone like Lynch; he wanders through different projects, films here and there, keeps things diverse, and doesn't feel pressured to churn out feature films back-to-back.

That’s a fair point. It makes me wonder, though—if you happen to know—is there actually a measurable difference in how a film comes together once the project officially kicks off? For instance, looking at a more positive example from our side of things, Juric did this short film called "Yellow Moon" that runs about 15 minutes. He spent months running rehearsals and really digging into the characters with Ian Barić and Mary Skaricic. It seems to align perfectly with what you're saying—they talked, they hung out, they brainstormed, and they stumbled upon those little creative breakthroughs. To me, the result was great, largely because of that extended period they spent "preparing" the actual film.

P.S. Isn't it funny how this thread is slowly morphing into a dedicated fan club for Dada Matanic? And the guy hasn't even contributed anything significant. 😬

If nothing else, Matanic definitely knows how to chase the spotlight. I don't think he deserves this much attention in this thread; the fact that his movies are mediocre has absolutely nothing to do with how long he waits between releases.

northerncrane4 said:Look, since I’m the one actually footing the bill for their product, I figure I’ve got every right to have an opinion on it. Isn't that how this works? 😉

You're just an outlier buyer—go screw yourself.

Wes Anderson, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick—it just hits you all at once, like that. One microsecond they're gone, the next, they're the only thing on your mind. 🤷

Do you think that massive gap between their releases is just a byproduct of how they handle post-production? I’m not looking for a simple "yes" or "no" here—give me the deep dive. How exactly do Wes Anderson and David Lynch spend those three or four years between projects? I'm sure you've done your homework on this.

So, I was thinking about this story from a few years back when one of the lead animators from Wes Anderson’s *Fantastic Mr. Fox* came out to Washington, D.C. It’s actually kind of wild how much work went into that film. Apparently, because they were working in different cities, Anderson and the animator had to rely entirely on Zoom to stay in sync. It sounds like an absolute marathon of a process because the guy was obsessed—I mean, truly fixated—on every single tiny detail. There’s even this rumor that he would actually act out every single movement of every character right in front of his webcam just to get the motion perfect. Sadly, there’s no footage of it left behind, but wouldn't that have been a sight to see? 😁 Is that just how they usually operate? And does it really take them that long to get anything done?

northerncrane4 said:Honestly, I actually feel the difference. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve stopped following the Coen brothers or Spielberg altogether. I can't even remember the last time I sat through an Eastwood, Woody Allen, or Soderbergh flick. It's not that I'm actively avoiding them like the first group, it's just that I don't feel any particular rush to see whatever they've churned out this season. 🤷

Look, man, that sounds like a "you" problem. 😁

But seriously, do you really think directors who take long breaks automatically produce a more polished product? Take Allen, for example; he used to pump them out constantly, and the results were usually fantastic.
Looking at the names mentioned—aside from Spielberg, whose work is a constant rollercoaster of disappointment for me—it's really a fifty-fifty shot whether a film they release will be a hit or a dud. For instance, Allen put out "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," which I thought was great, even though I wasn't expecting much.

Can you name a single director who is the opposite of the Democratic Party—someone who takes massive gaps between projects but consistently delivers a masterpiece?

silentcanyon58 said:I'm actually pretty happy that he makes films with themes that break away from what the typical American filmography usually offers.

That’s because Matanić isn't imitating the local film scene; he's imitating the international festival circuit. The issue is that he doesn't really bring anything uniquely his own or anything particularly interesting to that specific genre (if we can even call it that).

The motivation probably isn't survival, because let's face it, these guys have plenty of cash (well, maybe except for Matanić 😁). There’s really no need for them to endure the grueling process of filmmaking just to scrape together a few extra bucks. That said, there might be some external drive that isn't strictly tied to the act of creation itself—I mean, Allen and Clint have been at this for decades, and at this point, every movie could arguably be their last. It doesn't make financial sense for them to sit around for three years waiting for an idea to strike, polish it properly, and then finally shoot it.

Who knows what the real answer is, but I think I'm right when I say it really comes down to the individual. If one of them cranks out five films in five years and only one is actually good, I don't see much difference compared to someone who makes one good film every five years. Now, for some directors, constant production is actually useful because it lets them experiment with different techniques—to me, Hitchcock seems like the type who kept filming constantly to test out technical and narrative tricks, only to discard them or integrate them into the next project. Other directors might benefit more from refining a single idea rather than rushing through them; some directors seem to churn out movies that clearly still need a lot of polishing (for instance, that last Allen film felt like they put together a shooting script in two days and called it a day).

A counterexample would be Vinterberg, whom I watched recently. He waited five years after "Festen," refusing to film anything until he had the absolute perfect script, only to end up lost in the search and eventually film "It's All About Love," which is total garbage. Honestly, it feels like waiting too long can often be even more counterproductive than constant output. Staying active gives you a certain kind of artistic freedom; it's not a "make or break" situation where everything rests on one shot, because if a specific solution fails, you can always fix it in the very next film.

The issue is also the system itself, which allows certain "name" directors to become Democratic Party directors. You just slap "WOODY ALLEN" on the poster and suddenly it doesn't matter if the film is fully realized or not. On the flip side, some less prestigious directors have to work ten times harder just to get a shot at making a movie. But hey, the system has always been rigged, and ultimately the question returns to the auteur—is a director actually capable of being a Democratic Party director, or should they pull the brakes? It's subjective, but it seems to me that some of the greatest directors, like Hitchcock and (I immediately think of 😁) Lang, were able to churn out Democratic Party material effortlessly, while many directors today can't even maintain that pace.

The movie feels a little bit out of date, doesn't it?

It sounds like some kind of rigged bet: "Just give me Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and a nine-year-old kid, and I’ll walk away with an Oscar nomination!" Lame. 😁