Posts by bluecanyon643

Anyone claiming that Jurica Pađen isn't an artist clearly doesn't know the first thing about American music.

The guy is actually a pretty decent guitarist and a solid songwriter with some timeless hits under his belt—if he were working in the US today, I guess he’d probably be living quite comfortably off those royalties.

Unfortunately, people over here just don't seem to give him the credit he deserves...

Betty Ross6 said:The movie is a solid package. The "effects" are way too good, which makes it weird how Mother looks so flawless—even Marvel's CGI isn't close to that level of shading, yet here we have an actor in a suit.

If you didn't catch how perfectly wrapped up this story is, you probably shouldn't be watching this kind of film anyway. Just stick to Marvel movies, DC flicks, or those new Star Wars space adventures...

SPOILER
The whole point is that humans, with all their flaws—mostly selfishness and ego, that ultimate urge to save yourself by destroying everyone else—basically caused their own extinction. Mother took it upon herself to create a new humanity, something better that isn't selfish or egoistic and actually shows some care for others. Basically everything our version of humanity lacked. That’s why she took on the job of raising a perfect human from day one. In her first few attempts, she realized through testing that she failed as a mother. She killed most of them, but kept a few as final tests. The Woman who shows up at the UN facility is around 30-35; anyone can figure out from the initial day count that more years have passed than the Daughter has actually lived. The final test is selflessness. The Woman is the definition of selfish; she was ready to cut the Daughter's throat just to escape the facility, even lying about helping her find her brother. But the Daughter proved herself in that last test when her survival instinct was overridden by the selfless need to save her brother. When she went back to the facility for him, Mother decided she had successfully raised a perfect human being, free from the primal sins of her ancestors. You have to realize that all those years of training shaped her through constant testing and programming, so maybe the Daughter's sacrifice for a newborn brother is hard for a typical selfish viewer to grasp. She's just not operating on our moral level, so she doesn't experience things emotionally the way we do...

🙂
The story isn't even remotely complete, because in the last quarter, there's a twist that basically boils down to what you described—which is pretty bad, I guess. It could have gone in a much better direction, maybe exploring human intelligence versus AI and what actual AI intentions might look like in reality, but for some strange reason, the producers decided to turn the whole thing into a Biblical parable instead (where Mother ends up being some sort of futuristic Noah 😁). And that whole "rebel" character introduction turns out to be a total miss in the end, since her role seems to be nothing more than confusing the audience, I suppose. Just feels pointless...

Mark White11 said:Look, you can't even use Wikipedia as a source for a college term paper—so that whole sentence you just wrote is honestly pretty hilarious haha.

Is it, though? Wikipedia uses sources, citations, and has editors. I'm talking about the American wiki.

Mark White11 said:What? No way.
Oh man...
Yikes...
I don't even know where to start when someone completely misses the point of a movie like this.

The movie is actually surprisingly good—the production design is top-tier and that girl is incredible 👍 Some parts were predictable, sure, but whatever.

Well, I guess both me and Wikipedia are wrong then.

Why don't you explain it to us?

Yeah, so the kid finally has her little "epiphany" at the end and steps into the role of Mother. Or maybe the consciousness from the robot-mother just jumps over to the girl. It’s pretty stupid and honestly way too saccharine. Same thing with that whole "outcast" character introduction where they try to convince you she isn't even one. The story starts moving in a decent direction, but then it just trips over itself with a few cheap twists and completely ruins the momentum. Kind of a waste, I guess.

I’d say this sci-fi flick sits in pretty much the same category as Hereditary for me.

The pacing is slow, the story builds up, and you really feel the tension growing... everything seems fine and actually quite engaging, but then, instead of hitting a solid, logical climax, the whole thing just falls apart with some stupid, pathetic ending.😵

Total washout... 🙂

I’m thinking about maybe showing up today, even though I guess Of Monsters and Men are the only ones I actually care about seeing. 😢

Does anyone happen to know if they’ll be selling ponchos at the festival? And I wonder if they have rules against bringing an umbrella inside.

Rachel Brooks63 said:The guy got banned because he went on some mindless thread about chickens and told them they needed to visit an eye doctor, just because they commented that Rihanna has thick hips 🤣

God, you see everything on here, I guess. 😬

Honestly, who cares about one ban or Rihanna, anyway.
It’s just the sheer slipperiness of it all that gets under my skin. It isn't even funny or entertaining anymore... it’s just, I don't know, slimy.
We built this little digital sandbox just to tear each other apart. And if anyone actually tries to make a decent point, they probably get shut down or slapped with a ban. I suppose the regulars are just protected. Give me a break.

Sarah Doyle54 said:And it’s not just this forum, it’s pretty much the whole internet acting like media these days.

I’m not saying public figures deserve to be slandered on a message board, but calling someone a loser or commenting on their body doesn't really count as defamation. It's not like it actually ruins their reputation or anything.

Do you even understand the concept of quality posting? Like, the reason this forum won't let you just spam an emoji as a reply.

So, if you think a comment like "she's trash and she stinks" qualifies as high-quality content, then whatever. It’s not that a random comment like that bothers me, but it’s annoying when it turns into a parade of... well, pure nonsense. I guess a moderator should probably step in when things get like that.

Isn't there supposed to be an educational aspect to a part of this site? If your only way of coping is trashing celebrities from the safety of your bedroom, maybe the mods should teach you a lesson with a ban so you can find something better to do with your time. 🙂 😁

Brian Edwards78 said:Look, even if Bare was some total idiot or a complete jerk, it wouldn't change much, even if he actually saved a school bus full of kids from drowning.

Anyway, I’m asking you seriously—not trying to troll you here—but why do negative comments and people just openly trashing public figures bother you so much? I don't really get it. What exactly are you hoping to achieve by insisting that every single opinion or comment needs to be backed up by hard facts? I don't know about you, but I guess I'm perfectly fine just going with my gut feeling.

That's what I was getting at. I got flagged because I was calling out stupid comments—it wasn't even insults or anything. Plus, I was basically just watching a pretty primitive display of mob mentality play out.

Yeah, the double standards bother me, I guess. Hypocrisy just sucks. It bugs me when a topic that could be a bit of lighthearted banter turns into this massive parade of people being overly cautious and spineless.

Rachel Brooks63 said:(btw, are you actually—and I mean seriously—comparing the banter on the main board to the stuff people post over in the natural science subforum? because if you are, I guess there's really no point in even talking to you if you can't tell the difference between actual banter and what's happening here 🤦 )

God, just go back and read my opening post again.
There's a massive gap between lighthearted joking and some mindless insult that serves as nothing more than someone's cheap personal therapy session. I think we should probably try to maintain at least a shred of class here.

Do I really need to sit here and provide examples for this?

Rachel Brooks63 said:EDIT: I just realized you don't seem to grasp the distinction between insulting fellow users in a discussion and attacking public figures like Mark Twain :still another 🤦:

An insult is an insult. I mean, does being part of the majority group here—in this case, the main forum community—just give me an automatic pass?
I honestly expected a bit more from you...

Brian Edwards78 said:What about public figures where even calling them a total disaster feels like an understatement? Take someone like Goran bara, for instance. 🤷

I guess that’s fine then. 😬

So, I suppose the whole point of this thread is just having moderators tolerate blatant nonsense.
If Goran bara shows up drunk on national TV, talking absolute garbage and being insulting, then I guess that harsh label is pretty much justified.

But if that same guy just wears a jacket you happen to dislike, I don't think it fits at all.

Rachel Brooks63 said:Just a total lowlife. I guess anyone who actually wants to step into the spotlight and be a public figure has to be able to take some criticism and just deal with it, honestly. 🤷

Yeah, I guess that comment was actually pretty spot on and justified, if you look at it from the perspective of one of those online forums. 🤷

I don't really see it that way. I mean, if someone actually had the guts to say something like that using their full name and real identity, then maybe it would be appropriate. But otherwise, I guess it’s just talk. I mean, this is just a forum, I guess.Look, that isn't some kind of excuse. If you're going to talk trash and act like a coward, I guess you might as well just do it under your real name.

Rachel Brooks63 said:I guess people have been calling things their own for as long as anyone can remember. I don't really have much to say about anything, I guess. Everything feels pretty much the same lately, if you ask me. They've gotta have them. Just facts. I guess it might work, if you look at it that way. I guess they finally justified themselves, though I'm not sure anyone actually cares.?

I guess I expected a bit more from a regular like you, especially since your posts are usually pretty high quality.
So, maybe if you actually applied that post of yours to, say, the PZ subforum, things might start making a bit more sense to you. 😉

Rachel Brooks63 said:Yeah, and that primitive hack is thick-headed as hell, too. I guess I'm just here. I guess those borders are just foreign to us now. 🤷

So, if I decide to call you a total Neanderthal, you’re going to sit there and act like it’s some kind of negative critique instead of a straight-up insult? I mean, give me a break. 🤣

Elizabeth Davis said:So, I guess you're saying we can post praise like "what a legend" or "king," but if we say anything negative, it's off-limits unless we just stick to "I don't like this"?

That would make for one incredibly sterile, lifeless document, wouldn't it? 😕

Let me try explaining this one more time: there’s a massive difference between being negative and being insulting. 😉

You can write plenty of interesting, witty, and creative critiques that fall under negative commentary without crossing the line into actual insults, though I suppose that wouldn't serve as much of an immediate emotional outlet as those mindless outbursts like total moron and things of that nature.

northernpilot2 said:Since you brought it up, I guess those kinds of comments shouldn't really be flagged as 'insults,' though if they get too graphic, the mods will probably just scrub them anyway.
Mark Twain is a public figure, so I suppose he’s bound to deal with both the praise and the hate that comes with being in the spotlight.

So, you're telling me calling someone a total lowlife is somehow a justified response? Honestly, I don't see what facts in your post could possibly back that up.

By the way, there's a massive difference between expressing a negative opinion and just straight-up being abusive. I'd imagine an admin or moderator should probably know the distinction.

northernpilot2 said:On TV?

Could you give me an example, please? I feel like the whole idea of "insulting public figures" is a pretty stretched concept, I guess.

So, about that train wreck of a show hosted by Mark Twain... I guess it was pretty much what you'd expect from a disaster like that.

I guess I'll try to animate this, though I'm not really sure what there is to say about it. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't. It’s all a bit much, honestly. kaže:
I'm with you on that one, though I think the guy is just a total lowlife—honestly, he’s pretty much a complete Neanderthal.🙄

I don't really know Mark Twain, but from what I've gathered watching that show, Just a total lowlife. I doubt it, honestly.
Besides, if that isn't a textbook example of being plain old tasteless, then I honestly don't know what is. 🤷 Man, if only there was something actually funny left to say...

I guess it’s just business as usual, really—insults and verbal abuse still seem to go completely unpunished around here. ☕

First off, I should probably mention I’m no purist, no conservative, no religious zealot, or anything quite that extreme; I’ve always had a soft spot for dark humor, though I suppose even the darkest jokes need some kind of foundation.

Secondly, I get it—threads like this exist mainly to kill time, cure boredom, or just engage in some cheap trolling, and I don't mind that, provided things stay within reasonable bounds.

I occasionally drift into these types of discussions just to catch a laugh at the rare, actually lucid comments—the ones that are legitimately justified by a photo, an explanation, or some clear fact. But, on the flip side, it really gets under my skin when I see people flocking together on these threads just to be extremely cynical or downright malicious.

I realize that being a public figure means dealing with a certain amount of criticism, but if we’re being honest and objective about it, a lot of these people are genuinely talented, creative, and driven, which is how they earned their status in the first place. Not to mention, we don't actually know anything about who they are as people behind closed doors.

I have no interest in playing the moral high ground, but some of the comments I've seen in these threads represent the absolute lowest, most vile form of human interaction. And frankly, seeing that kind of hypocritical garbage—especially from people hiding in the shadows of anonymity—really knows how to throw me off balance.

And what happens? I react, and I get banned. What’s even more jarring is how a pack of thirsty forum users suddenly appears out of nowhere just to defend that kind of tone and mock anyone being obvious. It's just your typical mob mentality, a cult, a sect, whatever you want to call it. 🙂

Here is one lovely example of how people respond to criticism; it was punished, of course, but it says a lot. For what it's worth, I'm not even a girl, though she clearly put in enough effort to try and research that. 🤣

Big Paulie said:You're a sick girl

What I'm wondering now is this: why is it that moderators mostly penalize users who just point out when someone is overreacting (even using a term like "paratrooper"), while much nastier outbursts seem to be tolerated?
I mean, what's the actual point of all that? 🤷