CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › casualcanyon3 › Posts

Posts by casualcanyon3

82 posts shown.

The Water Diviner in Movies ·
Hmm. It feels as though the entire film is merely a skeletal framework—something carefully conceived, yet everything within it seems to be falling apart. There were stretches where I found it quite unconvincing. The moments intended to hit hard, the motivations, the very fates of the characters... it all left me with such a lukewarm impression, as if the director lacked either the patience, the will, or perhaps the sheer subtlety required to truly sink into the subject matter he was attempting to tackle.

For instance, we have the incredibly thin, lackluster portrayal of why the sons even bothered going to war in the first place; essentially, their motivation isn't even depicted, nor does the film bother to engage with it. Furthermore, the film completely ignores the father's stance on the whole ordeal. He explains his position, I think, in one solitary sentence about fighting for principles, which strikes me as pathetically insufficient—especially for a film of this caliber and given its central message. One could argue that the director is making a conscious choice to avoid "unimportant" minutiae, merely dropping hints and expecting the audience to construct the rest of the emotional weight themselves, but lately, I’ve begun rolling my eyes at this tendency to leave the most vital narrative segments as mere afterthoughts. To me, it starts looking less like artistic restraint and more like directorial laziness. I kept finding myself recalling scenes from the legend of autumn and Patriot, where young men eagerly rush off to war and clash with wiser, more seasoned men because of it; here, none of that is sufficiently fleshed out—in fact, the director doesn't even touch upon it—and that lack of backstory left me with an underwhelming, unfinished feeling.

Then there are the unconvincing reactions and behaviors of the characters (SPOILERS), from Crowe, who snaps at Hasan only to instantly calm down, undergo a sudden epiphany, and apologize to him—it happens so swiftly and crudely that it feels almost mechanical; to the equally mechanical Scarlett Johansson, who shifts from lamenting her fate under the boot of patriarchy to suddenly tossing aside all doubts and fears just because destiny is supposedly written in coffee grounds, acting as if everything else will simply fall into place. 🤔 Not to mention that the actress herself sticks out like a sore thumb; she doesn't fit the role of the woman from Turkey at all.
And I should mention the total absence of drama in the scene where one brother kills the other. Perhaps I just couldn't get invested, but it was never clear to me how he could be so certain in his position that the man was incurably wounded and thus deserved to be shot immediately afterward.
Once again, I am reminded of the incomparably more powerful scene with the dying brother in the legend of autumn.

All in all, this is a clumsy, occasionally lost, and dramatically (to say nothing of other ways) unconvincing film, despite its noble intentions. The "reconciliation" between two people—one of whom is almost directly responsible for the death of the other's children (though one could debate those "responsibilities," as the film hints)—only to find their remains years later, carries a message of humanity that moved me, notwithstanding this stumbling directorial debut.
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
Does Dina fall under the category of Fantasy? 🥳
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
cosmicgull As if anyone actually needs me to spell this out for them.
...

Look, I wasn't trying to beat any drums here; the analogy is perfectly clear as it stands.

An analogy.? 🤔 It is abundantly clear to me that you haven't quite grasped the fundamental definition of an analogy, because if you actually understood what the term meant, you certainly wouldn't be misusing it in this specific context.

That simply doesn't align with my logic; we aren't even talking about those kinds of films here.

Honestly, you seem to be completely missing the point of what I’m trying to convey here.

I’ve had quite enough of you for one day; frankly, your presence alone is starting to grate on my nerves.

Perhaps you simply lack the stomach for opening a discussion where someone might actually dare to hold a different opinion than your own.

Or perhaps we simply haven't lived through enough years to truly grasp it.
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
cosmicgull said:Nuclear disasters and genetic modification usually go hand in hand anyway.

No shit, Sherlock Holmes... 🤣

Don't take everything so literally; this was just an example.

The issue here is that you are being incredibly literal, considering you brought up a nuclear disaster in Lord of the Rings and then had the audacity to ask, "So, is that Sci-Fi now?" Honestly, I don't think it gets any more literal than that.

It's not about Lord of the Rings...

I wasn't the one who said "it's clearly stated at the beginning" and then used Lord of the Rings as an example; you were.

No, how else can you explain the Sci-Fi hit Predestination, where the protagonist travels through time using a violin? What exactly is the difference between magic and a violin in that scenario?

So, is Predestination ultimately a contradictory quasi Sci-Fi or is it Fantasy?

I haven't seen the movie myself, but I'll probably watch it tonight since the reviews seem quite solid. I'm genuinely curious to see this whole violin business play out.

From what I can gather, you are taking a film built almost entirely on Sci-Fi characteristics—based on a story by one of the most famous Sci-Fi writers ever—and you're labeling it Fantasy or "quasi Sci-Fi" just because of one single element?
Are you even aware that genres can overlap in certain elements?

You spend the entire time trivializing the discussion. You cannot mechanically strip genres apart and claim something isn't Sci-Fi simply because it contains one non-Sci-Fi element.

By your rigid, literal logic, Tiger and Dragon would be classified as Fantasy just because the characters fly while they fight.
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
cosmicgull said:Look, you actually laid out a perfect example in your introduction:

For instance, if the beginning of LOTR featured a scene—or a book—describing a nuclear catastrophe that triggered the subsequent plot, would LOTR then be classified as Sci-Fi instead of Fantasy?

How exactly does a nuclear disaster lead to an evil Sauron who infused magic into a ring, which now spreads corruption through magic and threatens the entire world due to the sheer scale of Sauron's magical power?
You can't just mechanically and banally slap a "nuclear catastrophe" onto the start of the Lord of the Rings plot and expect this so-called "comparison" to hold any water simply because you've injected that one element.
It would actually make sense if you argued, "Would LOTR be Sci-Fi if Sauron were actually a genetically modified creature spreading a specific type of radiation that the ignorant masses merely mistake for magic?"
Your attempt achieves absolutely nothing because it lacks any internal logic when weighed against the actual narrative of LOTR. 🤷

In my view, Godzilla is pure fantasy; I honestly don't see how something like that—let's say even a mythical monster could fall under Sci-Fi if we used some kind of cover story claiming it was caused by exposure to polonium, for example? Plus, it breathes fire. 😁
...

I fail to see how technology—in this case, nuclear experimentation—could possibly exclude a "mythical" element, nor why such an element should be excluded at all just to strictly label something as Sci-Fi.
Entire Sci-Fi worlds can be constructed that would possess zero vitality if they didn't incorporate something mythical within their imagined history, culture, or lore. We live in a world filled with advanced technology alongside a massive wealth of the "mythical." Technology and myth are not mutually exclusive.

That "cover story" you mentioned is more than enough to distinguish a Godzilla born from non-magical causes from a potential Godzilla born of some mystical forces. The fact that you personally dislike those kinds of tropes doesn't mean anything regarding genre classification.
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
@cosmicgull/">@@cosmicgull, I’ve been following your argument on that other thread where you claim Godzilla belongs in the fantasy genre. Look, the fundamental distinction between Godzilla and your run-of-the-mill dragon from a fantasy setting is that Godzilla is essentially a byproduct of nuclear testing—or at least, that’s how the lore goes—whereas dragons are magical creatures. In a Sci-Fi context, the emphasis is placed on some semblance of a "logical" explanation, while in fantasy, magic, higher powers, or deities serve as the internal "logic" governing that specific fantasy world.

From my perspective, Sci-Fi doesn't strictly need to be grounded in the actual scientific laws of our universe to qualify as Sci-Fi. It can simply rely on an emphasis toward a "scientific" or "technical" rationale, even if that logic is confined to the world in which the story unfolds. The crucial part is that events aren't interpreted through magic; magic shouldn't be the sole, exclusive driver of all forces at play. This is precisely why The Avengers straddle both genres—they lean toward Sci-Fi because we have characters like Iron Man, whose power isn't mystical; he’s an engineer who builds his suit based on "rules" of science rather than divine intervention, yet they also veer into fantasy because we have someone like Thor, who is a purely fantasy figure, as far as I'm concerned.
Sci-Fi or Fantasy: The ultimate debate in Movies ·
Is it possible to categorize films into low Sci-Fi and high Sci-Fi, much like we do with the fantasy genre?🤔

And more importantly, what exactly makes Edge of Tomorrow - Fantasy?🤔
The Psychology of the Crowd in Psychology ·
jadetiger37 said:Look, I just want to point out one way of looking at this whole situation—I’ve worked alongside all kinds of artists who pull off all sorts of performances, ranging from the stuff that actually shocks you and keeps things interesting to the total nonsense that doesn't have a single point to it.
Look, they’ve got one massive, glaring issue—they’re basically invisible when it comes to the big money. We're talking zero footprint in terms of actual funding, marketing, or major sponsorships across the entire art scene. To take some of that anxiety off your plate, though—most of these shows are basically rigged from the jump. They’re pre-planned and pre-negotiated just to dodge failure because the market here is so incredibly tiny and stingy. Honestly? I think this piece of hers is a perfect example of exactly that.

Nah, whatever—it’s just about how you send the damn message, you know? 😉

I gotta admit, I spend way too much time spiraling about the human psyche—specifically when it comes to all the violence and pure destruction baked into our DNA.
Look, it’s easy to just throw our hands up and say violence is hardwired into our DNA—I mean, look at the state of the world, right?—but I always find myself circling back to the way a kid's brain actually works. It’s like this raw, unshaped block of clay. A child doesn't just wake up knowing the difference between right and wrong—it isn't instinctual. They don't get it until someone shows them, or until they're taught. Period.
So I'm sitting here looking at this performance—it’s basically just some high-brow attempt at "education," right? As if they actually have to teach us how to do art or whatever... give me a break.

Look, when you step back and really look at things, animals don't have "evil" in their DNA—everything they do is just following the cycles and the raw rules of nature. But then we humans come along, gifted with this massive intellect that’s supposed to set us apart—you know, the whole "higher evolution and progress" thing—meant to be used for the greater good of everyone. The catch? In way too many cases, we use that brainpower for the exact opposite... pure destruction.
And here’s another thing—no matter how much good and positive stuff gets done, the bad and evil crap will always have a wider, louder impact... How much of those two extremes we actually allow to seep into our own mental wiring basically determines which one ends up surviving in the long run.

Here’s a situation that’s crucial for what I’m getting at... It was about some domestic violence where the father—and I’ll be blunt here—was a straight-up monster, abusing his kids for years, extremely brutal and loud about it. When we asked the neighbors if they knew anything and why they didn't report it, their response was basically that they shouldn't meddle in other people's business and it wasn't their problem, even though they'd admit it was horrific.
One thing specifically bugs me, and honestly, worries me too—looking at how many people on this forum, even in "lighter" situations, run away from stepping up because of this exact excuse, or just out of fear and worry about the fallout from their actions...

The point is—ramping up traits like apathy, indifference, egoism, selfishness, alienation, and asocial behavior, while letting empathy, altruism, responsibility, compassion, and other pro-social behaviors slide, puts us in a spot where we aren't just dropping below the level of functioning animals, but we eventually start viewing every other human being as a threat.

So, my summary is that constant education in these areas is vital—even through sending messages like this, reminding us that we need to stay active in everything happening around us and with the people we can reach. Even though evil exists and always will, we still have the chance to protect ourselves from it, regardless of how it keeps finding its way back.

It's exactly what I was talking about—I don't feel that much fear about being surrounded by those kinds of people, but what really worries me is what happens if it *does* occur and nobody around me reacts or feels the need to jump in and help?

btw, Hazen, great topic... 👍

It's a shame that, for some reason, things aren't more active on this forum lately...

🙂

I’m away from my computer right now, so I can’t provide the deep, granular commentary I’d truly like to give, but let me touch upon this... It strikes me that there is actually a specific psychological phenomenon named after a single instance where a woman was murdered right in front of an apartment building, and almost everyone witnessed the event, yet every single person assumed someone else would be the one to call the police. A strikingly similar tragedy occurred here in the States, where a woman was killed on her balcony right in front of the other residents, and it was only a passerby—someone who wasn't even part of that immediate community—who finally called the authorities. I also recently watched a video on YouTube of a man walking through a city holding a sign that said Fuck The poor, and people were absolutely incensed, hurling insults at him. But when he flipped the sign to Help The poor while asking for spare change, suddenly, nobody gave him a second glance.

By the way, casualcanyon3, this is an excellent topic you've raised... 👍

It is truly a shame that, for whatever reason, the traffic on this PDF forum has become somewhat sluggish lately.

🙂

Thanks... 😉
The Psychology of the Crowd in Psychology ·
We’re talking about an artist who literally drove knives through the gaps in her own fingers—stabbing herself in the process—and even crawled inside a burning pentagram just to push the absolute limits of physical agony and bodily endurance. When she finally blacked out from the smoke, they had to drag her out before she was consumed by the flames. She framed "Rhythm 0" as a raw experiment, a deliberate moment where she chose to stare death right in the face. Critics often dismiss her as some kind of performance art cliché, but she was quite vocal about her disdain for the movement back in the seventies; she felt most of it was nothing more than a desperate, hollow grab for attention. She, however, is the real deal. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that the performance wasn't staged. To fake a performance like that would strip the entire concept of its fundamental meaning. Only someone chasing cheap fame or a quick paycheck would bother staging such a thing, and those people aren't true artists. She lived and breathed this medium.
The Psychology of the Crowd in Psychology ·
Lawrence Bailey77 said:She’s lucky to be standing at all... I find myself applying that same logic quite often, though I must admit, it hasn't always been kind to my health—there were even moments where it felt like my life was on the line. People will fight over just about anything, trying to convince themselves of their own delusions... but frankly, very few people possess the grit to actually look the truth in the eye, let alone subject themselves to an experiment by turning their own existence into a mere test subject. I suppose it takes a certain breed of artist to handle that sort of thing; only the most courageous and truly passionate souls, I think. In short, true artists 😍

There was this one old woman once;

If you truly want to understand the essence of a person, simply grant them power.

p.s. You might want to look into the Stanford prison experiment... decades later, they are still conducting variations of it and, predictably, shutting them down mid-way. It is almost hard to wrap one's head around the fact that professionals in these fields would engage in such nonsense 😵, but that is the reality of it, whether one finds it believable or not 😉

Thanks for the link; I actually sat down and looked through both that and the Milgram study! 🙂
The Psychology of the Crowd in Psychology ·
Drew Lee3 said:I’ve never really bought into this idea that humans are inherently sadistic. I don't walk around feeling an instinctive dread of my surroundings, and honestly, I’ve never once felt that creeping sense of insecurity or fear—not even when walking home alone in the dead of night. If there were actual reasons to be terrified, I’m pretty sure that over the years, I would have picked up on something in the words or actions of the people around me that signaled I should be on high alert. But I haven't. Maybe once or twice, I've caught a vibe from someone that they just lacked empathy, or that they got a little too much of a kick out of being cruel. But compared to everyone else I know? It’s negligible. Though, I do notice that certain parts of the world seem "denser" with these cold, unfeeling, sociopathic types who thrive on antisocial mob mentalities. Why is that? Is it because certain environments tolerate deviant behavior more easily, is it purely genetic, or is it something else entirely? Who knows, I’m hardly an expert.

Also, seeing how a few individuals acted toward the end of the "performance" doesn't actually prove anything. That whole setup might have just attracted the wrong crowd; extreme social experiments often act like magnets for sociopaths and psychopaths. I really feel like I need a more detailed breakdown of this study. Was there a massive surge where almost everyone turned on her, or was it just a handful of outliers—like 10 out of 100? There’s just too little information to go on...

From what I gathered, the crowd split roughly down the middle. Toward the conclusion, someone actually forced a gun into her hand and attempted to pull the trigger by pressing down on her finger, essentially trying to make her shoot herself. Someone else in the crowd managed to wrestle the weapon away, which then triggered a full-blown brawl between those attempting to protect her and those who were actively harming her.

I find it hard to believe that this performance can be compared to those extreme social situations that attract particular sociopaths, primarily because art events are generally attended by people who exist within those specific cultural circles; it’s highly unlikely that, say, a dockworker from the local shipyard would just wander into a performance piece like this. 😁 It’s just far more probable that they wouldn't even be following such happenings in the first place.
And frankly, I have no idea whether the attendees knew exactly what they were walking into before the performance began.
New Acropolis? in Philosophy ·
I’ve actually found them quite useful for a few seminars I attended. I haven't exactly spent my life deep-diving into their entire catalog, but so far, I’m liking the vibe—they aren't shackled to one single, rigid philosophy.
The Eighth Sin: GREED in Spirituality ·
wearyhound73 said:Why are you dragging God/Jesus into this right away? When you're criticizing tithing, He has no business being mentioned here because the whole thing is basically just a synonym for tithing itself.

Sounds nice and all, but He never actually said that. Just some stuff cooked up by greedy priests.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the attribution; my focus was entirely on the underlying meaning of the statement itself.
The Eighth Sin: GREED in Spirituality ·
I find myself reflecting on the legacy of Beljki, an individual whose presence in our history remains as significant as it is complex. There is a certain weight to such figures, a gravity that pulls at one's understanding of how much influence a single life can exert over the course of a nation's development. One cannot simply gloss over the nuances of his impact without feeling a sense of profound, perhaps even weary, contemplation regarding the sheer scale of his contributions to the American landscape. It is a matter of historical substance, really—nothing more, nothing less. kaže:
It is fundamentally impossible to provide a definitive answer that exists outside the rigid confines of the value system we have collectively embraced. We are perpetually trapped within a specific framework where our goals are formed, set against an environment designed to facilitate them, which ultimately dictates our criteria for what constitutes success or failure. To suggest otherwise is naive. When you start debating whether something is "good" or "bad," you are already operating within those pre-established parameters. Furthermore, if one attempts to pivot toward more nebulous concepts like individual morality or some abstract notion of "spiritual maturity," the entire argument collapses under its own weight; such terms are far too vague and intellectually slippery to serve as any kind of reliable metric in a serious discussion.

There is a fundamental tension at play when we discuss following authority—whether that means bowing to a single leader or simply conforming to the collective will of a community. On one hand, you have this inherent tendency to stifle individual creativity and blunt the edges of critical thought; once everyone starts marching to the same beat, true innovation tends to die in the silence. Yet, looking at it from the opposite perspective, this very same impulse is what cements a community together, providing the cohesion necessary for any kind of directed, purposeful action. If this mechanism weren't fundamentally useful, it wouldn't have survived the test of time. At the end of the day, the mass will always possess a strength that the lone individual cannot replicate, primarily because man is, by his very nature, a social creature.

It is highly questionable how much an individual can truly exist without these external influences, and one must wonder if those who claim to be "independent thinkers" are actually anything more than a collection of borrowed ideas. It seems most people simply inherit their very sense of self—this curated experience of being an individual—as a prepackaged ideology handed down by various authorities, whether they are consciously aware of that psychological mechanism or not.

People toss around the word "development" like it’s some kind of holy grail, but frankly, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. In any given situation, one person might need one thing while another needs the exact opposite, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much those self-appointed authorities try to manipulate the narrative; it doesn't change the underlying reality of the matter. Take a child, for instance—they simply cannot be independent, regardless of how much influence or psychological maneuvering a parent attempts to exert over them. If someone possesses an innate, internal drive toward a certain path—whether you choose to label that impulse as something spiritual or dismiss it as mere psychological immaturity and regression—all the theoretical reasoning in the world isn't going to shift that fundamental truth. That doesn't necessarily mean such a drive is inherently bad, though I will say it certainly carries the potential for disaster. Of course, one can find ways to express individualism through entirely different avenues, but we shouldn't pretend that intellectualizing these impulses actually changes who a person is at their core.


I find this post to be absolutely flawless; I wouldn't change a single word of it. 👍 And honestly, it provides enough fuel for contemplation to carry us far beyond the scope of this single topic, touching upon much broader existential questions.

I find myself wondering just how many people alive today actually resonate with that sentiment from Christ's teachings: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
When trailers lie (SPOILER THREAD) in Movies ·
This is an absolutely stellar topic! 👍
It’s a common phenomenon where trailers work overtime to leave you feeling completely electrified, creating an expectation that bears almost no resemblance to the actual movie.
I distinctly recall the trailer for Tiger and Dragon; it gave off the impression of being this high-octane action flick, yet despite those brief bursts of movement, the film itself ultimately settles into that classic, somewhat drawn-out, tranquil Ang Lee's style with its deeply lyrical atmosphere.
Similarly, I remember the trailer for Lady in the Water—it was just as hyperactive, whereas the film actually possesses a completely different, much more subdued mood.
There are plenty of other instances of this happening, though they aren't coming to mind at this exact moment.
Beauty and the Beast in Movies ·
Here we go again—yet another adaptation of a fairy tale I actually hold dear. I have to admit, I was pretty burned by that Snow White version starring Kristen, but since this one is coming from the French, there’s a decent chance it might actually surpass that disaster. Personally, I think the trailer looks quite promising.
How do I use Multi-Quote? in Forum Help! ·
jadedrifter2 said:I have a couple of questions:

1. How do I quote a post that’s already quoting someone else? I'm trying to nest them—you know, having one quoted block inside another rather than just stacking them on top of each other.

2. Is there a better way to split up a single post into several different replies while keeping the original author's name attached to each part? Up until now, I've just been manually copying and pasting the username along with those little ID numbers, which is honestly such a chore... is there a faster, more streamlined way to handle this?

Just practicing again.

jadedrifter2 said:Thanks, that actually made writing this a little less stressful... though my actual problem hasn't really changed. When I hit that quote button in the bottom right corner, the editor just pulls in the specific person I'm replying to—it doesn't include whatever they were originally quoting. So, the big question is: how do I grab both parts? Am I stuck manually hunting down the original message and pasting it into my own post myself, or is there a better way?

To make it simpler (I feel like I'm doing math homework at this point) 😁

Let's say Mike said something... then John quoted him... I want my reply to show John's entire post, including Mike's original words. Is that possible? And if it is, how do I pull it off?


trala la la
How do I use Multi-Quote? in Forum Help! ·
Sean Watson11 said:You can find the instructions for using the Multi-Quote feature right here:
FAQ - Multi-quote


I need some assistance here... everyone else seems to have this figured out, but I am completely clueless when it comes to this stuff. Could someone please explain how to insert a "quote" when I want to reply to specific parts of someone's post? Please, help!!! 😲

practicing

Pangloss;23521809 said:just highlight the specific section of text you intend to address, then click on that final rectangular icon—which you can also locate down in the Quick Response area—labeled "Wrap
tags around selected text"

practicing

jadetrucker43 said:If you’re looking to pull in a few different posts at once, just hit that "Multi-Quote" option—it's right there next to the standard Quote button—for every message you want to reference, except for the very last one. Once you've tagged them all, just click the regular Quote button on that final post. Everything should automatically wrap itself in those quote tags, giving you the freedom to clean up any fluff, bold the parts that actually matter, or slide your own commentary in between the blocks of text. It's pretty straightforward, really.


practicing
It’s a shame this thread has sat silent for such an agonizingly long stretch. To breathe some life back into this conversation, I thought I’d share what’s been occupying my ears lately. I’ve found myself increasingly drawn to various renditions of this Sephardic piece; it is truly exquisite, and having finally tracked down an English translation to grasp its underlying weight, I find it even more captivating than before.

The King Who Wakes So Early:

The rendition by the group Sava - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7fwS-4UD-0

The rendition by Jordi Savall - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nplUbYpTy3s

Lyrics:

The king who arose early
to the queen's quarters went.

The queen's hair was loose
as she gazed at her beauty.

The king in playful mood
squeezed the queen's hand.

(Queen) :

"Stay, stay, Anderlino,
you my first love.

Two sons by the king I have, your two make four.
your two make four.

The king's sons eat separately,
and yours at my side,

The king's sons shoot arrows
and yours golden darts,

The king's sons wear silk,
yours pearls and brocade.

The king's son ride on mules,
yours ride on horses,"

As she turned her face to him,
the king she saw there.

"Forgive me, forgive me, Sire
my guru gave me the eternal drink."

(King) :

"Early tomorrow as soon as day breaks,
you and your first love a red rope will wear."
How do I upload images and videos to the forum? in Forum Help! ·