Kimberly Jackson8 said:Look, basic etiquette has to exist, at least some baseline level of decency. If you’re looking to loudly dissect a movie with your buddies, scroll through Reddit, or go absolutely ballistic throwing popcorn everywhere, then stay home. Don't go to a damn theater. Period. It doesn't need to be that tomb-like silence you're talking about, but a cinema isn't someone's living room or a lounge. Some people just want to sit there and actually watch the movie in peace. That’s exactly why I’ve started hitting up the theater by myself more often, specifically avoiding the weekend rushes. And honestly? Half the time, even that doesn't help. I’m part of the younger crowd, sure, but I have never—and I mean never—been one of those people who disrupts everyone else (and trust me, I’ve dealt with plenty of loud, obnoxious old folks just as much as I have with annoying kids). I love going to the movies. It’s not just about the film; it’s a whole specific vibe and experience, which is why I hate it so much when other people ruin it for everyone else.
Sent from my DIG-L21 using Reddit
Oh man, the ladies. A couple of years ago at AMC Theatres watching King Kong, I was sitting right behind these two women who showed up with a bunch of kids. Must have been some kid's birthday or something, because there were like ten children and the two women. The kids were actually quiet and polite... but the women clearly couldn't care less about the movie. They were only there to babysit. So they spent the WHOLE DAMN MOVIE talking non-stop. 😠
BTW, my mom told me that back in the day in the South, bringing outside food and drinks into theaters was looked down upon big time. Apparently, that practice almost died out by the late 80s, but then it came back once things changed. Can any of the older folks here confirm or debunk that? I remember my mom never letting my brother and me get popcorn or a Coke those few times we went to the movies as kids (back in the late 90s/early 2000s).
So, my audio just totally died on me the other day. It was super random. I hadn't played any music or anything for maybe half an hour or so, then I went to go listen to a song on YouTube and—nothing. Dead silence. I checked to see if I accidentally muted the YT tab or the browser itself, but nope, everything looks fine there. Then I checked the volume icon on the taskbar to make sure nothing was toggled off, but it shows everything is working perfectly. I even tried closing out of the browser and relaunching it, but still no sound. To be sure it wasn't just a browser glitch, I opened a video file directly on my computer using VLC Media Player, and yeah, no sound there either. I even cranked the volume knob all the way up just in case it was just turned down too low, but nothing happens. The little light on the speaker is on, so they definitely have power... I've already tried restarting the PC and unplugging/replugging the speakers, but it didn't change a thing. Still silent.
Yeah, look, glam rock was the 70s thing, then glam metal took over in the 80s. In both cases, you’re looking at groups of bands with questionable musical similarities where the whole categorization is really just about the heavy emphasis on their image.
wearyangler55 said:I mean, I agree with most of what he’s saying, but personally, I’d say the movie is just okay—it was alright for entertainment, I guess. Maybe the theater just made it look better than it actually was. If I’d watched this at home on my couch, I probably would've thought it was pretty bad.
Regarding Upgrade and the sequel, yeah, I'm totally with you there.
As for me, I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't think Tom Hardy really fits this role. I was expecting way more from him, and Michelle seemed totally lost. Honestly, that Pakistani villain was probably the best part of the whole thing.
Hardy did a good job acting, sure, but he should've been someone younger—as far as I know, Brock is roughly the same age as Peter Parker. Also, keep in mind this was all made before Marvel and Sony struck that deal that brought Sony's films into the MCU.
And shouldn't Brock be a complete idiot and a jerk who eventually turns into an (anti)hero, rather than some truth-seeking journalist fighting for justice? 🤔
Amy Rogers6 said:I gotta admit, I’m pretty shocked by the election results. I honestly thought the lefties in the Kingdom of Sweden were going to sweep up 200 seats. It feels like the Swedes have been totally brainwashed, but apparently, the surge in violent crime and murders finally forced them to get off their asses and actually use those empty heads of theirs for once...
Getting 63 seats for the SD is actually an insane result for Sweden—without them, nobody can get anything done, and anyone trying to form a coalition is going to be forced to push anti-immigration policies. Interesting...
We'll see if they start pivoting on other issues too, like getting rid of cash. Sweden is basically the testing ground for pushing this agenda (though I doubt they'll budge until they start feeling the "benefits" of digital currency—they're seriously checked out)
Not gonna happen. The center-right will probably just give quiet support to a minority leftist government. Or they'll go for a grand coalition. In my book, only the Austrian People's Party in Austria has the guts to ditch the whole "cordon sanitaire" thing and actually partner with the alt-right.
Steven Murphy2 said:It’s pretty much what you'd expect—this massive surge for the anti-immigration party, right? And honestly, it’s just the direct fallout from all those "benefits" they get from their supposedly glorious socialism... which, let's be real, was never actually meant to help people in the Kingdom of Sweden anyway.
But how anti-socialist is their platform, really? If they actually want to get rid of all the parasites, cutting social spending matters way more than just pushing anti-immigration rules. If they don't do that, they're basically just national socialists.
I don't know, I'm just hoping it's a fun little flick in the vein of The Shallows or Deep Blue Sea. But yeah, honestly, I’d much rather see The Rock in this than deal with annoying Statham.
By that logic, Matthew McConaughey really hit his stride during that phase when he was cranking out those silly romantic comedies. I'm positive the housewives absolutely adored him once he pivoted to those chick flicks after moving away from the more serious roles he had back in the 90s (and eventually circled back to in the 2010s).
And as for Maggie, that’s basically the movie that put Arnold Schwarzenegger on the map. It's the first thing you think of now, especially when you realize he was doing that low-budget stuff like Conan the Barbarian and The Terminator right before that... 🙄
Laura Palmer25 said:Where on earth did you guys get Clint and Schwarzenegger from? Everyone loved the second guy—he’d head straight from the gym to the set, and after Conan the Barbarian, he was basically a god. We're talking about guys who actually faced real backlash, where people were practically calling for them to be taken down by the press. They just weren't the media darlings back then (think Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, Robert Pattinson and his girl, or Robert Downey Jr.).
Anyway, I still can't wrap my head around Robert Downey Jr. even today.
Kenneth Clark18 said:Mark Wahlberg, for sure. Morgan Freeman got into the game pretty late. And I feel like Clint Eastwood is actually more respected as a director than an actor.
Look, don't bring up Freeman or Anthony Hopkins here—that’s not what I’m getting at. Sure, they became huge names later in life, but—as far as I know—they were never really hated by audiences. On the flip side, Ryan Reynolds and Ben Affleck have already stacked up a bunch of recognizable roles and movies.
Roger Fowler said:Clint Eastwood went from those cheap westerns and the Dirty Harry series to becoming a top-tier actor and director.
Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger was great in this movie. For an actor of his caliber, this is a massive step up.
But people love Clint *because* of those "cheap westerns" 🤦 and Dirty Harry. From what I can tell, the consensus is overwhelmingly positive regarding both those films and his performances in them.
As for Arnold Schwarzenegger, maybe I could agree with you regarding his early career, back when he had that trashy Hercules in New York followed by a few minor roles. But people love him specifically for The Terminator, Conan the Barbarian, Predator, Total Recall, and Command... He might be better in Maggie, but let's be real, those other roles are exactly why everyone knows and loves him. 🙂
Laura Palmer25 said:Oh yeah, thinking back to how much he used to get on my nerves during the early part of his career 😁
*second
Like Jessica Morris6 already mentioned, Matthew McConaughey had some pretty heavy roles back in the 90s and early 2000s—or at least movies that were actually fun to watch. 😁 Then from about 2002 to 2010, he just got stuck in that rom-com rut. That’s how I first met him, and honestly, I thought he was a terrible actor too... until I started digging through his older stuff and then checked out his more recent work (I still have a few of those left on my watchlist 😁 ).
I remember back in the day, Ben Affleck had a pretty rough reputation. People were constantly making fun of him and dragging him through the mud, calling him a mediocre actor. He definitely took some heavy hits from movies that are now basically seen as some of Hollywood's biggest flops—think Pearl Harbor, Daredevil, and especially Gigli... But then, Ben Affleck decided to try his hand at directing. That was a total game changer, and things really peaked with Argo. It feels like ever since then, he’s earned a lot more respect than he used to.
Another good example would be Ryan Reynolds. I used to see his name popping up all the time on those lists of annoying actors who just couldn't act. Honestly, people even compared him to Ben Affleck back then... But then Deadpool happened. It was such a hit, and Ryan Reynolds himself really leveled up thanks to that role. His performance actually got decent praise, and lately, you don't hear people bashing him nearly as much.
I’ve got about $3,500 sitting around. My grandparents used to live in a little town just outside of Kansas City. They had a massive yard—everything you see in those old movies, a veggie garden, chickens, even a pig pen. But things changed recently. My grandpa passed away, and honestly, they’d already moved closer to the coast a few years back to be near my aunt because of health issues and getting older.
Look, I know I'm being pretty vague here, but given the starting cash and where the property is located, is there anything actually worth investing in? It’s not some massive ranch or anything; it’s more like a big backyard with a garden rather than actual farmland. I'll try to dig up the exact acreage and soil quality soon—I haven't asked yet because, frankly, some of my relatives might take it personally if I start poking around too much. 🙄
stormytiger4 said:Personally, I’d be terrified of an alternative history subforum. Opening that door would invite more than just conspiracy theorists; you'd get a whole swarm of historical revisionists using the "alternative" label as cover to push their own agendas (like people who can't stomach the actual outcome of WWII and try to rewrite who did what).
stormytiger4 said:If we hypothetically allowed a subforum where, say, fascists could openly spout their version of the war and its aftermath, they'd just need one mod for alternative history, and that mod would spend all day fighting off communist propaganda here on the main boards.
Hmm, idea—wouldn't alternative history fit better under History rather than Alternative, assuming it doesn't belong in a dedicated Conspiracy Theory section? It's like how being anti-vax or trying to cure things with kitchen towels instead of actual medical treatments doesn't fall under alternative medicine in the Health section. At least then, if someone Googles something, they actually know where to find it.
lonebadger6 said:I was actually going to say the same thing as stormytiger4. If there were a subforum (which might be interesting), it still belongs in Alternative, just like how alternative health was moved out of the Health section.
Honestly, I don't see why šbbkbb scenarios would be any better breeding ground for conspiracy theorists and revisionists than threads about actual history. In other words, why would a thread like "What if the axis powers had won the war" be more full of Holocaust deniers and people ignoring war crimes than threads that deal with those topics directly?
Even in a thread about USSR leaders, you see posts pushing propaganda for or against Stalin, Trotsky, Brezhnev, or Khrushchev, even though the topic isn't about alternative history.
So, over in the History subforum, we’ve got this one thread for alternative history. It's officially the only spot where we're allowed to dive into those "what if" scenarios. Well, that single thread has blown up to over 200 pages now, and honestly, there are so many different alternative history discussions happening all at once. Because everything gets buried in one massive wall of text—and since people tend to jump between topics, making it a total mess to follow—I think it’s time for a change. I’m proposing we open a dedicated PDF section within the History subforum specifically for alternative history. It would make finding specific debates way easier and keep things from getting lost in the shuffle. 🙂
I’ve been dealing with a massive headache trying to use my credit card for the past year. I’m using a Chase Visa. Online shopping used to be a breeze, but things went sideways after I had to open a checking account for some reason. While I was at the bank, they tweaked some stuff in my account package, and then a few months later, I tried buying some bus tickets online. Boom—got an error message saying there was a problem with my card and that I couldn't complete the payment. It told me I needed to contact my bank. So, I finally dragged myself down to the branch today. The staff there basically just shrugged and told me they have no clue what's going on. They claimed it depends on whoever I'm trying to pay.😕 Any advice? What should I do?
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Decent action flick. It doesn't insult your intelligence too much, though obviously, it’s nowhere near the original.
That's about it.
Quote : The Great Duck
Joshua Kern said:I honestly don't get why they jumped straight to the seventh book for the adaptation. It feels so off. Shouldn't they have gone in order? You need that time to actually get to know Jack first. Plus, let’s be real—that first book, *Killing Flor*, is incredible. They could've had so much better material for a movie if they just stuck to the timeline.
Once they saw Bond, they decided to follow suit. 😁 Man, history just keeps repeating itself. It’s happening all over again with American Assassin. Even the Jack Ryan series had stuff like this happen. At least in that case, they actually stuck to the first two books for the first two movies.