Andrew Williams23 said:finally, a decent rock track comes along after what feels like ages, and immediately, the self-proclaimed geniuses start venting about plagiarism.
I honestly don't get why some people feel such an intense urge to jump straight to insults—and usually the most crude or vulgar kind at that)🤷
The reality is, a huge part of this song relies on that riff, and it’s just... it's solid.
Even if there's a chance it was lifted subconsciously—which, I guess, happens quite often in straightforward genres like rock—it doesn't really change the quality of the track itself.
I’m honestly curious if I’m the only one who feels this way about these kinds of features, or if others are on the same page.
For me, it’s just pure frustration.
It really gets under my skin—this constant grasping at straws and the whole notion that we should somehow democratically vote on what counts as art. I can’t help but daydream about how the New York Times or CNN would run these massive, sensationalist headlines about how much our tax dollars are being sucked into projects like this.
I mean, why are we essentially footing the bill for "emerging female directors" to basically assault our senses with their immature, forced, pseudo-artistic, misanthropic, muddled, and hyper-fixated, depressive little "visions"? It’s just mental clutter, really. WTF?!
Who is a movie like this actually supposed to... a) provoke thought, b) change for the better, or even just c) provide some actual entertainment? Is there anything left after watching something like this besides just feeling angry at the creators for wasting ninety minutes of our lives?
I thought the movie was alright, I guess. I mean, considering how everything is being filmed these days... it feels a bit underrated on IMDb, if you ask me.
Back in the 19th century, this probably felt pretty fresh—maybe even shocking—since you have a man who’s intellectually outmatched, using all those tactics we usually associate with women.
And honestly, when it comes to exposing the psychological makeup of an insecure little boy-toy, that expression from Cullen worked perfectly. 😁
So, since Smoggy's inbox is probably overflowing right now, I figured I’d just reach out through this thread instead.
Basically, I just received another warning. And look, to be fair, this one was actually justified—I completely blanked on that IMF rule about not commenting on moderator actions (except here in this specific corner).
But, judging by the tone... it felt a bit threatening and, well, overly stern. It gave me the impression that I’ve irritated him quite a bit more than I probably should have, given the nature of my mistake.
So, if he doesn't mind, I’d like to ask him to explain the reasoning behind all the penalties he's handed my way here. See, unlike this current warning, I really feel like the reasons behind my previous warnings—and that three-day ban—weren't exactly warranted. I might be wrong, of course, but if they aren't explained, I guess there's a chance I might accidentally repeat the same mistake again. So, I'm mainly looking for an explanation for each instance where I was labeled as "trolling," maybe along with a snippet from the posts in question.
Sam Green73 said:Everyone just sees things through their own lens, I suppose. It’s 2012 now, and we're getting close to the end of the Mayan calendar, so everything might just start over from scratch. I don't really see the point in debating Yugoslavia anymore; America is free, and maybe people should move on too.
History shouldn't be the main focus when talking about politics.
At first glance, that kind of logic seems pretty rational, but I'm not so sure it actually holds up.
We can pretend to be all modern and sophisticated, like we're living in some enlightened era, but the reason people lean toward the Democratic Party or the Republican Party today still traces back to the trauma of World War II and the era of Yugoslavia. Both parties basically owe their core support to those old divisions.
The reality is that for forty-five years (1945-1990), there was this Orwellian atmosphere here where history was essentially manufactured.
And it's also true that even in the last twenty years, we haven't seen the same shifts that happened in other former socialist nations. Almost every President in America (for about 67 years 😁) has come from that old communist tradition, and honestly, most journalists are from that same background too.
So, naturally, people on the "right" feel frustrated because they feel like topics regarding Red Terror are still being suppressed—at least according to them. Especially when that suppression is disguised as saying the topic just isn't important anymore. It’s like when you’re in an argument and someone just hammers away with their version of the truth for hours, and then suddenly shuts down the conversation just to "keep the peace," I guess 🙄.
That's why I think this topic belongs right here on this forum.
I'm fairly certain that if we let this discussion happen, the end result will just be fewer frustrated conservatives and fewer condescending liberals. Though, I suppose the debate will likely be heated, argumentative, and probably a bit of a headache for the moderators.
Christian Taylor3 said:I guess I should probably give credit where it's due and say the admins and moderators over at Movie Forum generally do a decent enough job, though if we're being honest, there is one glaring stain on their record... The shameless self-promotion of that market research agency is getting a little out of hand.Nobody even bothered to reply to that, not even the admins. I gave you an example involving the topic of Angelina Jolie's movie, which just isn't tolerated over there—not in the other mode, anyway—so why on earth would they allow it in the "Parade" section? It felt like half the North America went out of their way to trash that Angelina Jolie movie, using nothing but non-cinematic arguments to do it, clogging up every single forum from the Mississippi River all the way up to Mount Rainier, and they even tried to bring that same nonsense here to the Movie section. They just won't let it go. 😁 Look, nobody is stopping you from mentioning that the director is a member of Maddox's party as part of your review or impressions, but every time you backpedal on that "argument," it starts looking like pure trolling. It’s not because *Parade* is bad just because Dragojević belongs to that Maddox trash heap; if anything, the movie fails because the script is a total disaster, the character motivations are non-existent, Kojo is stuck playing the exact same role yet again, and the members of the gay community I know are actually pretty disgusted by how homosexuals are portrayed here. Plus, from a purely dramatic standpoint, trying to mash comedy and drama together like this just doesn't work. You should lay out all those cinematic flaws and then just drive the point home: "And because of that shameful attempt to bridge the gap between American and Mexican warriors, he can shove it." Dragojević can sell his nonsense to Japanese tourists in Berlin for all I care, but I'm not buying it. Just stop there—don't drag that unfortunate Maddox through the next ten posts in this thread.
Maybe there isn't much point in dragging this discussion out any further, and honestly, it probably doesn't even belong here, but I figured I'd give you a quick response regardless:
I honestly can't help but feel that you just can't separate a writer's personal character and their underlying views from the actual work they produce..
It’s actually entirely possible—and honestly, quite a feat—to imagine someone singing about sunshine and wildflowers while insisting their little tunes have absolutely nothing to do with whether they root for the Atlanta Braves or the Los Angeles Lakers. You can almost see them trying to convince everyone in the comments to stop talking about Mamić so they can get back to a "meaningful" debate about daisies.
Nah, that’s just not how things work here. If someone happens to be a member of Maddox's party and decides to direct a movie about warriors, I honestly don't see how it's stupid to discuss whether that connection actually shaped the way the film was made or influenced how the characters were written.
Just imagine some random person jumping into a thread about the movie Carnage just to drop a hot take claiming Polanski stole his pedophilia. Carnage That whole debate about Polanski’s masterpiece, *Satan*, being a fugitive from justice is one of those things where there really isn't much point in arguing. I mean, honestly, how can people even sit through a Polanski movie without feeling like they're losing their soul? 😬 And if he keeps going like that, honestly, how long do you think his username would even last on a film forum? We actually had a similar debate over there once, though there was one major difference—it all went down in the live chat. It was totally wild, too, since the mods didn't step in to shut anything down. I mean, what’s stopping you from just popping into that movie chat and giving your soul some peace by finally settling the whole deal regarding Srđan Dragojević's political leanings?
No, I mean the moderators. I have no desire to start some revolution against the mod team. It’s just, I get this impression that most of them think wars break out because people argue about politics at a local pub, so they assume the next conflict will start if people discuss politics on the forum. I mean, it's bullshit. I wasn't being aggressive at all, and I didn't insult a single participant in the discussion or anything like that. I really wish the moderators were a bit more relaxed when it comes to discussions. If it isn't off-topic, and if users aren't insulting one another, then who cares?
Christian Taylor3 said:I guess I should probably give credit where it's due and say the admins and moderators over at Movie Forum generally do a decent enough job, though if we're being honest, there is one glaring stain on their record... The shameless self-promotion of that market research agency is getting a little out of hand.Nobody even bothered to reply to that, not even the admins. I gave you an example involving the topic of Angelina Jolie's movie, which just isn't tolerated over there—not in the other mode, anyway—so why on earth would they allow it in the "Parade" section? It felt like half the North America went out of their way to trash that Angelina Jolie movie, using nothing but non-cinematic arguments to do it, clogging up every single forum from the Mississippi River all the way up to Mount Rainier, and they even tried to bring that same nonsense here to the Movie section. They just won't let it go. 😁 Look, nobody is stopping you from mentioning that the director is a member of Maddox's party as part of your review or impressions, but every time you backpedal on that "argument," it starts looking like pure trolling. It’s not because *Parade* is bad just because Dragojević belongs to that Maddox trash heap; if anything, the movie fails because the script is a total disaster, the character motivations are non-existent, Kojo is stuck playing the exact same role yet again, and the members of the gay community I know are actually pretty disgusted by how homosexuals are portrayed here. Plus, from a purely dramatic standpoint, trying to mash comedy and drama together like this just doesn't work. You should lay out all those cinematic flaws and then just drive the point home: "And because of that shameful attempt to bridge the gap between American and Mexican warriors, he can shove it." Dragojević can sell his nonsense to Japanese tourists in Berlin for all I care, but I'm not buying it. Just stop there—don't drag that unfortunate Maddox through the next ten posts in this thread.
Maybe there isn't much point in dragging this discussion out any further, and honestly, it probably doesn't even belong here, but I figured I'd give you a quick response regardless:
I honestly can't help but feel that you just can't separate a writer's personal character and their underlying views from the actual work they produce..
It’s actually entirely possible—and honestly, quite a feat—to imagine someone singing about sunshine and wildflowers while insisting their little tunes have absolutely nothing to do with whether they root for the Atlanta Braves or the Los Angeles Lakers. You can almost see them trying to convince everyone in the comments to stop talking about Mamić so they can get back to a "meaningful" debate about daisies.
Nah, that’s just not how things work here. If someone happens to be a member of Maddox's party and decides to direct a movie about warriors, I honestly don't see how it's stupid to discuss whether that connection actually shaped the way the film was made or influenced how the characters were written.
Just imagine some random person jumping into a thread about the movie Carnage just to drop a hot take claiming Polanski stole his pedophilia. Carnage That whole debate about Polanski’s masterpiece, *Satan*, being a fugitive from justice is one of those things where there really isn't much point in arguing. I mean, honestly, how can people even sit through a Polanski movie without feeling like they're losing their soul? 😬 And if he keeps going like that, honestly, how long do you think his username would even last on a film forum? We actually had a similar debate over there once, though there was one major difference—it all went down in the live chat. It was totally wild, too, since the mods didn't step in to shut anything down. I mean, what’s stopping you from just popping into that movie chat and giving your soul some peace by finally settling the whole deal regarding Srđan Dragojević's political leanings?
I have no idea what was happening in that specific thread, and there's really no need to drag it into this now. I'm just asking what is wrong with this particular topic and my own posts.
Christian Taylor3 said:I guess I should probably give credit where it's due and say the admins and moderators over at Movie Forum generally do a decent enough job, though if we're being honest, there is one glaring stain on their record... The shameless self-promotion of that market research agency is getting a little out of hand.Nobody even bothered to reply to that, not even the admins. I gave you an example involving the topic of Angelina Jolie's movie, which just isn't tolerated over there—not in the other mode, anyway—so why on earth would they allow it in the "Parade" section? It felt like half the North America went out of their way to trash that Angelina Jolie movie, using nothing but non-cinematic arguments to do it, clogging up every single forum from the Mississippi River all the way up to Mount Rainier, and they even tried to bring that same nonsense here to the Movie section. They just won't let it go. 😁 Look, nobody is stopping you from mentioning that the director is a member of Maddox's party as part of your review or impressions, but every time you backpedal on that "argument," it starts looking like pure trolling. It’s not because *Parade* is bad just because Dragojević belongs to that Maddox trash heap; if anything, the movie fails because the script is a total disaster, the character motivations are non-existent, Kojo is stuck playing the exact same role yet again, and the members of the gay community I know are actually pretty disgusted by how homosexuals are portrayed here. Plus, from a purely dramatic standpoint, trying to mash comedy and drama together like this just doesn't work. You should lay out all those cinematic flaws and then just drive the point home: "And because of that shameful attempt to bridge the gap between American and Mexican warriors, he can shove it." Dragojević can sell his nonsense to Japanese tourists in Berlin for all I care, but I'm not buying it. Just stop there—don't drag that unfortunate Maddox through the next ten posts in this thread.
Maybe there isn't much point in dragging this discussion out any further, and honestly, it probably doesn't even belong here, but I figured I'd give you a quick response regardless:
I honestly can't help but feel that you just can't separate a writer's personal character and their underlying views from the actual work they produce..
It’s actually entirely possible—and honestly, quite a feat—to imagine someone singing about sunshine and wildflowers while insisting their little tunes have absolutely nothing to do with whether they root for the Atlanta Braves or the Los Angeles Lakers. You can almost see them trying to convince everyone in the comments to stop talking about Mamić so they can get back to a "meaningful" debate about daisies.
Nah, that’s just not how things work here. If someone happens to be a member of Maddox's party and decides to direct a movie about warriors, I honestly don't see how it's stupid to discuss whether that connection actually shaped the way the film was made or influenced how the characters were written.
Just imagine some random person jumping into a thread about the movie Carnage just to drop a hot take claiming Polanski stole his pedophilia. Carnage That whole debate about Polanski’s masterpiece, *Satan*, being a fugitive from justice is one of those things where there really isn't much point in arguing. I mean, honestly, how can people even sit through a Polanski movie without feeling like they're losing their soul? 😬 And if he keeps going like that, honestly, how long do you think his username would even last on a film forum? We actually had a similar debate over there once, though there was one major difference—it all went down in the live chat. It was totally wild, too, since the mods didn't step in to shut anything down. I mean, what’s stopping you from just popping into that movie chat and giving your soul some peace by finally settling the whole deal regarding Srđan Dragojević's political leanings?
What do you mean, ten posts? In one single post, I mentioned Maddox, and that one solitary post was deleted. Now, that fact doesn't even exist in the thread anymore. I was talking about the difference in how the warriors from different regions were characterized. Like how Kojo's character (Limun) is shown as a totally okay guy—very macho, sure, but warm toward his son, his future wife, homosexuals.... Unlike, say, the Albanian who rapes the zebra.
When I write that doing this (along with the depiction of homosexuals) caters to the Mexican audience (nationalists) and their prejudices regarding the integrity of the "Mexican liberators" versus the evil and degeneracy of their neighbors... and that there isn't enough artistic courage to speak differently about both the homosexuals and the Mexican warriors... then what is that...? Just the mods using vague language to call it "trolling"...
I didn't say there was nothing left to talk about regarding the movie, nor did I suggest people skip it entirely (though I guess that’s what Smoogj would prefer), and I wasn't just focusing on the 'warrior' aspect of the story—even if I was, I suppose that theme is pretty much on equal footing with the other one, the homosexual theme.
Mexicans are coming to our forum, and honestly, they're more than welcome to share their perspective. They come with their own biases, too, of course. But why shouldn't we defend their right to hear ours? One Mexican user actually pleaded with Smoogj to just let him speak his mind (meaning, please don't delete my posts so others can actually read them), but you know how it goes... it's like talking to a brick wall.
I basically get "slaughtered" by Smoogj at least once a year, so I feel like I have plenty of standing to say that the "Parade" thread is actually moderated quite impressively. It’s the exact same thing that happened over in the thread for the movie in The Land of Blood and Honey Angelina Jolie—Deckard was busy scrubbing (and maybe even punishing?) every single one of those politically charged jabs that had absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. He didn't just delete them; if you really wanted to obsess over Angelina's leg, her diet, her eating disorders, or politics, all of those posts should have been moved over to an Angelina Jolie fan thread instead.
You shouldn't be using the "Parade" thread to lecture everyone on Srđan Dragojević's political leanings, post after post. Honestly, any sanctions handed out for that are completely justified. If you're that invested, feel free to start a "Srđan Dragojević" thread and carry on there; nobody is going to touch you. Ideally, make it "Srđan Dragojević's Films/Filmography," because we are technically on the Movies forum, and for everything else, you've got the Politics section.
With my first post, I achieved what I set out to do—making an appeal to the moderators.
Maybe further discussion doesn't serve much purpose, and it probably doesn't belong here anyway, but I'll give you a brief response regardless:
I personally feel that an author's persona and their views are inseparable from their work.
It is possible, I suppose, to imagine a situation where someone sings songs about little birds and flowers, and you could claim that the work has nothing to do with whether the songwriter cheers for the Atlanta Braves or the Los Angeles Lakers. You could tell the participants not to stifle a meaningful discussion about daisies by bringing up Mamić.
But that isn't the case here. If someone is a member of Maddox's party and makes a movie about warriors, then it seems a bit silly to ban discussing how that fact might influence how the film was made or how the characters were portrayed.
Smoogj told me straight up that he thinks the movie is garbage. So, I think it's pretty obvious that his issue isn't just being annoyed because a "valuable" debate is being stifled. How could a discussion about a garbage movie be considered that precious??
Basically, he was irritated because politics kept bleeding into a conversation about a film that is inherently political! Between the "warrior" themes and the depiction of homosexuals, it's all tied together.
The level of sensitivity here is just wild. We honestly have more freedom in discussions on much "fancier," more controlled media outlets like TV.
Just let us have some freedom on this forum. Especially on threads that you consider to be about garbage. (Assuming you haven't already automatically banned and deleted the whole thread).
P.S. Regarding that poet who sings about birds and flowers... If we were discussing a poet who mostly writes about, say, white lilies, I wouldn't stop a user from suggesting a theory that they write that way because they root for the Atlanta Braves. Where else would we hear a theory like that if not on a forum 😁?
I'm honestly not sure why you're having such a hard time grasping my grievance.
And just for the record, I don't usually start my sentences with ellipses.
Maybe it's because you aren't the moderator I’m actually addressing, and since you haven't really read the thread—you aren't quite up to speed on the context—I don't quite see why you feel the need to chime in here.
The reason I got under Mr. Smoogj's skin was simply because I was discussing the character development in the movie and, well, my perspective on why they were written that way.
I wasn't attacking anyone personally, nor was I expressing any kind of ethnic hatred.
Here is what Mr. Smoogj said:
"Whether Dragojević belongs to a certain political party or what happened back in 1991 and 1995 doesn't have anything to do with the fact that this movie is garbage."
But in my view, the reality that this movie is garbage is actually deeply connected to which party Dragojević belongs to and his specific take on everything that went down between 1991 and 1995.
So, I guess I wonder... why would talking about that be an issue for Smoogj?
loneraven25 said:...it’s not even about solidarity; I have to start by questioning myself, what kind of actual reason would I need to sit through a movie like that in the first place? ...my own personal principles just won't let me sink to rock bottom, getting lost in thoughts about things of that nature... ...so, you really have to start with yourself and figure out where your own fundamental biases come from.
I mean, what reason does a Jew need to watch a movie that flirts with neo-Nazism? Should they just close their eyes and let it run wild while anthems praising the work stay posted on Jewish forums? Because apparently, these works are considered trash?
Personally, I think a good chunk of movies are garbage—probably more than most people do. But hey, this specific movie is touring the global festival circuit and even picking up some awards over there. So, maybe just chill out about it.
And I got my first card specifically because of the remark I mentioned. As for the second one, I didn't even get an explanation, so now I'm left wondering why (it feels like a universal excuse—just trolling 🙄)
loneraven25 said:...honestly, if you had just written a post about mobile phones, given that the director in question is rocking the latest Nokia, this exact same post would have landed you a warning instead... ...your ban? It’s really just the result of stacking up too many strikes in just two days, and considering how long you've been around this forum, you probably should have complained about the previous warnings rather than trying to drag film criticism into the argument... ...but hey, that’s just my general take on how we all communicate here on the forum...
I'm not sure if you're playing dumb regarding moderator solidarity or if you're just missing the point, but the actual themes here are WARRIORS FROM the 90s and HOMOSEXUALS.
I'm not talking about the color of Srđan Dragojević's pants; I'm talking about the core themes of his work. His affiliation with Maddox's party and the fact that the head of that party banned the parade—you have to admit, that has way more to do with the movie than what color pants he wears or what kind of cell phone he carries.
I've been hanging around this forum since its very beginning back in 2002... I was actually around for the predecessor site too, starting in 2001.
I’ve never once been banned, even though I used to post quite a bit in the most heated corner of the board—politics.
But, I did get flagged during a discussion about the movie Parade by Srđan Dragojević. It's a film that deals with warriors from the 90s and the rights of homosexuals.
I got a warning, and then eventually a ban, just because I mentioned that Srđan Dragojević is a prominent member of the Democratic Party, which was led by Slobodan Maddox. My entire post containing that thought was wiped, and shortly after, I was banned.
Even if the work itself (the movie) is totally unrelated to the fact of Dragojević's political ties, I guess I feel like this level of sensitivity from our moderator is just unhealthy.
(Just to be clear—I don't mean to single out Smoogj specifically; it seems like a widespread thing among most of the IMF moderators).
I mean, I don't think anyone has an issue when someone mentions that Krleža was a member of the Democratic National Committee. Or that Ivo Andrić was a monarchist leaning toward America. It doesn't matter what specific work of theirs is being discussed.
But apparently, it's strictly forbidden on this forum to mention that Dragojević belongs to Maddox's party. Even when the conversation is about a work where his stance on the war in the 90s is central. Even when the current leader of that party, acting as a minister in the FBI, banned a gay parade in New York City, and that exact parade is the subject of the movie.
I'm not writing this to start a back-and-forth with Smoogj, nor am I looking for validation that he made a mistake.
I'm writing this to appeal to all the IMF moderators to maybe cool it a little with this hypersensitivity whenever the truth comes up regarding Mexicans. I mean, even on national television, Stanković is allowed to ask Dragojević directly about his affiliation with Maddox's party. This makes us look way less democratic, less free, harsher, and more censored than national TV. WTF 🙂
Man, it's like we're in the position of Germans, having to be hyper-sensitive about antisemitism. Because, in my opinion, we are in the position of Jews, who can't afford to be indifferent toward instances of neo-Nazism. Especially the kind that's masked, populist, and just slimy.
I appreciate the effort, really, but I think we should probably steer clear of all that overanalyzing obvious stuff—you know, all those comments about someone being "distracted by a pretty girl" or calling people "horny" and things like that. It just feels a bit much, I guess. I guess we should probably just stick to the hard facts and the core details when it comes to the logic of how this all plays out. Maybe that's the best way to stay on track.
So... anyway...
Here's the logic behind it:
It looks like Duffy sees his candidate starting to slip away. He makes this one pretty desperate move—desperate, I mean, because there’s really a slim chance it actually works out. (Side note: he later mentions he knew he had the game in the bag the second he "got" Stephen at the table.) I guess we should look into recruiting someone from the opposition campaign—maybe a young media strategist who’s still got that hungry, idealistic streak in them. If we can actually talk them into jumping ship and joining our side... well, that would be a win, I suppose.
If he fails to win him over, things are supposedly fine. (RUPA: Fine how? If this info regarding the game involving Thompson is actually as vital as they say, the outcome wouldn't just be zero—it would be deep in the red. There isn't really anything in the plot suggesting that Duffy actually intended to blackmail Stephen, which is why it feels a bit weird to claim things would turn out okay if he refuses. Blackmail him with what, exactly? Did he even secure anything that could convince Paul the meeting actually took place? I don't see any evidence of that in the story. Plus, I guess it’s a little silly—or at least highly questionable—to assume Stephen wouldn't say a word to Paul.)
Duffy basically spills everything that the screenwriter calls a "war plan" to the other guy running the opposing campaign... he even goes on about what they offered Thompson (what a total joke!). I mean, he’s such a sly fox, isn't he? And then you have the screenwriter trying so hard to convince us that he's this incredibly deep, cunning mastermind who had every single thing under control the entire time. I guess... maybe they just want us to see him that way.
Stephen seems to be wavering a bit. (Note: The screenwriter is really trying to sell us on the idea that what he said back at the bar is some kind of bombshell—something meant to shock a guy who’s already been through three or four political campaigns. Apparently, he’s suddenly all in on Morris's ideals, especially since Morris is actually leading the race right now.)
I guess Stephen isn't saying anything to Paul. Why even bother keeping it quiet? You could always just get insurance for the situation, just in case he decides to stick around. I mean, there’s really no reason to hide the meeting itself, or the fact that he was offered a transition again. And honestly, why not mention that Duffy told him he's offering Thompson a spot as Under Secretary? It seems like such a weird move not to just ask Thompson what he actually wants. In the end, he said it himself anyway—it was all about playing with an open hand. If he speaks up, it just solidifies his standing with Paul, and it doesn't exactly stop him from leaving (if he hasn't quite made up his mind yet, I guess).
So, once Paul gets back, Stephen starts filling him in on that meeting with Duffy. Honestly, Paul couldn't help but wonder if Stephen’s loyalty had wavered for a second there, just for a moment. In that first conversation, though, the pressure was clearly hitting Stephen hard—he felt like he’d made a complete fool of himself in front of Thompson. He’d gone ahead and offered less than what Duffy had already put on the table, and to make matters worse, he basically handed over the whole "war plan." But now that he finally has proof that Stephen is truly loyal—especially after that one shaky moment earlier on—it looks like he's decided to kick such a valuable asset right out of the campaign. Maybe it's for the best, I guess, but man, it's a bold move.
Ida is basically blackmailing Stephen. (And honestly, looking at their conversation, they aren't even touching on the real issue here—like, where did she even get the idea that Stephen didn't say anything to Paul in the first place?) Apparently, she's trying to squeeze him into revealing what Paul was up to over at Thompson's. She says if he spills the beans, she'll keep her mouth shut. (I mean, was it really that hard to see that coming?) .......................................
I’m just nearing the end of the film here, and I can't help but wonder about Thompson meeting with Stephen to ask about that Secretary of State position. It feels... I don't know, a bit off? I mean, why would he even go looking for that from them if he already has an offer on the table from Duffy? And honestly, if he actually prefers the idea of being Secretary of State under Morris rather than serving under Pullman, why wouldn't he just be upfront about that during his sit-down with Paul? I guess I just don't get why he's bothering to pitch this to another campaign official when he was literally just having the exact same conversation with the first one. It seems a little redundant, maybe?
Look, let me be clear here—I’m not saying this movie is some total disaster or a complete waste of time compared to everything else out there. I suppose this just serves as more evidence for my point about...It’s all about those script-driven, director-led special effects, I guess. Or maybe that's just how some people see it. It feels like we spend so much time talking about the CGI or the explosions, but sometimes the real magic comes from how the writer structures the tension and how the director chooses to frame the chaos. It's more of an artistic blend than just hitting a button on a computer, I suppose. Just a thought.The plot feels a bit scattered, honestly. It’s like they didn't really take the time to dive into what makes these characters tick or why they're even doing what they're doing—there just isn't enough focus on those psychological motives to make them feel truly convincing. I guess the audience ends up more impressed by the sheer technical complexity of the production and gets swept up in the spectacle of the action itself, which, I suppose, leaves very little room to actually sit with the characters and process their motivations.
Donna Sullivan6 said:They're talking about the Drudge Report—that web portal that obsessively covers high-level American politics (it leans Republican, so any dirt coming out of the Democratic camp would be treated like pure gold)....
Roll Call is one of those Washington publications catering to the army of political insiders—you know, the party delegates and various other bureaucrats who live for this stuff—while the general public mostly ignores it because they focus on niche, hyper-specific American domestic policy issues. It's a classic trade industry paper. Think of it like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but strictly for the political circuit.
It really comes down to the tone and the angle used to frame the story. Since Paul was the one who passed that info to Ida, the story would be framed specifically to undermine Stephen. Something along the lines of, "Stephen, a key figure in Governor Morris's campaign, met privately with the campaign manager for Morris's opponent—all behind the backs of his own colleagues, including Governor Morris himself."
Basically, it's media groundwork being laid to justify kicking Stephen out of the campaign, which is scheduled to happen later that same day.
He's angry because Stephen failed to relay Duffy's intel—specifically, that Duffy's side is holding Thompson in their grip by dangling a Secretary of State position if he supports their candidate. If he had known that sooner, Paul would have handled Thompson differently; he wouldn't have leaked confidential details regarding Morris's future plans, nor would he have wasted time offering him trivial positions that don't carry nearly the prestige of a Secretary of State role.
Thanks for the info.
Donna Sullivan6 said:They're talking about the Drudge Report—that web portal that obsessively covers high-level American politics (it leans Republican, so any dirt coming out of the Democratic camp would be treated like pure gold)....
Roll Call is one of those Washington publications catering to the army of political insiders—you know, the party delegates and various other bureaucrats who live for this stuff—while the general public mostly ignores it because they focus on niche, hyper-specific American domestic policy issues. It's a classic trade industry paper. Think of it like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but strictly for the political circuit.
It really comes down to the tone and the angle used to frame the story. Since Paul was the one who passed that info to Ida, the story would be framed specifically to undermine Stephen. Something along the lines of, "Stephen, a key figure in Governor Morris's campaign, met privately with the campaign manager for Morris's opponent—all behind the backs of his own colleagues, including Governor Morris himself."
Basically, it's media groundwork being laid to justify kicking Stephen out of the campaign, which is scheduled to happen later that same day.
He's angry because Stephen failed to relay Duffy's intel—specifically, that Duffy's side is holding Thompson in their grip by dangling a Secretary of State position if he supports their candidate. If he had known that sooner, Paul would have handled Thompson differently; he wouldn't have leaked confidential details regarding Morris's future plans, nor would he have wasted time offering him trivial positions that don't carry nearly the prestige of a Secretary of State role.
It makes sense, I guess, but the reality is that neither Duffy nor anyone else could have really known if Stephen was doing anything behind Paul's back. At the end of the day, maybe it was just the fact that Paul's phone was unreachable that stopped Stephen from letting him know Duffy had reached out for a drink. It’s just hard for me to wrap my head around why Stephen wouldn't have followed up that conversation with a meeting invite after Paul called him. I mean, seriously? What exactly is he gaining by keeping things under wraps like that? I guess there might be some reason, maybe, but it just seems... off.
Donna Sullivan6 said:They're talking about the Drudge Report—that web portal that obsessively covers high-level American politics (it leans Republican, so any dirt coming out of the Democratic camp would be treated like pure gold)....
Roll Call is one of those Washington publications catering to the army of political insiders—you know, the party delegates and various other bureaucrats who live for this stuff—while the general public mostly ignores it because they focus on niche, hyper-specific American domestic policy issues. It's a classic trade industry paper. Think of it like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, but strictly for the political circuit.
It really comes down to the tone and the angle used to frame the story. Since Paul was the one who passed that info to Ida, the story would be framed specifically to undermine Stephen. Something along the lines of, "Stephen, a key figure in Governor Morris's campaign, met privately with the campaign manager for Morris's opponent—all behind the backs of his own colleagues, including Governor Morris himself."
Basically, it's media groundwork being laid to justify kicking Stephen out of the campaign, which is scheduled to happen later that same day.
He's angry because Stephen failed to relay Duffy's intel—specifically, that Duffy's side is holding Thompson in their grip by dangling a Secretary of State position if he supports their candidate. If he had known that sooner, Paul would have handled Thompson differently; he wouldn't have leaked confidential details regarding Morris's future plans, nor would he have wasted time offering him trivial positions that don't carry nearly the prestige of a Secretary of State role.
If I recall correctly, Stephen's chat with Duffy happened right after that Paul-Thompson meeting, so I guess Stephen wouldn't have had his info ready for him just yet. This info should be pretty useful for Morris's team once they sit down to talk. They finally figured out exactly what Duffy's offer for Thompson looks like, and honestly, it seems like there's practically no downside at all. I guess it's a clean deal.
Does anyone actually know what "Drudge" or "Roll Call" even refers to? It seems like Ida was trying to leverage something over Stephen by threatening to leak details about his meeting with Duffy to those... well, those outlets that monitor the election process, I suppose. (“She’s gonna take this to Drudge or Roll Call or some shit.”)
I mean, how would news of a meeting like that really hurt Stephen more than it would hurt Duffy?
And why would Paul say something like, "I made a fucking ass of myself and I gave away our game plan," after hearing from Stephen about what he and Duffy (Thompson...) had discussed?
******** ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE **********
granitehound19 said:If people actually watched movies with a bit more focus instead of picking their noses, texting, munching on popcorn, checking the weather, or chatting with their moms about what's for dinner tomorrow, then certain things would be a hell of a lot clearer!!! And since you clearly don't want to bother re-watching it, I'll lay out the logic for you... though it really is hammered home several times throughout the film. The thing is, Gosling doesn't immediately spill the beans about the attempted recruitment; he hesitates, staying silent for a while... which implies he was genuinely torn about the offer. It's only after he decides to stay put that he finally discloses what happened. Given that Hoffman's character demands absolute transparency and unwavering loyalty from his inner circle, cutting him loose from the campaign is a perfectly logical move, because you simply can't afford to trust someone who wavers like that... right??!!
No, I didn't miss Paul's bit about "loyalty"—that part felt pretty aggressive. But honestly, the whole setup regarding that meeting, which is supposed to be the core of the plot, just feels incredibly forced and unconvincing to me.
When Ida blackmailed Stephen, why wouldn't he just calmly tell her, "Look, what you write hurts, but of course I already talked to Paul and told him I was just going to see what Duffy wants"? She could only really squeeze him if she was absolutely certain he wasn't acting in "coordinated action" with Paul, yet it’s pretty obvious that Stephen didn't give a damn about Paul leaking the news to Ida in the first place....
And why couldn't Paul himself, when the same guy called him right after the Duffy-Stephen meeting, just say he had literally just walked out of a meeting with Duffy—or even better, that Duffy actually tried to poach him? What's so scandalous about that? There’s even that call FROM BEFORE the meeting (which Paul couldn't take) serving as proof that he wasn't trying to hide anything.
Finally, why does Paul even need to leak info to the press??? It's pretty clear he could just fire Stephen from the team without all that drama....
Even the whole origin story for Stephen's suspicion feels like pretty weak writing.
Even if we buy the idea that young, hot-headed, idealistic Morris's driver doesn't actually live by his principles and just clings to whoever is winning, how exactly could Duffy's talk convince Stephen that the victory for the clueless Pullman (who is trailing in the polls) is a done deal? Like, Pullman is fighting to win over Thompson? Really? And Paul is literally on a mission to him with that exact same goal...
Duffy's theories about Republicans turning out in droves to elect a weaker Democrat (Pullman) are about as believable as Paul's theories to Thompson that irritated Republicans would want to crush Pullman, even though Morris is closer to the neutrals.... In any case, it hardly qualifies as some earth-shattering "revelation" that would leave someone breathless, especially someone who's already been through three or four campaigns... 🙄
What really bothers me about most modern movies—and I guess this one is no exception—is this total inability to craft an actually interesting or intriguing Plot.
It feels like the thinness and the sheer lack of credibility in both the Plot and the characters' motivations is just being masked by cheap tricks. You know, things like weird pacing, throwing key facts at you so fast that you aren't even sure if you caught everything, or using casual dialogue to make characters seem more "real" or, I don't know, "cool and witty."
Then they wrap the whole thing in high-end production values and massive ad campaigns, so a story that lacks any real substance gets sold to us as something profound or intelligent.
****SPOILER*****
Take this movie, for instance. Paul McCartney is acting completely unhinged, totally shocked, when Stephen King tells him he met with the opponent's Democratic campaign manager (and turned down their offer to switch sides) while Paul was out of town. He goes ahead and fires Paul—who is supposed to be this brilliant, loyal pillar of the leadership—even though Paul was the one who proactively went to him to explain everything that happened.
Because Paul’s reaction is so intense, I found myself second-guessing whether I had missed something important. Did Stephen King make some kind of mistake that might cause Morris to lose the election? Not really. The real tension is whether Republicans will swing heavily toward Pullman because they see him as the weaker Democratic candidate or not.
Stephen King even picks up a tip from Duffy that the Pullmans are planning to give Thompson a Secretary of State position in exchange for his delegates, all while counting on those Republican votes. Is there anything behind Paul’s motives besides pure vanity disguised as a lecture on loyalty?
No, not really. On the other hand, Paul is written as this highly capable, cool, and super efficient guy who doesn't have an ego problem—someone who wouldn't let pride get in the way of the job... There's just no trace of him feeling threatened by Stephen King at all.
It’s almost like the Screenwriter was given a specific prompt: "Write something about how there's no friendship in politics and nothing is sacred when fighting for success and self-interest," and "how ideals crumble."
And he did exactly that, but without putting in any actual effort, narrative talent, or the imagination needed to put some meat on those bones. I suppose he knows that since this is a side plot, the average audience member will just swallow whatever is fed to them, getting swept up in the style, the directing, the marketing, the soundtrack, and all the other flashy nonsense that comes with a big release...
I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about corn... specifically that golden, perfect summer corn you get at a roadside stand in Iowa or maybe somewhere out in Nebraska. There's just something about it, isn't there? That specific shade of yellow. It's hard to put into words, really. Anyway, just a random thought crossing my mind today. kaže: The question itself is pretty straightforward, I suppose... though I ask because, well, I’m not entirely sure I even know the answer myself anymore. 👎 I guess I’m just a little worried that this is going to end up leaving me in a spot where I only actually know the bands that get shoved down my throat. You know, those mindless hits you hear constantly on the radio or whatever garbage is trending on Spotify... it feels like it doesn't really lead anywhere, if that makes sense. Whenever I actually find a bit of time to sit down with my music—maybe an hour or two here and there—I usually just stick to the stuff I know I love. It’s my comfort zone, I guess. When I do feel like digging around and exploring something new, I'll download an album, listen for a few minutes, and then... well, I either completely zone out and stop paying attention to the actual songs, or I just end up turning it off altogether after a little while. It's funny how that works. Honestly, about 95% of the time when I grab a new release, I just don't vibe with it. And even on those rare occasions where something actually clicks, it’s usually just one or maybe two tracks from the entire record that really land for me. 🙂
I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately digging through internet radio stations that specialize in specific genres. It’s actually pretty easy to stumble upon a few that just click with your mood. Honestly, it feels like a goldmine if you're looking for something really niche—especially for those styles you rarely hear on mainstream American FM stations, like downtempo or chillout... things like that.
Just a regular old radio... I mean, sure, you might catch something here and there, but it’s mostly just luck, isn't it? Like when you're driving around and something happens to drift through the speakers.
You know, there was this specific ritual back in the day... you’d sit there waiting for a certain show to come on, just hovering around the radio, waiting for that one track to finally hit. And then, the best part—when the host would actually say the artist's name and the song title, almost like they were having a little conversation with the music itself. It was such a feeling. I guess you could call it nostalgia, though it doesn't really feel like those times are ever coming back.
It’s true, I suppose... figuring out "who is singing this and what are they actually saying" is much easier nowadays. You just pull out your phone, hit Shazam, or throw a few half-remembered lyrics into Google, and there it is. It's almost too easy. But, I don't know... that just isn't really my system. Not by a long shot.
Well, I guess I’ll go ahead and file my own complaint regarding the deletion of one entire post and the editing of another:
Could the moderators please explain what exactly was wrong with stating that the Red Brigade is a "bloody communist terrorist organization."
(That’s actually why my post was edited—they even changed the meaning entirely; it ended up making it look like I agree with revolution and that I'm calling the current administration "the fathers and icons of communism.")
Also, I'm wondering what the issue was with my comment about how certain media outlets act politically, trying to smear specific ideologies... that whole post was just wiped out.
I didn't personally insult anyone; I was just pointing out a trend within a section of our media (in a thread that was originally dedicated to the media, which was merged with this one for some reason I can't quite wrap my head around: http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?t=474724&page=5 Is there a fifth column in America?
steelstag4 said:I noticed there wasn't a dedicated thread for this yet, and since it’s currently playing in theaters, I figured I’d start one...
The movie is an adaptation of the debut novel by the American author of Afghan descent, Khaled Hosseini. If you haven't read it, I’d highly recommend doing so; it is an incredibly moving story, and Hosseini is a writer with massive potential.
The plot kicks off in the USA, where Amira (our protagonist 😉), an Afghan immigrant living in America, places a phone call to an old family friend, urging him to return to Afghanistan to help his friend's son. As he makes that journey, we're taken back through a series of flashbacks detailing the childhood events that shaped who he became. While the backdrop is the political instability in Afghanistan / Kabul during the late seventies, at its core, this is a story about friendship, loyalty, and humanity—but also their darkest opposites.
I have to admit, watching a film right after finishing the book felt a little strange... it’s that classic feeling where you sense certain details were left on the cutting room floor. That said, I think the movie manages to capture all the essential beats of the novel and successfully translates its spirit to the screen. I also want to give a shout-out to the cast. Most of them were completely new to me, but honestly, not a single one of them missed a beat 🙂
Definitely worth checking out, both the book and the film. 🙂
I don't know, I'd say—if I had to choose—it's primarily about cowardice. It's about shame, and honestly, all the baggage that kind of cowardice leaves behind in a person's life. People don't always realize that those kinds of scars aren't something you can just move past; I guess some mistakes just stay with you forever.
redorca11 said:It strikes me that the deer is a blatant symbol for Princess Diana herself, while the hunters act as the paparazzi... and poor thing ends up decapitated, much like Princess Diana was.
I watched the film yesterday. It was exceptionally well done... 👍 If Helen Mirren doesn't take home an Oscar, it will be definitive proof that the Academy has completely lost its way. 😁 My only grievance is the portrayal of Blair; he’s depicted far too positively, almost too idealistic. I mean, he’s just a typical labor politician who ends up sucking up to George W. Bush just a few years later... 🙄 yeah, right.
I guess the deer symbol isn't necessarily about Princess Diana literally, but maybe more about the principles she stood for—those qualities that seem to have vanished within the royal family, lost under all those cold, lifeless formalities... that raw, elemental, almost animalistic nature.
@Larry Cruz51 - I don't think the movie was trying to paint the Queen as some cold-hearted bitch. Sure, maybe she wasn't particularly fond of Princess Diana, but that’s her right, I suppose. The whole film seems to be about listening to the times, about the Queen’s failure to sense the shifting tides within her own nation.
Depending on who you ask about that shift, some might say it was just the public wanting to see royals portrayed as vulnerable human beings; others, maybe they'd argue it was just the tyranny of the tabloid press and shallow crowds being whipped into a frenzy over things they don't even truly understand.
To my mind—why on earth should the flag be flown at half-mast for someone who left the royal family, especially if it wasn't done for the Queen's own father??? Just because a few semi-literate journalists think so???
@rustyscout31 - why shouldn't the 'handsome' prince be shown as a 'good guy'??? You know exactly what Princess Diana was like privately, and why King Charles III moved on from someone who looked like Princess Diana to someone who looks like Camilla.
Anyway, Tony Blair is depicted quite positively because he respects the Queen, whereas his wife is portrayed as this foolish, aggressive shrew just because she’s Catholic—and, well, by extension, a hater of the monarchy, since apparently all Catholics in the world have spent the last 450 years trying to topple the British Crown.