The concept is brilliant, but I have to admit, I’m feeling skeptical. My King has let me down before.
All I see when I look at that image above is a textbook example of fake political correctness—as if they need to check off every single box for diversity just to make it look like some United Colors of Benetton ad 😁 featuring those two kids... it just feels sort of meh to me.
I still haven't forgiven Stephen King for begging Rowling to keep Potter alive; honestly, he can go jump in a lake.
Regardless, I'll give it a look. I do like the idea itself.
This documentary is deeply unsettling. By the time the credits roll, you’re left with this profound sense of emptiness, following all the anger and revulsion the film provokes. It is an incredibly educational piece, though; I truly believe it's something everyone should experience. It provides such a clear, chilling window into the psyches of psychopaths, sociopaths, corrupt bureaucrats, the deranged, the shameless, the pathetic, and the victims alike.
That "happy dancing" scene on the roof—right after they boastfully detailed how they slaughtered people with wire until the rooftop was drenched in blood—that image is permanently burned into my mind, much like some of the other unforgettable lines from the film.
For those of you who are still debating whether or not this is worth your time, here is an interview with the director.
I actually highly recommend it; personally, it’s one of the better films I’ve seen in quite some time. 🙂 😉
Thanks for the suggestion, dear, 🙂 but...
...I find myself completely exhausted by the endless parade of teenagers in cinema lately. To be blunt, I find them—and their adolescent romances—utterly distasteful. I remember barely being able to sit through that Swedish film *Let the Right One In*, which turned out to be a surprisingly chilling, anti-Hollywood experience. It was actually a quite decent take on vampire lore, stripped of those tired romantic tropes where everyone is just "beautiful and tragic."
Ever since then, I have been searching for something with that same gritty atmosphere, but based on what I am seeing, I suspect that might be the last vampire film I ever bother to watch.
I find this whole obsession with political correctness somewhat absurd. At this rate, they might as well make Captain Hook a Chinese woman, cast Peter Pan as an underage lesbian, or turn Wendy into a trans man from Mexico or an Indigenous person. They could even throw in an alien, given how many followers David Icke attracts—perhaps those fans could fund the production by sending over some money from China. 😁 After all, there is a profit to be made in every direction, isn't there? 😁
I have such an affinity for SF; I find myself forgiving his many flaws, even though they are numerous. My only grievance is this recent trend suggesting that "robots are precious" or somehow superior to people. I have always been more of a Terminator-style thinker—the kind who believes that if anything can go wrong with robotics, it will eventually go wrong for the sake of humanity itself.
The baby robot was quite endearing, though I wasn't particularly fond of that scene involving the dull, elderly pregnant woman played by Antonio Banderas. That said, Antonio Banderas himself was fine; he had a slightly eccentric vibe, appearing somewhat aged and frail with those prominent features, but I am nonetheless grateful they didn't just cast some brooding teenage model to play his part.
Betty Hayes10 said:I finished two more films. This documentary follows a trajectory similar to the fifth century, where it starts by presenting a positive image before gradually spiraling into negativity until everything falls apart, leaving the viewer with nothing but the impression of "this crazy Australian."
The third film is quite different from the rest. It tracks Julian during his younger years, providing context for his activism. My takeaway is that he isn't the lunatic some people attempt to portray him as.
It’s definitely worth watching 👍
Honestly, the only true madness in his biography is that he managed to expose much more dangerous lunatics—both specific individuals and entire influential interest groups—who present themselves to the public as god-fearing saints.
You have to be either incredibly naive or deeply entrenched in corporate interests to criticize him. When you weigh what this man has accomplished—literally putting his life on the line to uncover the filthy, shameful games played behind the scenes by Western power brokers and elites—it honestly makes me wonder if his white hair is natural or just dye used to deceive people. 😁
hollowpuma762 said:Bringing up a specific case that’s completely out of context while totally ignoring the "seemingly" part of your own quote? Seriously? That kind of logic can be applied to absolutely anything. It’s just a logical fallacy and carries zero weight when you're trying to debunk what was actually said before.
Look, I get why you reacted that way, and it's clearly just a product of misinterpreting things. But I can't tell if your motivation here is just being unnecessarily defensive, or if you genuinely don't see the difference between using a generalization correctly versus using it poorly. Or maybe it's just a messy mix of both.
By that same logic, I could claim that you have taken my raw quote "completely out of context," or that you "fail to grasp the distinction between the correct and incorrect use of generalizations."
To illustrate... you essentially trivialized the point by bringing up the laws of nature regarding "authority." There is such a thing as common sense. Of course one would perish if they jumped off a skyscraper. 😁 I find it highly unlikely that the raw perspective on authority and disobedience was referring to such obvious trivialities.
hollowpuma762 said:Bringing up a specific case that’s completely out of context while totally ignoring the "seemingly" part of your own quote? Seriously? That kind of logic can be applied to absolutely anything. It’s just a logical fallacy and carries zero weight when you're trying to debunk what was actually said before.
Look, I get why you reacted that way, and it's clearly just a product of misinterpreting things. But I can't tell if your motivation here is just being unnecessarily defensive, or if you genuinely don't see the difference between using a generalization correctly versus using it poorly. Or maybe it's just a messy mix of both.
Precisely... and because of those exact reasons, I can say to you: "While your reaction is not understandable to me, it is clearly the product of a flawed interpretation; it is unclear whether your motivation is purely defensive (unnecessary), or if you fail to understand the difference between the proper and improper use of generalizations. Or maybe it is a combination of both." 😉 ''
hollowpuma762 said:Honestly? These principles were baked into American TV, radio, newspapers, and the web ages ago.
Welcome to the 21st century.
You really have to be careful when interpreting anything out of context, especially statements coming from people under the constant influence of substances. R. A. Wilson has this habit of drifting from actual wisdom straight into sweeping generalizations and mere guesswork. To put it mildly.
When we're talking about "obedience," it's smart to avoid those broad generalizations (as usual) and actually make a distinction regarding "authority." Authority itself is just a natural occurrence; whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on how it's being used.
The average person doesn't exactly possess the knowledge, the interest, or even the mental bandwidth to gather and apply deep insights into the principles affecting their own lives. So, they end up making moves that screw over both themselves and everyone around them. In those cases, it's actually wiser to defer to people who actually have the qualifications.
Disobeying a doctor who's trying to set healthy habits for a patient who's already trashed their own health... well, that's not exactly a genius move.
Society functions because of hierarchy. And while those anarchist tendencies might seem understandable given the state of the world today, they're really just the byproduct of a shallow, immature worldview.
Generalizing "obedience" based on the widespread perception of incompetent and corrupt leadership... it's just not a good call. Besides, "disobeying" the laws of nature and the forces that are much stronger than any individual leads to chaos, illness, and eventually, death.
Since you’ve taken my comment quite literally and are fixated on that generalization... I could offer you an equally "wise" observation in return:
hollowpuma762 said:Honestly? These principles were baked into American TV, radio, newspapers, and the web ages ago.
Welcome to the 21st century.
You really have to be careful when interpreting anything out of context, especially statements coming from people under the constant influence of substances. R. A. Wilson has this habit of drifting from actual wisdom straight into sweeping generalizations and mere guesswork. To put it mildly.
When we're talking about "obedience," it's smart to avoid those broad generalizations (as usual) and actually make a distinction regarding "authority." Authority itself is just a natural occurrence; whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on how it's being used.
The average person doesn't exactly possess the knowledge, the interest, or even the mental bandwidth to gather and apply deep insights into the principles affecting their own lives. So, they end up making moves that screw over both themselves and everyone around them. In those cases, it's actually wiser to defer to people who actually have the qualifications.
Disobeying a doctor who's trying to set healthy habits for a patient who's already trashed their own health... well, that's not exactly a genius move.
Society functions because of hierarchy. And while those anarchist tendencies might seem understandable given the state of the world today, they're really just the byproduct of a shallow, immature worldview.
Generalizing "obedience" based on the widespread perception of incompetent and corrupt leadership... it's just not a good call. Besides, "disobeying" the laws of nature and the forces that are much stronger than any individual leads to chaos, illness, and eventually, death.
The moment you use a phrase like "the average person," you are engaging in a generalization.
hollowpuma762 said:Honestly? These principles were baked into American TV, radio, newspapers, and the web ages ago.
Welcome to the 21st century.
You really have to be careful when interpreting anything out of context, especially statements coming from people under the constant influence of substances. R. A. Wilson has this habit of drifting from actual wisdom straight into sweeping generalizations and mere guesswork. To put it mildly.
When we're talking about "obedience," it's smart to avoid those broad generalizations (as usual) and actually make a distinction regarding "authority." Authority itself is just a natural occurrence; whether it's a good or bad thing depends entirely on how it's being used.
The average person doesn't exactly possess the knowledge, the interest, or even the mental bandwidth to gather and apply deep insights into the principles affecting their own lives. So, they end up making moves that screw over both themselves and everyone around them. In those cases, it's actually wiser to defer to people who actually have the qualifications.
Disobeying a doctor who's trying to set healthy habits for a patient who's already trashed their own health... well, that's not exactly a genius move.
Society functions because of hierarchy. And while those anarchist tendencies might seem understandable given the state of the world today, they're really just the byproduct of a shallow, immature worldview.
Generalizing "obedience" based on the widespread perception of incompetent and corrupt leadership... it's just not a good call. Besides, "disobeying" the laws of nature and the forces that are much stronger than any individual leads to chaos, illness, and eventually, death.
That is a generalization. To illustrate, consider this perfect example of someone who appeared highly qualified and was systematically educated within a hierarchy, even going so far as to assist the authorities (an authority under an authority, if you will): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy 😁
And so on... and so on...
But then again, that isn't really addressing your point; it’s just playing mental gymnastics, isn't it?😉
Honestly, you’d have a single Heavy Metal Fan agonizing over whether to pick a burly guy from some rural town who lives for county fairs, or go with three sharp-looking metalheads waiting in the car to whisk her away from the middle of nowhere to record her debut album. 😁
The whole parent scene dancing to metal is just tacky. I suppose they were trying to appeal to the fans, but they missed the mark entirely by trying to force a connection with the church—that unbelievable "ultra-cool" friendship between an attractive metal priest and a girl who clearly has no idea what she wants out of life. It feels like they did it out of fear that some Scandinavian church might get torched again. 😁 I can just see them telling angry young metalheads, "Hey, don't burn down our churches; we even have priests who dig metal too." 😁
Basically, the protagonist is this traumatized, frustrated girl—because apparently, according to the director, that's the only way to be if you listen to metal—who eats dinner with her parents while wearing corpse paint, only to snap, dress up, put on some lipstick, and run off to meet a priest for a tryst. 😁 But hey, he's a Protestant priest.
I generally love movies that support the metal community, but following the chaos surrounding Varg Vikernes, the obsession with wearing skull fragments, and the history of church burnings, they served up this lukewarm Sunday dinner drama about two incompatible worlds trying to find common ground. I don't think so. 😁
Obedience is perhaps the most devastating thing that can happen to any individual in their lifetime... R. A. Wilson articulated this truth quite eloquently a long time ago, and his wisdom is reflected in my signature.
There’s also the Milgram experiment out there, but personally? I find "The Third Wave" way more fascinating—it's actually what the movie was based on!
Indeed.
The film covering that specific movement is titled The Wave. It is a German production and truly phenomenal; I believe it is something everyone should experience.
Furthermore, The Experiment (also German, though there is a Hollywood version starring Adrien Brody) explores the Stanford prison experiment. If you have an interest in the literature behind the mastermind of the Stanford prison experiment... well, look toward Professor Zimbardo and his work, "Lucifer's Effect." You will likely feel a sense of nausea after just a few pages once you witness the practical examples of what obedience can do to a person. It is an incredibly instructive book, yet a difficult one to read.
rowdytiger13 said:A snob from a wealthy family who spends their time in high-end lounges debating social issues, workers' rights, and poverty with people just like them, all while avoiding any actual contact with the struggles they preach about because they find it beneath them. From our neck of the woods... though honestly, pretty much everyone fits the bill.
Lenin, Trotsky, and Karl Marx as the founding fathers😁
But then, what would we even call a salon-dwelling conservative? 🤔
The truth is, they are all just part of the same high-society circle!
I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it yet, but it seems this documentary covers all the essential critiques regarding Obama, particularly the segment concerning the "Wall Street government" he inherited from Bush...
Morgan Bishop4 said:Because after lying around for a few hours or even a day, most people's bodies eventually start screaming at them to move... those restlessness bugs kick in. Personally, I can maybe handle a day or two tops before I need to move, but some people can barely sit at home idling for a couple of hours before they lose it. That's why you gotta go for a bike ride, run errands, cook something up, tidy the house, or plant some flowers in the yard 😁 though obviously, working an eight-hour grind at the exact same job every single day isn't natural either 🙂 that kind of stuff kills me already, and I've barely even started my career. And of course, from the moment we're born, society drills it into our heads that being a tireless worker is some grand virtue, when really it just makes us better slaves for the people profiting off us... whether it was kings back in the day or the CEOs of massive corporations like Amazon nowadays... and man, big pharma must be loving it when we get sick from living like this. It's like, all that stress, the osteoporosis, the back pain... people, please, just use those two hours of free time you have between working all day and sleeping to cook yourself something healthy... but they've basically stripped away all our time to do anything else.
Well put.
...and then the psychologists act surprised when they encounter widespread depression, aggression, or a total loss of vitality in the population.😁
I am preparing myself to watch it. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he subtly, or perhaps even overtly, casts him in a negative light, given how many people he’s offended and everything he’s dragged into the public eye...
Imagine if David Fincher had taken on these biographies, or even those regarding Edward Snowden, instead of some mindless Facebook algorithm...
Steven Sanchez28 said:Oh, please. We don't need money at all. Honestly, we could all just live peacefully without a single cent. In fact, I want to personally challenge everyone who keeps citing those "back-to-nature" survivalist groups to actually go ahead and do what they claim is so wonderful. Go ahead—abandon the cities, ditch the internet, and walk away from the comforts of modern life. Head out into the deep woods to hunt game, completely unburdened by the weight of debt, bills, or the crushing stress of our capitalist society. Yeah, right. It’s a lot easier to type that nonsense on a keyboard from the comfort of your climate-controlled living room.
Money isn't everything in life. Look, I'm not exactly obsessed with it myself. But let's be realistic for once: you can't survive without it. That's just the reality of the world we live in. Some people argue that money only provides freedom. *Only?* Give me a break. Freedom is a massive advantage. It's a huge deal, it's not just some minor perk.
I still remember back when I was a college student, practically broke. A friend of mine called me up to head down to the coast for a trip—it was him and his girlfriend, and me and her sister. We were going to split all the costs, which sounded amazing to me. I tried everything humanly possible to scrape the cash together, but I just couldn't make it happen. Even though he offered to help me out, I had to prioritize my actual school expenses. So there I was, sitting on a bench outside the university building feeling totally gutted, while two guys sitting next to me were preaching the exact same sermon: "Money doesn't matter, you can achieve anything without it." I swear, I wanted to deck them right then and there. 😁
Most of us have stories just like that.
Everyone judges based on their current perspective. Take the average middle-class person, for example—they compare themselves to the ultra-wealthy. Sure, from that viewpoint, I wouldn't want to be a billionaire either. Having enough for a decent, normal life is plenty. But why don't you try comparing yourselves to the people living in poverty or those who are truly struggling? When the utility bills pile up and you're staring down an empty bank account, even love starts to feel different.
Well put.
However, I believe we can start with much smaller steps. Take food, for instance... if you have a garden, you might strike a deal with a neighbor. You provide the potatoes, they provide the tomatoes. Or perhaps I watch your kids while you tend to my garden, or I tutor someone in English while they fix my car. There are countless scenarios where service-for-service exchanges can flourish. Beyond the utility, it allows us to practice genuine human connection without any middleman involved.
Given the current trajectory—where wages are stagnating even as prices and taxes continue to climb—I suspect we will eventually be "forced" to rely on these kinds of small, community-based exchanges just to get by.
A masterclass in filmmaking. A stellar cast. 10/10.
One could argue that this functions as a biting political satire, illustrating why certain groups of people are perpetually drawn to placing a fool or a clown in power. Such a figure is incredibly easy to manipulate, simple to blame for every national misfortune, and just as effortless to discard when they are no longer useful.
Furthermore, it offers a poignant look at the evolution of journalism throughout history. It seems that, despite the passage of time, very little has truly changed in that regard.
In fact, I suspect the film is significantly less shocking than the actual reality unfolding within the halls of power and beyond.