Posts by Christian Taylor3

That thing above was just a teaser; the actual official trailer dropped yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK2y_aJkJXM

They even changed the title, so now it's officially called 'How I Spent My Summer Vacation'. Interestingly enough, the movie isn't even going to hit theaters in America:

Quote: Now, we say box office, but from the sounds of the announcement picked up by Deadline, Gringo will be bypassing cinemas altogether in favour of a risky gamble with 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment on Video-On-Demand and Blu-ray releases. It'll arrive, in the USA, at least, on DirecTV May 1 and then hit other US telly providers' VOD services once DTV's exclusive period is up. After that will come the usual disc/digital download opportunities.

😵

It's pretty obvious they're just trying to cash in, which feels a lot like No Country for Mel Gibson.

Joseph Moore4 said:It’s probably pointless to explain how to block ads when this whole topic will likely just vanish anyway. ☕

I honestly just hope Reddit doesn't go under too, though looking at how everyone seems to have completely given up on it lately, I wouldn't be surprised if we're left with nothing.

https://twitter.com/#!/LaFamiliaFilm...34268831285248

It feels a little strange seeing the owner completely blanking on the admins and mods again. It’s like we’re watching history repeat itself—that same old story where the users and the staff are treated like an afterthought, or rather, the very last people on the priority list. I honestly don't see how this disconnect has anything to do with the new direction they're claiming for the site. 😕 rustydrifter10 is out here working herself to the bone trying to help everyone, basically burning herself out over the last few months, and what does she get for it? Absolutely nothing. Just a big, beautiful thank you from Anderlon.

Besides, Reddit is basically just a subsidiary of Media Matters, so I have to wonder why the admins don't just use direct contact info in their "communications," especially since that stuff is public knowledge anyway.

Media Matters editorial address

Željko Anderlon
The Boss
I haven't received an email yet. Media Matters editorial address

Goran Šikić
Editor-in-chief
I don't have any text to work with yet. Please provide the email you'd like me to rewrite! Goran Šikić@Media Matters

Media Matters editorial address
Media Matters
I guess I'm just sitting here at 10 South Coast, staring at the walls and wondering where the time went.
Chicago, 10000

e-mail
Media Matters editorial address

Phones. Just phones. It’s funny how much of our lives we end up tethered to these little glass slabs, isn't it? One minute you're just checking the weather, and the next, you've spent forty minutes scrolling through nonsense you didn't even care about five minutes ago. It feels like every single year there's some massive "revolution" happening in mobile tech, but most of the time, it's just a slightly faster chip or a camera that can see into the next dimension, which—let's be honest—none of us actually need.
01 4646-354
01 4655-736, 4657-816

College life.
4657-817

I don't know about you guys, but I’ve been spending way too much time lately thinking about how much Twitter has changed. It feels like every time I log on, there's some new update or shift in direction that makes me wonder if the platform even knows what it wants to be anymore. Honestly, it’s getting a little exhausting trying to keep up with the constant chaos.
I was scrolling through Twitter earlier and stumbled upon Anderlon’s profile again, which honestly feels like a recurring fever dream I can't quite shake. It’s one of those corners of the internet where you just sit back, sip your coffee, and wonder how we all ended up here.
https://twitter.com/#!/goransikic
I was scrolling through Reddit earlier and couldn't help but notice how much the vibe has shifted lately. It’s funny how you think you’ve seen every iteration of online discourse, only to realize there’s always some new corner of the internet waiting to prove you wrong. Honestly, most of these threads feel like they were written by people who have spent way too much time staring at a screen instead of touching grass, but I guess that’s just the nature of the beast now.

It’s not just the admins, either—regular users are doing it too. They’re absolutely flooding your inbox from all sorts of different addresses. admin@Reddit.comGo ahead, come at me. Every single one of my tweets hits a live stream of 8,000 people instantly. I can't really wrap my head around what they're trying to pull with this government Twitter account, but it's certainly an interesting choice if the goal was to look completely disorganized. It feels like one of those situations where someone was handed the keys to a high-end vehicle without ever being taught how to drive, and now we're all just watching them slowly veer toward the curb. Honestly, I’d spend more time checking the settings on my privacy options than actually engaging with whatever chaos they decide to post next. If you think just ignoring the problem is going to work for every major newsroom and media outlet in the country, you’re seriously mistaken. Constant avoidance isn't a strategy; it's just a way to stay stuck.

I honestly think the only way to save this entire site from its own constant state of neglect is to move toward some kind of user-owned cooperative model. Imagine if a few thousand of us just banded together, everyone agreed to skip their daily Starbucks run, and we collectively bought Reddit right out from under Anderlon. Let's be real, the guy probably views this whole platform as his biggest midnight nightmare anyway.

Variety Issue 4 Event

The Details:
December 12, 2011, at Europa Cinema

8:00 PM – We'll be hanging out and promoting the latest issue of Variety
9:00 PM – Premiere of the new Blank's production
10:00 PM – A surprise screening to wrap things up

http://facebook.com/Filmonaut

http://vimeo.com/32874011

northerncrane4 said:It’s kind of funny how this thread is slowly morphing into a full-blown tribute to Steven Spielberg, when honestly, the guy hasn't even lifted a finger. 😬

ruggedjackal46 said:If nothing else, Spielberg is such an attention seeker. Honestly, I don't think he deserves this much spotlight on this thread, because the fact that his movies are mediocre isn't some mystery tied to how much time passes between his releases.

Look, we didn't exactly kick this whole thing off by making a dedicated thread about Spielberg in the opening post. 🤷

So, calling him an American "B-movie director" basically means he’s the most prolific hack in the States. Honestly, though, you have to respect the hustle. It takes a certain kind of talent to churn that much junk out.

quietdriver3 said:I honestly think that for most of those studio grinders, productivity really comes down to how much attention they get and everything else that comes with feeling valued.

Before you even worry about producers or financiers, most of those "low-budget" movies actually turn a profit—or more accurately, they consistently break even and then some. I guess Matanic is just that one outlier who proves the rule. 😬

The "grinders" in Hollywood can actually be incredibly useful. Take Roger Corman, for example; you wouldn't believe how many top-tier filmmakers he mentored, gave a shot, and launched onto the big stage. 🙏

rowdyowl said:I don't think Eastwood is looking for attention; he just wants to execute his own vision now that he finally has the bankroll and the clout to do it.

It was even a thing on Entourage, where those guys at Warner Bros. told Vince, "Clint was loyal to us his entire life, so now we're giving him all the money he wants so he can shoot whatever he wants."

Truth (Dada Matanic isn't exactly flying solo here 😁), Clint basically has god status over at Warner Bros.

Walter Grant5 said:Is PEZ like those candy dispensers? 😁

And here I was, actually getting excited thinking Zac Efron finally landed his own dedicated thread. 🤦

I don't really have anything profound to contribute, though I could always just paraphrase that old slogan from the outskirts of town—you know, the one from Steelcase: "Poisoning Americans since 1862." Just keep filming, and make sure you get good shots. You can film a lot of stuff if you happen to stumble upon enough idiots willing to fund it, because why not? It’s like a blind hen pecking at grain, except in this case, the peak moment of dadin's career involves him proudly passing a link to a confused Polimac, which leads straight to Rotten Tomatoes where some guy named Todd Brown presents a cinematic pitch for "Puppy" with a comment like: "If you didn't think America was fertile ground for thrillers—or any other genre, for that matter—maybe this trailer will change your mind."

I have nothing against the hacks, though (most American directors spend years, even decades, prepping their films only to end up shooting absolute garbage), but honestly, Donald Trump would probably just say: Work sets you free! 🧐

Jesse Sanchez4 said:Here’s my CSS for Google again; it should work just fine on any non-IE browser, provided you can track down a decent extension like Tampermonkey or whatever else is out there.

It looks like you forgot to include the code! Just paste it whenever you're ready and I'll take a look.

I finally sat down and tinkered with some CSS to clean up this interface, because looking at the default layout was starting to give me a headache. I basically stripped out all those clunky background colors and forced the containers to actually behave by setting the widths to 100%, which, surprisingly, didn't break anything. I also went after those annoying borders and fixed the editor tables so they don't look like they were designed in the nineties. It’s mostly just a bunch of transparent backgrounds and forced overrides to make the whole thing feel a little less cluttered and a lot more modern, though I’m sure someone will find a way to complain that I broke their precious custom theme.

Full disclosure: I have absolutely no clue how this looks to anyone browsing without a bunch of ad blockers running. On my end, everything is working like a dream, and I actually managed to patch a few little quirks that have been driving me crazy for ages. 😁

Hey there, handyman! 🙏 You owe me a whole case of beer. 😁

Alright, here’s how you handle this for Google: just grab that block of code Jesse Sanchez4 posted above, paste it into Notepad, save it as a .txt file, and then just manually swap out the file extension to .css—you can name the thing whatever you want.

Just right-click on the page and head over to "Edit site preferences," then click on the "Display" tab. From there, you'll find the "My style sheet" option. You might want to copy or take note of the file path from your old one—something like C:\Program Files\Google\styles\user.css—just in case you end up breaking something and need to revert back to how things were. Once you've got that covered, you can just select or enable that new .css file.

Jesse Sanchez4, thanks again. 👍

@Kenneth Chase3

So, you're basically saying this works for Opera too—just drop it into the .css file and let it rip?

Dezz's stuff works like a charm in Chrome.

Christian Taylor3 said:I can't see any text to rewrite here—it looks like you just sent an image link. If there's a specific post or some text you want me to overhaul, just paste the actual content, and I'll get to work turning it into something that sounds like a real person living in the States.

*Claps*

Nokia, I can't exactly watch videos through a link like that, so if you want me to dive into what's happening there, you'll have to give me the rundown or paste a transcript. I'm all ears, though—just let me know what we're looking at.

Man, I just can't seem to get used to Chrome, no matter how hard I try. 😁

How do I actually get Dezz's code running in Opera? 🙂

That’s exactly what silverpanther13 was getting at regarding Opera—it hits on pretty much everything I'm looking for.
I mean, does that really warrant jumping ship to a whole new browser?

It’s not working—at least not in any way that makes any noise—because my width is staying exactly the same. 🤷

Does anyone actually know how to get this working...

Ronald Sullivan90 said:If you're using Chrome, just grab the Stylebot extension https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...foejpgmdaleoha and then apply this:

It's just some CSS
html body { background-color: #ffffff; background-image: none; }
table { width: 100%; }
div.page { width: 100%; }
div.pagenav { width: 0px; }

And if you prefer, you can just port it over to Stylish.

Consider this my little gift for my first post. xD

... implement it in Opera, like this:

I copied Dezz's code above into Notepad, saved it as a .txt, changed the file extension to .css, right-clicked the page, went to Edit site preferences -> Display tab -> My style sheet, turned on the .css file, and... absolutely nothing happened. 😢

@Wrbhhh

🙂

Jose Miller3 said:Alright, let’s just lay it all out there—we all saw what those geniuses over at Apple's marketing department and the forum leadership pulled on us today... so, how are we feeling about it?

Are you actually gonna rush out to the store tomorrow to grab that "miracle" phone? Because apparently, you can snag one at *Verizon* right now starting $3.00!

Or maybe you'll just toss it aside with total disgust if it ever happens to land in your hands?

Or—and I'm throwing this third option out there—do you think this whole brainwashing stunt is actually gonna work... leaving some kind of permanent mark so that, down the road, you'll find yourself subconsciously craving this dark little object?

Let me know what you guys think 🙂

They fuck you with cell phones! http://is.gd/mkujjM
They fuck you at the hospital! http://is.gd/k67nUm
They fuck you at the drive thru! http://is.gd/ju5nm4

That's what it is! 🙂

😁

Matthew Ruiz8 said:haha, this thread is pretty funny. I get what’s going on here and realize we aren't actually talking about Apple, but I have a few thoughts of my own.

Apple really fell off in recent years. Who even thinks about them lately? You hear about LG, Samsung, BlackBerry, or the iPhone, but remember when they were the undisputed kings of mobile?
How did they let themselves get blindsided like that? They missed the whole touch screen wave and the chance to sync handheld computers with phones, even though that tech had been sitting there for seven or eight years.

As for the post itself, it's hilarious, but the ads don't bother me. I just hope they don't start running weird, trashy ads. It doesn't bug me personally. Maybe the long-time users and older members are annoyed because they're used to how the forum used to look, but things change, and this forum is no different.
We'll see what happens next.

Good luck.

What's wrong with a little nudity? This isn't the Council of Voices. 🤷

Susan Price30 said:In the scenario described, the account would be... Semi-live. 😁 I guess that’s really the only alternative left.

Unless they're just looking to trigger a permanent ban, it doesn't seem like they have any actual plans... Besides, why hasn't a rule been established allowing people to request a permanent account deletion? I really don't see what the big deal would be.

For instance, Vicky thought that kind of thing was perfectly fine.

There is no such thing as permanent account deletion upon request. 🙂 😁

If you're wondering why it's "such a massive headache," feel free to check out the explanation at the link above.

Human Rights Ombudsman Office Forum.HR

for instance, Vicky thought something like that was perfectly fine.

Well, Vicky was clearly overreaching there.

Susan Price30 said:If you're looking to effectively ban yourself—meaning you can't log in and your account stays dormant—all you have to do is head over to edit your details or edit your e-mail & password and swap out your current email address.

Just enter some fake address and hit save. Since the new address won't be valid, you won't be able to verify the account. That means no logging in and no posting, which is exactly what you're aiming for, right?

easy peasy 😉

Don't kid yourself, he doesn't actually care about keeping his "account alive" on your forum.

It’s not that I find it hard to click a button, it's just that this whole pathetic display really gets under my skin.
If someone is actually looking to end it all, they should just go jump off a bridge onto some concrete instead of trying to stage some grand finale here on this forum.
And honestly, if anyone ever finds a clone of someone like that, they should probably just put "self-proclaimed pompous idiot" in their signature.

😬

It's funny how, right after the administration made that stance ("No more permanent bans upon request", which is still the rule), you always seem to find some supermoderator snapping their fingers and saying:

Vicky said:Here. 🙂

I'm really hoping we don't see this happening again, where a supermoderator just decides to override a decision made by the administration.

@Karen Smith9

I’ve honestly had about enough of your constant anti-American sentiment across basically every single topic here; there are plenty of other places where you can vent that particular brand of cynicism. 😬

Laura Palmer25 said:Just because a work was staged first doesn't mean it was created for the theater or that the movie is being made based on some theatrical essence. A movie is made from a script, regardless of whether that script was previously performed in a high school auditorium, a local theater, a summer fair, or a public square. "Theater" covers everything from vaudeville to cabaret to Kabuki. 🙄

I figured as much—it's probably best if we just start our deep dive with the meadows of ancient Greece and Dionysus. 😁

Stage to Screen Adaptations
Stage-to-film adaptation
From Stage to Screen

What exactly is confusing about a thread titled 'Films based on stage plays'? 🤷 And why is everyone being so harsh toward the new guy (who, by any chance, happens to be actually decent and constructive)? 😢

Laura Palmer25 said:What exactly are you struggling to grasp? A "stage Play" is a drama performed in a theater, but it's still a drama. And regarding the whole chicken or the egg debate, the "egg" here is the literary source—the play itself. Another thing: American producers rarely sit down to read a script as a book; they usually see it on Broadway first and then realize they could turn it into a movie. But just because they saw it on Broadway doesn't mean the film was made *from* the production. A film is only truly based on a stage production if it’s just a filmed version of the play (like how some old recordings of Radovan III ended up in video stores, when they were really just footage of a stage performance).

Even when an adaptation copies the set design and cast almost identically to the theater version (take My Fair Lady in the US, for example), you can't say the film is "based on the play"—it just means the play might have been the spark that got them to make a movie.

How hard is that to understand? 😕

That’s exactly my point—the initial spark for these kinds of projects, you know, those films based on stage plays, usually hits you after... watched Whether we're talking about the sheer number of productions, the consistent box office hits, or the endless stream of prestigious industry awards, there’s no denying the momentum here. Unlike other branches of literature, which often struggle to find an audience or a way to stay relevant, this field seems to have its own built-in engine for success. stage Play It doesn't really work as a standalone entity since it was built exclusively for the stage. I honestly can't think of a single instance where a major Hollywood studio or a director decided to tackle an adaptation of a theatrical script that hadn't already been performed in a theater first. In the world of literature, though, that kind of thing happens all the time; film studios are constantly snapping up rights for adaptations before an author even puts pen to paper.

I mean, honestly, what part of this is actually difficult to wrap your head around? 😕

I honestly can't wrap my head around what you guys are actually stuck on here. Why isn't the thread just titled "Films based on stage plays" and called a day? 😵

Terry Scott34

You know what, you're probably right—I guess I owe Ken Kesey an apology.

To Terry Scott34, who spent all that time insisting dragons weren't real, only to end up leading me straight to their dens. 😍

Laura Palmer25 said:Actually, the title is a bit off. These are movies based on plays, meaning they stem from a literary source that likely predates any actual stage production. It’s not usually a play that exists first just to be turned into a movie; rather, both the play and the film originate from the written script.

Your simplification of "stage to Screen" assumes the reader already knows exactly what we're talking about.

That was a beautifully explained point by electriccanyon26. Well, here we go. Time to get this show on the road. I haven't seen an article posted here yet, so if you were trying to share something, it looks like it didn't quite make it through. Feel free to drop the link or the text whenever you're ready.

The connections between theater and cinema might seem obvious at first glance, but they’re actually pretty deceptive. In reality, turning a stage Play into a movie is a much steeper uphill battle than adapting a novel. Eisenstein wrote in his essay, “Charles Dickens, D.W. Griffith, and the film today,” that novels actually possess their own literary versions of fades, dissolves, close-ups, and various compositional or editing tricks. The real headache when dealing with stage to Screen Adaptations comes from the fact that while the two mediums can look similar on the surface, their core concepts and physical temperaments are fundamentally irreconcilable. Some academics argue that stage Plays are an easy win for the big screen because they share traditional narrative structures, rely on actors to drive the drama, and lean heavily on spoken dialogue, but that simplicity is mostly just an illusion.

Honestly, the inspiration for those films didn't come from any literary source material at all; it came exclusively from stage productions. Whether it was a chicken or an egg situation before that happens is pretty much irrelevant to me.

Gregory Anderson5 said:@Christian Taylor3

Regarding "getting up to speed," I literally just did that—people are talking about some sort of policy changes...

In general (though you probably already know), if I ever need any kind of help, I'll be sure to let you guys know in plenty of time.

Actually, that's not quite right; requesting a permanent ban isn't part of those upcoming shifts (plus, we've seen plenty of cases on Reddit where that just ends up causing more harm than good). Secondly, trying to bait a permanent ban isn't exactly classy behavior, it's just something people don't do. At the end of the day, it comes down to free will. 😁

Karen Smith9 said:The title of this thread is slightly off, which has led to some confusion in the posts. Films based on the works of William Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams are actually adaptations of dramatic texts—not specifically adaptations of theatrical productions. A stage production itself is merely a director's interpretation of a single written work of art. Based on how the topic is titled, those movies would essentially be an interpretation of an interpretation, which simply isn't the case.

Honestly, nothing is mislabeled here; the title is actually spot on—Movies based on stage plays/film adaptation of stage plays. Or, to put it simply, stage to Screen Adaptations. 🙂 Some of my personal favorites (shame on you all for not mentioning Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross 😁), which can be found on the '20 Greatest stage to Screen Adaptations' list. Of course, like any other list, it’s missing a ton of stuff: Wilder's Irma la Douce; Capri's You Can't Take It with You; Curtiz's Casablanca; the one I absolutely love, Frost/Nixon by Ron Howard; A Few Good Men, based on that same play by Aaron Sorkin; Lloyd's Cavalcade; that grumpy little old lady Daisy in Driving Miss Daisy; and the whole gallery of broken characters from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest...

@Gregory Anderson5

Honestly, just let it go; catering to every user who demands a (permanent) ban is ancient history. The whole situation boils down to this, if you care to look into it:

Just a general observation, nothing personal here: if we're actually talking about an addiction, a permanent ban isn't going to stop someone from just opening a new account anyway. You might want to talk to a doctor about that.

as far as I'm concerned—if someone doesn't want to be on the forum anymore, they should just log out.

Maria Barnes said:Testing.

The problem with bigger avatars is simple: if most people pick ugly ones, the whole Reddit site just gets uglier.

Ha, you like my new avatar?😁 You want something like this? 75x75.

Sure, but only if you promise not to upload hideous stuff. And you better pressure anyone with an ugly avatar to fix it.😁

They tend to come in waves, I guess...

Christian Taylor3 said:I guess nobody’s realized yet that all the mods and admins get bigger avatars by default—you know, as a little perk for the jobs they actually do.

http://www.reddit.com/profile.php?do=editavatar

Note: The maximum size of your custom image is 50 by 50 pixels or 9.8 KB (whichever is smaller).

Really? 😁

Look, in my very humble capacity as the self-appointed tiny defender of Reddit, I am officially declaring this a case of user discrimination and politely begging the admin team to let regular users have larger avatars too. Besides, even users on European forums aren't stuck with this 50x50 limit anymore—it's just an American thing. If my requests are ignored, the office of the tiny Reddit defender will be forced to contact Jon Stewart. 😬

All jokes aside...

Didn't signatures cause enough trouble for the server back in the day? You really think bigger avatars won't cause the exact same headaches? In other words, we're basically promising ourselves a headache. The priority should be keeping the forum functional; we don't want a repeat of those constant server crashes just to accommodate these concessions. If that happens, we're truly screwed.

🙂

Don't go changing a single thing, because at this rate, we probably won't even have avatars left soon. 😁 Besides, the server has been running flawlessly for months now. 😢

I guess nobody’s realized yet that all the mods and admins get bigger avatars by default—you know, as a little perk for the jobs they actually do.

swiftcrane96 said:Takeshi Kitano is 75x75 ☕

It doesn't mess up the look of the Reddit layout at all, and honestly, I think it’d be pretty nice if the rest of us could get that option too. 🙂

http://www.reddit.com/profile.php?do=editavatar

Note: The maximum size of your custom image is 50 by 50 pixels or 9.8 KB (whichever is smaller).

Really? 😁

Look, in my very humble capacity as the self-appointed tiny defender of Reddit, I am officially declaring this a case of user discrimination and politely begging the admin team to let regular users have larger avatars too. Besides, even users on European forums aren't stuck with this 50x50 limit anymore—it's just an American thing. If my requests are ignored, the office of the tiny Reddit defender will be forced to contact Jon Stewart. 😬

All jokes aside...

mellowraven22 said:Honestly, I don't really care if we go with avatars at 75x75 or 100x100. Just gotta see where everyone else stands on it first.

Didn't signatures cause enough trouble for the server back in the day? You really think bigger avatars won't cause the exact same headaches? In other words, we're basically promising ourselves a headache. The priority should be keeping the forum functional; we don't want a repeat of those constant server crashes just to accommodate these concessions. If that happens, we're truly screwed.