You've got it all wrong. The Raiders actually formed because of some personal beef between members of the Thunder, but you should probably ask them for the specifics since I don't know every single detail. As for the Capitol, they've been their own separate club from the start and have an incredibly friendly relationship with the Thunder. Back in the day, the Capitol was just a group of people who wanted to play flag exclusively, and we all met up on a forum. Even the Thunder juniors—basically kids between 13 and 17—used to run drills with us at the local park. We weren't even a formal club yet; it was more like a bunch of friends meeting up after school to play pick-up games. The idea to turn into a serious club didn't hit until a year later when a core group dedicated solely to flag football really solidified, and that's when we officially organized. We existed mostly on paper until things started getting serious regarding the league and the flag football association. By then, the Thunder kids had stopped playing pick-up with us because most moved over to tackle, but now that the league is established, they've rounded up a new group of kids to start a flag squad again.
About 30 people have gone through the Capitol. We train out on a field near the local high school, dodging dog poop and everything, but we still crush it at tournaments—we took 5th out of 12 in Chicago, 13th out of 20 in Dallas, 2nd out of 12 in Miami, and lately, 7th out of 20 in Houston, plus 3rd out of 5 in New Orleans and 2nd in the national championships. Sure, we're an amateur club without big sponsors or deep pockets, and we just helped launch the association and the league, but we aren't going to let anyone trash us—especially not through a totally unprofessional medium like this forum. Especially when the person talking has absolutely no clue what they're saying or how things actually work. BTW, both the Thunder and the Capitol are members of the football association and always look out for each other. In the beginning, the Thunder used to lend us gear; I even played for their squad in New Orleans when they showed up with only four players. At tournaments, there’s always a great, friendly vibe between all the clubs. Plus, the Thunder and I work together to help grow the popularity of American football, even though we technically play two different versions of the game.
BTW, I’d recommend not jumping to conclusions or talking about stuff you clearly don't understand. Now Goran is gonna chew me out for even bothering to reply to such condescending posts.
The stats don't lie, man. It showed exactly what it was gonna show. We're talking about two totally different sports here, you know? Your take isn't based on any actual data or solid arguments, so honestly, it doesn't really carry much weight.
The Washington Capitals started out strictly as a flag football club, and they have zero intention of ever starting a tackle division. It’s like asking why small-sided soccer clubs exist when everyone can just play full-field soccer. They’re two different sports with totally different rules. Plus, flag football is perfect for recreational players who want to avoid those heavy injuries you see way more often in tackle football. Flag is non-contact, after all. But honestly, it's so easy to just hop on a forum and talk trash without actually knowing the facts. That pretty much sums up the mentality here—everyone thinks they're an expert on everything. 🙄
David Price5 said:Like I mentioned earlier, Batman and Punisher are also exceptions...
comic/graphic novel. Both are just fighting for their own goals..
Exactly, and Bone is a comic character fighting for his own goals too, but he isn't a superhero 🤷 just because he's a character in a comic. To be a superhero, you need at least some powers, like having X-ray vision to peek under skirts or something like that.😉
David Price5 said:I get that, but I think it's better to just throw everyone in there first. The best ones will naturally stand out anyway! :-D
It sounds like you might be missing the point of what a superhero actually is, and honestly, it seems like you haven't even read V for Vendetta 🙂. Strictly speaking, even Batman doesn't really fit the superhero mold since he's defined as a costumed crime fighter, but let's not split hairs. And V in V for Vendetta isn't even close—he's a terrorist. The movie tries to soften that by making the characters feel more black and white, but even then, I'd never call that a superhero movie. I mean, seriously, what does V for Vendetta have in common with Superman?🤷
Personally, my favorite superhero flick is actually an outlier—The Incredibles. As for the rest, I’d say Batman, Batman Begins, and Iron Man are top tier.
At the end of the day, you're the only yardstick you need to measure a movie's quality. When people dive deep into analysis, they often forget that film is basically just one person trying to connect with another—trying to explain something, entertain you, make you laugh, or just tell a story, whether it's profound or totally silly. It shouldn't matter how the shots are framed or how the characters act; what matters is how the movie hits *you*. Did it change your perspective? Did it blow your mind, or was it just annoying and boring? Trust me, nothing else counts.
Professional critiques are usually written by experts for other experts, and the average viewer doesn't really need to care about them. Sure, expanding your horizons is great, and knowing film history and technical stuff helps—especially since movies about movies are such a huge thing now—but even without all that, you still have that primal instinct: the simple gut feeling of "I liked this" or "I hated this." If you didn't dig No Country for Old Men, then you didn't dig it, period. Don't sweat what anyone else thinks, even if they have PhDs or've seen a million movies. Your take is just as valid, and if you can back it up, you'll be awesome to talk to. 😉 That's just my two cents.
btw Peterlić was awesome, but nobody should be put on a pedestal, not even the most important figure in American film history.
Man, I haven't checked it out since last year. Thanks 👋 Hey, I’d definitely recommend this one too—if you guys loved *Before Sunrise* and *Before Sunset*, you'll probably dig this. It's sitting at a 6.6 on IMDb, though, so I don't know if some of you have high enough standards to even give it a shot 🤣
I once downloaded a massive pile of French films only to realize there weren't any subtitles... so I just nuked the whole lot. Now, I'm still hunting for subs for *Bed and Board*, which I saw back when I was visiting Chicago and absolutely loved. It’s this sweet little indie flick about two people who meet up and decide to have a quick hookup at a motel. In South America, those kinds of stories are huge, and the movie is great—it's basically just them talking and hooking up.
You've also gotta take 90s movies with a grain of salt, honestly. It was a period where the USA was riding such a massive economic high for twenty years straight, and the dollar was incredibly strong.
David Price5 said:Actually, there wasn't any shooting through a curved pipe. Everything seemed quite standard.
Yeah. All that stuff about whether it’s believable or if the music works is just subjective, you know me—if I don't vibe with something, I just don't vibe with it. For me, the friendship felt real and the soundtrack was killer. Honestly, that whole Staten Island setting is such a cool concept because of how it blends those old-school Japanese vibes with urban hip-hop culture.
goldenhound32 said:Fair enough. I suppose there is some entertainment value in that. 🙂
I've been looking through: Believer, CQ, Delicatessen, Altar Boys, Experiment, Frailty, Hedwig (a fantastic film!), Kind Hearts and Coronets (equally excellent), M (also excellent), Pitch Black, Princess and the Warrior, Simone, Straight Story, Suspiria, 13 Conversations, Scarface, Zardoz, Suspiria, Straight Story, Simone, Pitch Black (though I have no idea why this one is even on the list given how famous it is), Devil's Backbone.
A Face in the Crowd and Emma's Shadow look quite decent, but I don't see myself sitting through those thrillers or documentaries about skaters and rappers anytime soon. 🙂
Has anyone actually sat down with 5000 Fingers of Dr. T? It looks somewhat promising, much like Fubar... and perhaps even enjoyable, given the sophisticated plot: "Two misfit girls meet, become friends, and decide to murder an elderly woman just for kicks." 😁
Is it just me, or did you list Suspiria, Pitch Black, Simone, and Straight Story twice? 🤷
By the way, Ghost Dog isn't exactly unknown either, but I still don't agree that it's bad—it's definitely not worse than Jarmusch's stuff. It’s one of those rare movies that looks at the blending of cultures and values in such an interesting way. I mean, you've got that old-school vs. new-school clash between the mobsters (who listen to Public Enemy) and Ghost Dog (who listens to Wu-Tang Clan). Plus, you have these two people who've crossed language and cultural barriers to become best friends, perfectly understanding each other even when they technically don't. And then there's Staten Island, which offers this cool mix of Black and Eastern culture and philosophy. To me, it's a super interesting and smart movie specifically because of those cultural layers.
Objectivity means stuff you can actually prove with data. Movie quality? That’s a different story. There aren't any objective metrics or scales to measure it—no ruler or weighing scale exists for art, just subjective human ideas about what makes a movie hit or miss. To me, "good" and "bad" are purely subjective terms. No matter how much someone knows about cinema or how educated they are, their take on a film isn't any more objective than some lady at the local farmer's market. You might manage to be unbiased, sure, but you can't be truly objective. I'm totally down to debate this, but let's move it elsewhere so we don't clutter up this thread.
I don't know, I've always felt that you can measure objective things with a yardstick, but you just can't do that with film quality. 1+1 equals 2 for everyone, but being swept away by the wind doesn't mean a movie is a masterpiece to every single person. Anyway, we've already gone back and forth on this on the forum, so I really don't feel like diving back into off-topic debates.
If we're strictly using the Hollywood vs. non-Hollywood distinction as our main way to split things up (which we are, since that's how this thread kicked off), then 🤷*Happiness* and *Nostalghia* basically end up in the same bucket. Even if those movies don't really share much else in common.