179 posts shown.
restlesscrane152 I guess what they're saying is...
I mean, isn't it just kind of obvious, I guess, that most of the people hanging out in coffee shops are actually just smokers? It feels like you can barely find a quiet corner without someone blowing a cloud of smoke right in your direction, though maybe I'm just being cynical about it.
I mean, I wouldn't say they're the *only* reason, but if we're looking at a massive 50 to 60 percent drop in revenue, then I guess it’s pretty safe to assume that smokers aren't exactly some tiny, insignificant minority of their customer base. It just seems like such an obvious correlation when you look at those kinds of numbers, though maybe I'm oversimplifying things.
First off, I guess if you really look at the numbers, smokers are actually a bit of a minority in our society these days; most people out there aren't even touching a cigarette anymore.
I mean, look, if you ask me, restaurateurs really ought to be fighting harder to cater to the majority—you know, the non-smokers. It honestly seems incredibly shortsighted that, up until now, so many establishments have been essentially "hosting" a tiny minority of smokers in these thick, hazy rooms, while the actual majority just gets turned away or forced to sit there inhaling secondhand smoke they never asked for in the first place. I guess it’s just one of those things where common sense wasn't exactly the priority, maybe.
I guess you could say this whole shift in the crowd isn't actually a bad thing for folks running the local bars and eateries. If anything, it’s kind of a blessing in disguise, maybe? It basically gives them a chance to pivot from catering to that small, gritty minority—you know, the ones who spend half their night hovering around an ashtray with a lukewarm coffee—and actually start focusing on the much larger crowd that just wants to drink without having to dodge a cloud of smoke every five seconds.
I mean, if you look at the timing, that whole smoking ban thing just happened to hit right when the economy was absolutely cratering, which I guess makes it easy to point fingers. People like to blame the ban for everything, but honestly, the massive slump in sales for furniture, appliances, cars, or even vacations... that wasn't exactly caused by people not being allowed to light up indoors. It’s not like only smokers were out there buying refrigerators and washing machines, right? And the struggle for restaurants and bars—well, a huge chunk of that misery was driven by the financial crisis itself. Even without that smoking ban, things probably would have tanked anyway, I suppose.
I guess I should probably start by saying that whenever someone decides to drop a Quote like that, it really just sets a certain tone for the whole conversation, doesn't it? It’s funny, in a way, how we all cling to these little snippets of text as if they're some kind of absolute truth or a definitive anchor, though maybe I'm just being overly cynical about the whole thing, which, let's be honest, is probably my default setting at this point. It feels like we're all just circling around these ideas, trying to find some sort of footing, but then someone pulls a move like this and suddenly the floor feels a bit more slippery than it did a moment ago, I suppose.
restlesscrane152 said:Then enlighten me—what's the actual difference? Or is the difference just that it's obvious women mostly walk into salons, while it's not "obvious" that most cafe patrons are smokers?
Second, this theory that cafes have only hosted smokers until now is total nonsense.
Not exclusively, sure. But if their revenue is tanking by 50-60%, then smokers definitely aren't some tiny minority of their customers.
What, haven't you seen it on NBC or USA Network?
Nope. Not really. But hey, giving them the benefit of the doubt—I don't watch them, so I wouldn't know.
Is the "proposal to repeal" a daily topic? By that logic, we could listen to restaurant owners' fairy tales every single day until 2080. Or requests to legalize prostitution. That proposal is a daily thing too.
I don't know which news site mentioned it, but one said the law might be scrapped due to the crisis—so yeah, the topic is current.
Enlighten me. I'm only interested in hearing from cafe owners. And their tragic little lives.
So you're not a restaurant owner?
What a truly fascinating "breaking news" story we have here. It seems like ever since someone brought it up, we’re being force-fed these endless little dramas about local restaurant owners on every major nightly news broadcast, day in and day out. It’s just one constant stream of trivial nonsense being treated like front-page headlines on networks like Fox, and honestly, I guess it feels a bit ridiculous when you consider that there are actually significant, world-altering events happening everywhere else at the same time.
restlesscrane152 said:Then enlighten me—what's the actual difference? Or is the difference just that it's obvious women mostly walk into salons, while it's not "obvious" that most cafe patrons are smokers?
Second, this theory that cafes have only hosted smokers until now is total nonsense.
Not exclusively, sure. But if their revenue is tanking by 50-60%, then smokers definitely aren't some tiny minority of their customers.
What, haven't you seen it on NBC or USA Network?
Nope. Not really. But hey, giving them the benefit of the doubt—I don't watch them, so I wouldn't know.
Is the "proposal to repeal" a daily topic? By that logic, we could listen to restaurant owners' fairy tales every single day until 2080. Or requests to legalize prostitution. That proposal is a daily thing too.
I don't know which news site mentioned it, but one said the law might be scrapped due to the crisis—so yeah, the topic is current.
Enlighten me. I'm only interested in hearing from cafe owners. And their tragic little lives.
So you're not a restaurant owner?
What exactly do you mean when you throw around a term like "hospitality professional"? I guess it’s one of those labels that people toss around like they mean something specific, but honestly, it feels a bit nebulous, doesn't it? Maybe you're talking about the person behind the bar at a local pub in Chicago, someone just trying to get through a shift, or maybe you mean the high-end restaurateurs who run these massive, polished establishments in Manhattan. It could be anyone from a small-town diner owner to some corporate executive managing a hotel chain like Marriott. It’s a broad spectrum, really—it might imply a certain level of grace and service, or it might just be a fancy way of describing someone who works in the service industry, which, let’s face it, can be pretty soul-crushing sometimes. I suppose there's a difference between someone who truly lives for the art of hosting and someone who is just punching a clock, but I don't know, the line seems pretty blurry to me.
I mean, what kind of guy actually goes through the whole grind of culinary school just to come out the other side as a chef, a server, a pastry specialist, or some kind of high-end hotel manager? It’s a lot, I guess. You spend all those years mastering the art of the perfect souffle or learning how to balance a tray while navigating a crowded dining room in downtown Chicago, and then you realize that the industry is basically just one giant, beautiful, exhausting whirlwind. Maybe it's the passion for the craft, or maybe people just have a weirdly high tolerance for standing on their feet for twelve hours straight, but I can't help but wonder what drives someone to commit to that specific life path.
Or maybe you’re thinking about what I mean by a "hospitality professional"—you know, an American? Because, honestly, in the States, everyone seems to be in the service industry in some capacity. It feels like every single American is born with a server's degree already tucked in their pocket, and then, of course, you have all those mobsters or pro athletes who suddenly become "small business owners," which is just a fancy way of saying they own a local bar or a diner. So, if I’m an American, I guess that technically makes me a hospitality professional too, if we're going by that logic.
Look, if what I was trying to get at—and I guess I was just trying to point out that since I’m not some professionally trained hospitality expert, you know, like someone who went to culinary school or spent years grinding as a server or a pastry chef—was basically just a roundabout way of saying, "then maybe just keep quiet because you clearly have no clue how grueling life actually is for a small business owner running a local pub," then I honestly think I owe you an explanation. I mean, maybe I didn't phrase it right, but I was really just attempting to say that unless you've lived the struggle of owning a dive bar or a neighborhood diner, you probably don't grasp the sheer weight of it all.
I can't help but wonder, I really do, just how much schooling someone actually needs to go through to pull off owning a bar—you know, to actually be the one calling the shots behind the counter instead of just scrubbing floors. I guess it’s one of those things where you wonder if there's some formal degree involved or if it’s all just learned on the fly through trial and error, which seems more likely, honestly. And then there's the grind of it all... I mean, how many hours is this person actually pulling in every single day? It’s probably exhausting, and I can't help but think about the physical toll, like, does their back just absolutely ache by the end of a shift from standing around all night? Maybe. Plus, you have to consider the whole life balance thing; like, is there even enough left over at the end of the month to buy schoolbooks for the kids, or is everything just swallowed up by overhead? And where do they even find the money for extra supplies or stuff for homework? It makes me wonder if they're just scraping by, maybe taking the bus or the subway to get to work every morning just to save a few bucks. It's a lot to juggle, I suppose.
I mean, the real crux of the matter here is how we’re comparing this supposed "hard life" to what everyone else is actually going through. There are so many people out there—way more than just the restaurant owners, I'd say, probably ten times as many—who are feeling the crushing weight of this crisis every single day, struggling just to scrape together enough cash for school supplies or even a bus pass, yet you never see Fox or any other major network putting them front and center in the nightly news cycle...
restlesscrane152 said:That’s like telling a nail salon—"hey, you mostly cater to women, maybe try something to attract guys." Like I said—pure stupidity.
Are you seriously claiming that CBS or NBC spent months on end following the decline of the furniture industry? Like they were out in the field every single day interviewing workers and owners?
No way.
What kind of domestic furniture industry do we even have here anyway? 😁
And if we're talking about "old news," then pitying struggling restaurant owners is also old news to me. If they started airing those segments back in late 2008, why are we still stuck watching them every damn day..?
The whole thing is relevant because there's a proposal to scrap that specific law.
Because what's more important than 3,000 or 6,000 Americans who have steady jobs where they've basically been "coasting while the money just rolls in"? Is America going to be most harmed if a few thousand bar owners go under?
I'm guessing you're a restaurateur yourself, so you know how easy that is to say, right?
Yeah, and sure, there will be damage because revenue will drop. But whatever, it'll just get made up through taxes. If there were any God and justice in this world, those taxes would hit nothing but the non-smokers and the self-righteous moralists.
Well, you called it "nonsense," but I think what you wrote was actually the nonsense part, if you follow me. First off, those two things aren't even the same thing, really. Second, this whole theory that bars have exclusively catered to smokers until now is just... I don't know, it feels wrong. And third, restaurant owners aren't just running strip clubs; they're running diners, ice cream parlors, actual businesses...
restlesscrane152 said:That’s like telling a nail salon—"hey, you mostly cater to women, maybe try something to attract guys." Like I said—pure stupidity.
Are you seriously claiming that CBS or NBC spent months on end following the decline of the furniture industry? Like they were out in the field every single day interviewing workers and owners?
No way.
What kind of domestic furniture industry do we even have here anyway? 😁
And if we're talking about "old news," then pitying struggling restaurant owners is also old news to me. If they started airing those segments back in late 2008, why are we still stuck watching them every damn day..?
The whole thing is relevant because there's a proposal to scrap that specific law.
Because what's more important than 3,000 or 6,000 Americans who have steady jobs where they've basically been "coasting while the money just rolls in"? Is America going to be most harmed if a few thousand bar owners go under?
I'm guessing you're a restaurateur yourself, so you know how easy that is to say, right?
Yeah, and sure, there will be damage because revenue will drop. But whatever, it'll just get made up through taxes. If there were any God and justice in this world, those taxes would hit nothing but the non-smokers and the self-righteous moralists.
Wait, are you seriously out of the loop on what they're saying on CBS and NBC?
restlesscrane152 said:That’s like telling a nail salon—"hey, you mostly cater to women, maybe try something to attract guys." Like I said—pure stupidity.
Are you seriously claiming that CBS or NBC spent months on end following the decline of the furniture industry? Like they were out in the field every single day interviewing workers and owners?
No way.
What kind of domestic furniture industry do we even have here anyway? 😁
And if we're talking about "old news," then pitying struggling restaurant owners is also old news to me. If they started airing those segments back in late 2008, why are we still stuck watching them every damn day..?
The whole thing is relevant because there's a proposal to scrap that specific law.
Because what's more important than 3,000 or 6,000 Americans who have steady jobs where they've basically been "coasting while the money just rolls in"? Is America going to be most harmed if a few thousand bar owners go under?
I'm guessing you're a restaurateur yourself, so you know how easy that is to say, right?
Yeah, and sure, there will be damage because revenue will drop. But whatever, it'll just get made up through taxes. If there were any God and justice in this world, those taxes would hit nothing but the non-smokers and the self-righteous moralists.
"A proposal to repeal" is a daily occurrence, I guess. If we go by that logic, we could sit here listening to the endless whining of hospitality workers or demands for the legalization of prostitution until the year 2080. Every single day, there's some new proposal for legalization.
restlesscrane152 said:That’s like telling a nail salon—"hey, you mostly cater to women, maybe try something to attract guys." Like I said—pure stupidity.
Are you seriously claiming that CBS or NBC spent months on end following the decline of the furniture industry? Like they were out in the field every single day interviewing workers and owners?
No way.
What kind of domestic furniture industry do we even have here anyway? 😁
And if we're talking about "old news," then pitying struggling restaurant owners is also old news to me. If they started airing those segments back in late 2008, why are we still stuck watching them every damn day..?
The whole thing is relevant because there's a proposal to scrap that specific law.
Because what's more important than 3,000 or 6,000 Americans who have steady jobs where they've basically been "coasting while the money just rolls in"? Is America going to be most harmed if a few thousand bar owners go under?
I'm guessing you're a restaurateur yourself, so you know how easy that is to say, right?
Yeah, and sure, there will be damage because revenue will drop. But whatever, it'll just get made up through taxes. If there were any God and justice in this world, those taxes would hit nothing but the non-smokers and the self-righteous moralists.
Maybe enlighten me then. I'm purely interested in the life of a coffee shop owner. You know, their incredibly difficult existence.
Patrick Diaz2 said:Quincy:silentridge3 As stated by:
I find myself watching the news on Fox and NBC every single day.
I find myself quite perplexed by the fact that this occurs on a daily basis. Breaking news just hit the wires regarding some major updates that could significantly impact both smokers and those working in the hospitality industry.Yesterday, we saw a headline claiming "someone said something regarding the smoking ban" (which was apparently vital enough to lead the news cycle), and today, we have "someone responding to that statement" (which clearly requires immediate, urgent broadcasting). Tomorrow, I fully expect some local restaurant owner to lodge a complaint about the regulations (providing us with the perfect opportunity for a televised segment), and this cycle will simply continue indefinitely.
In America, roughly 30% of the population smokes, while the remaining 70% does not. Additionally, there are approximately 20,000 hospitality business owners nationwide, encompassing everything from small local cafes to larger establishments.
Let’s consider a scenario where overall consumer spending takes a sudden 30% dive. Imagine if 30% of our local coffee shops and eateries were forced to shutter their doors permanently. We would be looking at roughly 6,000 small business owners—individuals who are likely more financially stable than most teachers or office workers, given they often own property and drive nice cars—having to lock up for good. These 6,000 entrepreneurs wouldn't be able to lure customers back in simply by allowing smoking inside; there just isn't a way to fix that kind of economic hit with such a minor concession.
On the other hand, we are seeing people across America losing their jobs on a daily basis. Local furniture manufacturers are folding, the textile industry is absolutely struggling to stay afloat, and there are roughly 50,000 workers in the shipyards and steel mills who are either facing imminent layoffs or are already out on the street.
I find myself wondering why networks like Fox and NBC don't address these matters on a daily basis. Why isn't there constant coverage regarding the current state of American furniture manufacturing? It seems quite strange that we don't hear daily updates on what a factory worker might be saying about their shifts, or perhaps discussions regarding proposed legislation aimed at providing tax incentives to that specific industry. Where is the reporting on the immediate grievances of a plant employee, or the subsequent complaints an owner might lodge tomorrow? I truly struggle to understand why such vital topics remain so quiet in our media landscape.
Is it truly just because they've decided to prioritize young, untalented journalists—and the exact same type of editors who hire them? The most straightforward option would be to simply head over to a local brewery nearby.And there you go, just hanging out over a free cup of coffee. I am currently planning to interview a local brewery owner.Can you honestly imagine making a feature story out of his "tragic struggle"? It’s almost absurd. At the exact same moment that a hundred factory workers are heading home for the last time—still waiting on their final six paychecks—you have some restaurant owner standing there with tears in his eyes, playing the victim. This is the same guy who, instead of investing in proper ventilation for his business, decided to drop all that cash on beachfront property and a luxury car. It’s truly something else. It truly feels as though my entire world has been upended recently, as I struggle to navigate the immense challenges brought on by the recent ban on smoking. It is quite difficult to put into words the profound sense of loss one feels when such a deeply ingrained daily ritual is suddenly stripped away. Every morning used to begin with that quiet, contemplative moment, but now, there is only a lingering sense of restlessness and an empty space where that comfort once resided. I find myself reflecting on how much our small habits shape our very existence, and losing this one has made my daily routine feel strangely hollow and significantly more taxing than I ever anticipated....?
What even qualifies as "news" or a "daily report" anymore? It’s just one endless loop of legislation regarding smoking bans, followed by constant campaign ads for Tom Bradley, then more ads for Donald Trump, and then some fluff about Kim Kardashian... only to circle right back to smoking regulations and restaurant owners. It truly feels like we're just going in circles. |
Why on earth would you even bother watching that kind of news?
But look, if you find yourself stuck watching them anyway, and you're starting to wonder why things have turned out this way, the answer is actually quite simple.
To be perfectly honest, producing a legitimate news segment or a deep-dive article on sectors like shipbuilding or the timber industry requires a significant amount of rigorous research, heavy lifting, and genuine intellectual effort. It’s much easier to simply wander into a local coffee shop. There, you can easily find attractive baristas to interview or a group of people sitting in a corner to grab a quick quote from. Plus, the subject matter is instantly relatable to everyone. You don't have to spend time explaining the complexities of lumber quality, wood seasoning processes, or the intricate web of subcontractors and suppliers within a shipyard. You don't even have to explain who the primary buyers are. Consequently, we see a constant trivialization of complex issues. This media tendency toward oversimplification leads to the dilution of public discourse, which ultimately results in the erosion of critical thinking among the general public.
In short, they are simply pacifying the masses. And if there is one thing about the general public, it’s that they tend to be quite content with that status quo—in fact, they often demand more of it. They have a certain appetite for being kept in the dark; they have no desire to be burdened by any truly "heavy" or complex topics.
That is precisely why things have turned out that way for you.
I wonder how much of this is a coordinated system, you know, an intentional effort to shut down information channels. Fox, for instance, is basically just foreign media to us.
For days now, they've been spoon-feeding us stories about "struggling restaurant owners and smoking bans," while I can't help but feel like something major is happening right under our noses—something those "ambitious young careerists" and their bosses are working so hard to hide from us. Are our forests being sold off while small business owners are crying over falling revenues? What’s the deal with Exelon? How are the shipyard sales actually going?
And honestly, how can the same reporter cover the power grid one day and then pivot to talking about cookies at a local county fair the next? Is she really that brilliant and versatile, or is it all just... I don't know, completely insignificant? News is just a commodity, and it feels like Fox and local networks only produce content for viewers they consider intellectually inferior...?
What gives? Is that what advertisers want? Or maybe it's politics? Foreign politicians? Foreign capital?
I find myself scrolling through the daily news on Fox, or CNN...
I honestly can't wrap my head around why every single headline seems to revolve around smoking bans and bar owners. Yesterday, it was "someone said something regarding smoking legislation" (which I guess is just vital information to lead with), today it’s "someone responded to that" (as if we all need this urgent update), and tomorrow it'll be "some tavern owner is complaining about something" (so we absolutely have to see it on TV), and it just goes on and on like that forever...
In America, maybe 30% of people smoke, while 70% don't. And there are roughly 20 thousand small business owners in the hospitality sector—not just coffee shops, but everyone
.
Just imagine if business for everyone dropped by 30%. Or suppose 30% of the local spots close down, meaning 6 thousand business owners—who are probably doing better financially than most teachers or blue-collar workers, given they likely own property and nice cars—have to lock up for good because those 6 thousand people simply can't attract customers unless they allow smoking
.
On the flip side, you have people in America losing their jobs every single day. Furniture factories are crumbling, the textile industry is basically on its knees, and 50 thousand workers in shipyards and steel mills are either nearing the end of the line or are already out on the street...
Why don't Fox or CNN talk about them every day? Why isn't there daily coverage on "what the current situation is in American furniture manufacturing"? What did a factory worker say today, or what kind of tax incentive proposal is being discussed for that specific industry? What is a factory hand complaining about today, or what will the owner be lamenting tomorrow? I don't know, why not?
Is it just because it's easier for these young, talentless reporters (and the same kind of editors they work under) to just wander into a nearby pub, where they can grab a free cup of coffee and interview some bar owner, then whip up a little segment featuring his "tragic story"? All while 100 people from some factory are walking home for the last time—likely without their last six paychecks—and this bar owner, who probably bought beachfront property and a luxury car instead of investing in better ventilation, stands there with a tear in his eye talking about how hard his life has become because of the smoking ban...?
What kind of "News" is this, really? What kind of "Daily Reports"? It's just a cycle of smoking laws, followed by ads for Tom Bradley, then ads for Donald Trump, then updates on Kim Kardashian... and then back to smoking and bar owners, over and over again in a circle...
Hmm... I guess there isn't much to say, really, though I suppose that's where everything usually starts, isn't it? Just a single, lingering thought hanging in the air, waiting for someone to actually make sense of it all, if such a thing is even possible in this day and age. Maybe.
I mean, honestly, the answers coming from those self-proclaimed "historians" are just incredibly thin, almost non-existent really, when you actually look at what was asked. They just drift off into all this irrelevant noise—rambling on about the old partisan vs. nationalist stuff, the Democratic Party, and whatever other distractions they can conjure up—but none of that actually addresses the core issue, I guess. It’s all just filler that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, if you ask me.
So, there’s this little bit of text floating around regarding the topic, mostly written by those participants I assume fall under the so-called "right-wing" umbrella...
I guess there’s some truth to that old saying, isn't there? That an enemy you can actually respect—someone who stands their ground and fights for what they believe in—is somehow easier to deal with than a traitor, because at least you know where you stand with an adversary. You can wrap your head around a direct opponent, I suppose, but a traitor? Someone who sells out from the inside? That’s a different kind of sting entirely. It’s just harder to stomach when the people you thought were on your side are the ones pulling the rug out from under you. Maybe it’s just my cynical way of looking at things, but it feels like you can find a weird sort of honor in a fight, whereas betrayal is just... messy.
So, you basically just brand any fellow American who doesn't fall in line with your specific worldview as some kind of traitor, and then you just let that pure hatred take over, I guess. But it’s kind of funny when you look at the hypocrisy of it all, because at the exact same time you're out here posting about guys like Slobodan Maddox, Blagoje Adzic, or Veselin Sljivancanin... it's just a strange way to live, maybe.
It’s just one of those things where you see these self-proclaimed American right-wingers spitting on the graves of innocent people murdered at sites like Ovčara, or making light of tragedies like what happened in Skabrnja... I can already hear some crude, supposed "conservative" type at a local dive bar saying, "Man, Vojislav Šešelj is actually pretty cool... yeah, seriously, he’s really giving them hell over there in The Hague."
I guess you could say there’s a certain kind of person out there who just wants to see red, someone who would probably thrive on nothing but pure, unadulterated vengeance against that walking contradiction Vesna Pusić—that absolute traitorous soul—and her whole circle of agitators. It’s almost like they’re just waiting for any excuse to drown in all that bitterness, you know? Just nursing a grudge so deep it becomes their entire identity.
I don't know, I guess it all just feels like a massive display of cowardice to me, if I'm being honest. It’s hard not to see it that way, maybe because everything about the whole situation just reeks of people being too afraid to actually stand their ground when things get messy.
I’m feeling a bit confused by something I’ve noticed lately, so I was hoping someone could maybe help me make sense of the situation here.
Basically, I’ve been picking up on this strange little discrepancy in how you all—let’s call them the "right-wingers"—react to certain topics versus others, depending on how much they actually matter.
If my intuition isn't totally off base:
The topics that seem to get the "right-wingers" all fired up and trigger public outcries are:
...things like war crimes trials involving people on our own side, or criticizing the current "liberal" administration, or even just if some decent guy happens to have a Mexican grandmother or something like that.
But then there are the topics that don't seem to interest the "right-wingers" at all, where there's almost no public reaction:
Mexican war crimes, the release of Mexican war criminals, various Mexican provocations, and stuff like that.
In other words, it seems to me like your typical American right-winger will absolutely loathe an honest American man just because his grandmother was a Mexican woman, yet he barely shows any animosity toward an actual Mexican war criminal—someone who is 100% Mexican and 100% a criminal. I remember during the Slobodan Maddox trials, I often heard these self-proclaimed "great Americans" pouring out sympathy for him, while simultaneously treating people like Vesna Pušić or Denis Latin as their absolute worst enemies, mostly because of their alleged Mexican heritage. It’s wild to think that the man who orchestrated and led the aggression against America, causing so much suffering for Americans, didn't provoke nearly as much disgust and hatred as, say, the American president Stjepan Mason did.
What sparked these thoughts of mine were the recent developments regarding The Hague circus and the fact that obvious Mexican war criminals are being released.
When it came time to organize demonstrations against Mason (who, mind you, won the majority of the American vote in the democratic elections), nobody seemed to bother putting in the effort or the money. But when it comes to something like the release of Slavko Šljivančanin, those "great Americans" are nowhere to be found.
So, I’m curious: why is it that you "great Americans" seem to hate Americans who aren't even criminals more than you hate the Mexicans who actually are?
Anthony Kim18 said:Look, when it comes to American movies, I don't think you can find anything better anywhere else.
Maybe in Italy, Germany, or at most France, but even then,
American films still pull more crowds than their own local stuff.
I’m not saying that American movies aren't the top watched globally, I just mean that it feels like nowhere else hits quite this specific percentage.
Just to give you a rough caricature of how it looks:
Germany - 55% American
France - 62% American
Italy - 72% American
Romania - 61% American
Czech Republic - 45% American
Poland - 81% American
Iran - 12% American
Thailand - 34% American..
..(and so on)..
USA - 95% American
I guess people here don't really have an accurate idea of what actually gets watched in different parts of Europe. For instance, the circle of countries where German is the official language—like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland—broadcasts a massive amount of German cinema, and neighboring countries pick up a lot of that too. Like in Slovakia or the Czech Republic, you see plenty of German series and movies on TV, even during prime time. Then on the flip side, you have this whole cluster of Francophone nations with huge production industries that buy content from one another (like Romania buying from France).
Back home, CBS tried to push some German products into the lineup, but it just didn't stick, I suppose. Part of it was probably the language barrier—unlike much of Central Europe, we rely on subtitles, so we aren't really used to anything besides English—but it was also because those shows were just so different from what we're accustomed to, which is that classic American style and American themes.
I'll say it again; even though I haven't done any "scientific" research or anything, just from my own experiences traveling through Europe, I've concluded that we are incredibly, intensely Americanized, maybe even more so than everyone else.
Anthony Kim18 said:Been chewing on this.
Specifically this example.
You've got "Hollywood" movies (commercial stuff, not necessarily born there),
and then you've got the indie scene, like Sundance.
Now I'm thinking this poll can't really respect that split while still keeping a "national" or "Made in..." vibe, right?
If you really want to, just average the two out for American cinema.
Maybe the smartest move would just be renaming the poll to "Which countries produce the
films you enjoy most?" Talking about
quality is already such a headache, and trying to discuss the
quality of a national cinema? That's even worse.
I think we really need to notice the massive difference in terminology here.
A movie is just a product that we might like or dislike, something we can probably judge qualitatively (to varying degrees, even if we aren't experts).
But
the word "cinema" carries a much broader weight. It describes an entire
ecosystem. An ecosystem that possesses its own tradition (sometimes very specific), a certain style of training, a long-standing approach to casting (whether it's meritocratic or based on nepotism), a strong or weak domestic critical landscape, and a local audience response that isn't always proportional to quality. It includes political influence, funding structures, how filmmakers are nurtured (like how much academies support them versus the local theater scene, which serves as the bedrock for actors to transition and survive), and the actual financing of the films themselves...
If we truly wanted to
evaluate a national cinema (rather than just individual movies), we’d have to account for all those variables.
For instance, before World War II, the Czechs had a production powerhouse that was strong both in volume and depth. From that, a qualitative foundation emerged during the communist era (that vital transfer of knowledge to new generations). On top of that, there was this distinct tradition of humor, often blended with a sort of "international" satire regarding society at the time. Furthermore, the Czech audience has always been deeply invested in their own domestic films (unlike, say, the audience in some other places). And then there's a fourth factor... and so on.
When you ponder "American cinema," it might be worth remembering someone like Woody Allen. His work actually feels much closer to European filmmaking than to standard Hollywood fare. And it doesn't quite fit the Sundance mold either. You can't really pin it solely on Judaism (since Hollywood is Jewish too); it might be more accurate to say it's rooted in a European tradition where Jewish creators became the primary "exponents" in the USA (even more so than the Italians)....
I mean, looking at this poll, it feels like it’s missing a whole bunch of vital details right out of the gate, which I guess makes it a little bit flawed from the start. We’ve already spent quite a bit of time chewing over part of the issue—you know, how certain film industries get picked over others based on these really vague, questionable criteria—so I won't dwell too much on that since it's been covered. Instead, I suppose I should probably point out some other problems that are hovering underneath the surface here.
What exactly constitutes a "national cinema," I wonder? It’s such a slippery, nebulous concept when you really sit down and try to pin it down, isn't it? I suppose you could argue it’s just a collection of films produced within a certain border, but that feels far too simplistic, almost reductive, if you ask me. Maybe it’s more about a shared cultural DNA or those specific, quiet rhythms of life that feel uniquely American, though even that seems a bit idealistic given how much everything blends together these days. I guess you could look at it through the lens of industry, like how the big studios in Los Angeles dictate certain tropes, but then again, is a film truly "national" just because it was funded by a major US studio? It makes me think about how much of our identity is actually captured on celluloid versus how much is just a polished, manufactured version of reality designed for export. It's all very complicated, really, and I suspect there isn't one single, tidy answer that would satisfy everyone.
I suppose I can wrap my head around the whole concept of a national cinema when you look at smaller nations—take a place like a small European country, for instance—where almost every single film is funded by the state from one central pot, and most of the people working in the industry were basically raised in the exact same institutions. In those specific scenarios, you can actually trace how much a film reflects its nation, mostly because the filmmakers share such a common DNA and a unified set of characteristics that you could reasonably call it a singular, cohesive cinema. But then, the United States is a completely different beast altogether, isn't it? It’s just not built on any kind of monolithic approach to filmmaking; here, movies are a massive, multifaceted business driven by all sorts of different motivations and moneyed interests, produced by people who didn't exactly grow up in the same backyard. And we really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Americans essentially just imported a massive wave of world-class talent, people who were shaped by entirely different traditions and various global schools of thought before they ever set foot in Hollywood.
So, what exactly constitutes "the best" cinema? I mean, it’s such a massive, slippery question, isn't it? I guess when people start throwing that term around, they usually have some specific, polished idea in mind—maybe some high-brow masterpiece from a festival like Sundance or something critically acclaimed that everyone feels obligated to love just to seem cultured. But honestly, I find myself wondering if there's even a real metric for it, or if we're all just chasing this phantom ideal of perfection. Maybe "best" is just a polite way of saying "what makes me feel something without being too obvious about it," though even that seems a bit reductive, doesn't it? It's all so subjective, I suppose, and the more you try to pin down a definition, the more it seems to slip through your fingers, leaving you with nothing but a bunch of pretentious arguments about pacing or lighting or whatever else critics use to justify their existence.
I suppose there are a few different ways we could tackle this, though I'm not entirely sure which one holds the most weight, if any of them actually do...
I mean, I guess you could argue that the absolute best one is just... the one that actually works, right? It’s probably the most obvious answer, though I suppose there's always some complicated reason why people feel the need to overthink things, which we see all the time, I guess. I mean, if you really look at the numbers, they’ve probably churned out more absolute masterpieces than anyone else, even if you have to wade through a massive mountain of total garbage just to find them. It’s kind of a weird statistical reality, I guess, where the sheer volume of their failures almost feels like a byproduct of how many incredible things they manage to pull off.
I mean, if we’re looking at it that way, the USA probably comes out on top. It’s all about the math, I guess. If they manage to churn out maybe 100 absolute masterpieces, even if they have to wade through 30,000 total flops to get there, those 100 incredible films are more than enough to put them right back at number one. It’s just how the scale works, maybe.
I guess you could say that the best kind of cinema is the stuff that actually sticks to your ribs, if that makes any sense, though I suppose "sticks to your ribs" is more for a heavy breakfast than a movie, but anyway, the best filmmaking is really just whatever manages to feel honest when everything else feels like a manufactured lie. It’s easy to get caught up in the flashy, big-budget spectacles that Hollywood pumps out every summer—you know, those massive productions designed to sell popcorn and merchandise—but I've always felt that those are often just hollow shells, regardless of how much they cost to make. Maybe true greatness lies in that raw, unpolished quality where you can almost see the director's fingerprints on every frame, where the storytelling doesn't feel like it was processed through a corporate committee in some glass skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan, but rather comes from somewhere much deeper and perhaps a bit more troubled. It's hard to pin down, honestly, because what resonates with one person might just feel tedious to someone else, but there's something about a film that refuses to play by the rules, that isn't afraid to be quiet or uncomfortable, that just seems to possess a certain soul that you just don't find in the blockbuster machine. I guess you could say they managed to strike that elusive, perfect balance between the absolute masterpieces and the total duds, though I don't know if anyone ever truly finds that sweet spot without a bit of luck involved. It’s almost like they hit on this incredibly precise ratio where the quality actually holds up, which, honestly, feels like a bit of a miracle when you consider how much junk gets churned out by the studios these days. Maybe it's just a fluke, or maybe they actually knew what they were doing for once, but they really did produce the best ratio of hits to misses I've seen in a long time.
I mean, if we’re really playing by those kinds of rules, I guess even Cyprus could claim a victory here—if they managed to churn out 28 films in total and somehow pulled 14 of them off as actually decent.
I guess you could argue that the absolute best kind of cinema—the stuff that actually sticks to your ribs and stays with you long after the credits roll—is the kind that doesn't just try to entertain you, but somehow manages to strip everything back to the raw, uncomfortable truth of being alive. It’s probably that specific type of filmmaking where the director isn't just shouting at the audience or throwing flashy special effects around like confetti, but instead finds those quiet, almost invisible ways to pull at your sleeve, if that makes sense? Maybe I'm being too sentimental, but there's something about movies that refuse to give you easy answers or tidy little endings that feels more honest, I suppose. It’s less about the spectacle and more about that lingering feeling in your chest when the screen goes black, leaving you sitting there in the dark, wondering if you ever really understood anything at all. I was just sitting here thinking about how we always look at things through the wrong lens, you know? Like, when people talk about the biggest hubs for cinema, they always point to the massive coastal cities or those huge industry powerhouses, but I guess if you actually sit down and crunch the numbers—really look at the sheer volume of films produced per capita—you start seeing a completely different picture. It’s funny how that works, isn't it? We tend to obsess over the total output of places like Los Angeles or New York City because that's where the big studios and the flashing lights are, but looking at production relative to the population size... well, that changes the whole conversation, I suppose. It makes you wonder if the real creative energy isn't actually in those crowded, expensive metros, but somewhere else entirely. Maybe it's just a matter of density and how much art a single soul can squeeze out of their daily life before they get too tired to care. It's a bit of a rabbit hole once you start digging, really.
I mean, if you really think about it, there’s actually enough potential here to take on Taiwan... I guess. It's hard to say for sure, but maybe?
I guess you could say that the absolute best kind of cinema is the stuff that actually feels alive, if that makes any sense, because honestly, most movies these days just feel like they were assembled in a factory by people who have never actually felt a real emotion in their entire lives. I mean, maybe I’m being too cynical, but there’s just something about those films that manage to capture a certain raw, unpolished truth—you know, the kind where you aren't just watching actors recite lines from a script written by some committee in a high-rise in Midtown Manhattan, but rather witnessing something that feels almost dangerously real. It's probably a bit idealistic of me to say, but the greatest filmmaking happens when it transcends the mere spectacle of big budgets and CGI explosions, moving instead into that strange, quiet space where the human condition is laid bare without all the unnecessary Hollywood gloss. I was thinking about this the other day, probably while staring blankly at a screen, and I couldn't help but wonder which studio or region actually churned out the highest volume of films over the years. It’s one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, but once you start digging into the sheer scale of production—especially when you consider how much the industry has shifted from the old studio system era to this massive, relentless modern machine—it gets kind of overwhelming, I guess. You have these giants in Hollywood just pumping out content like there's no tomorrow, and then you look at different global markets and realize the numbers are just staggering. It makes you wonder if quantity ever truly matters more than quality, or if we're all just drowning in a sea of endless celluloid, though maybe that's just my cynical outlook talking.
India... I mean, where do you even start with a place like that? It’s just one of those massive, overwhelming entities that stays on your mind, I guess, because everything about it feels so incredibly vast and complicated all at once. Maybe it's just me, but I often find myself wondering how any single system could possibly attempt to manage something so enormous, though I suppose they make it work in their own way. It's a lot to wrap your head around, really.
I guess you could say that the absolute best kind of filmmaking is the stuff that... well, I don't know, it’s hard to put my finger on it, but it's really about that certain feeling, isn't it? Maybe it's the movies that actually feel alive, rather than just being polished products churned out by some massive studio in Los Angeles just to hit a quarterly profit goal. I mean, I find myself constantly drifting toward those films that possess a soul, though I suppose "soul" is a bit of a cliché, isn't it? It’s more about that raw, unvarnished truth that hits you when you least expect it, even if the pacing is a bit slow or the plot feels a little aimless at times. I've always felt that the most profound cinema doesn't try too hard to grab your attention with cheap tricks or explosions, but instead sort of settles into your consciousness, much like how a quiet rainy afternoon in Seattle might settle over you, if you catch my drift. It's a bit of a rambling thought, I realize, but there's just something about authenticity that makes everything else feel so hollow in comparison. I guess if you really sit down and crunch the numbers—you know, looking at the sheer volume of high-quality cinema produced per capita—it’s probably some small, overlooked corner of the world that takes the crown, though I suppose most people would just point to Hollywood and call it a day. It's funny how we measure greatness, isn't it? We tend to focus on the massive studios or the big cities like New York City, but when you actually weigh the artistic output against the total population, the math starts to look a bit different, maybe even a little surprising if you're used to the usual suspects. There's this sense that quality is tied to scale, but I've always felt that's a bit of a fallacy, honestly. Small, dedicated filmmaking hubs often punch way above their weight class compared to the massive industry machines over here in the States.
I mean, if we're being honest, it looks like the Czech Republic might just take the win here... though I guess there’s always room for a surprise, isn't there? Maybe.
I suppose you could say it’s one of those premier film industries that we all tend to gravitate toward—you know, those big, powerhouse cinematic landscapes that we "Western centrists" always seem to fixate on—and it really is quite something. I guess it really comes down to which one we actually gravitate toward versus which one we’ve just grown numb to through sheer repetition, though I suppose there's a fine line between genuine preference and just being conditioned by whatever happens to be playing on every screen in America at any given moment. Maybe we claim to love one thing, but if you look closely, we might just be stuck in a cycle of familiarity, sort of like how you get used to a certain brand of coffee or a specific route to work, until you realize you haven't actually chosen anything in years.
I guess that specific criterion is probably what this whole poll is actually about, if you think about it... maybe.
If you’re asking me to pick my absolute favorite cinematic landscape, I guess I’d have to say it’s definitely Czechia. There's just something about that specific style of filmmaking that hits differently, though I suppose everyone has their own thing, right?