Kenneth Clark18 said:Let's be real—blockbusters are what 99% of people actually watch.
That's exactly my point. Maybe not 99%, but probably closer to 90%. I used to find that depressing—but honestly? I don't care anymore. At the end of the day, blockbusters are made for that 90%—nothing more, nothing less.
I don't even really want everyone to see the absolute best stuff anyway.
I mean, yeah—they're definitely complex, layered characters. I think we all have a bit of a dark side lurking in there, but honestly? I see these three as good guys at heart. Take Tony, for example—he saved a random woman and her kids even though he knew he’d be dead within 24 hours after doing it. If that isn't being a hero, I don't know what is.
Tom Hanks is a great guy—super likable—but there’s no way I’m ever gonna convince myself I'm some character he played. I don't feel that way as much as I used to as I get older, but every once in a while, I still catch myself thinking I'm Tony Montana, Sam Rothstein, or Dirty Harry.😁
Frank Richardson said:What a list. Ten American actors and only two actresses.
It’s honestly not that shocking—at the end of the day, people mostly watch movies based on two things: "Americana" and whatever is currently trending. Basically, we love anything in American English and anything that feels new—that pretty much accounts for 95% of what people actually watch.
If we ever let something old or non-American slip through, it’s usually just a glitch in the system or because it's unavoidable. But even then, it gets boring fast because everything falls into one of three predictable patterns: a) old and American (think classics like *Gone with the Wind*—or if you're feeling fancy, the holy trinity of Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, and Alfred Hitchcock), b) old and non-American (this is the toughest sell and honestly, most people fail here—I bet your average American couldn't even name ten non-US films from thirty years ago, let alone actually sit down and watch them), c) new and non-American (usually those festival winners, maybe some Far East drama, or those heavy-hitting stories from the Middle East about crippled athletes and forbidden romances, made by directors who'll whip up one mid-length documentary and then vanish into obscurity).
And this is just straight-up sexist. It shouldn't matter if you're a guy or a girl—it's all about who actually kills it on screen.
I'm not even gonna get into the whole "who belongs and who doesn't" debate right now since that's a whole different conversation—but honestly, I have no idea what I was thinking voting in a poll that didn't even include Al Pacino in The Godfather lineup.
Honestly, I’ve gotta say this whole topic feels pretty sexist—regardless of how much the author tries to distance themselves from it. Leaving names like Louis Brooks, Mia Farrow, John Rowlands, Meryl Streep, or Isabelle Huppert out of a poll like this isn't just misplaced—it's straight-up ignorant.
Back when I first saw this movie years ago, my only gripe was how rushed the romance felt at the end. I figured it was just a serious Spielbergian oversight—maybe excusable since he was young, but whatever—it didn't sit right. That kind of abrupt relationship climax belongs in some cold, modernist art house classic, not in a movie that’s clearly trying to be quirky and accessible for a wider audience.
But watching it again today—barely remembering anything besides the basic plot—certain cues pointed me toward a different reading: Stacy is basically a guy on the edge of a psychopathological disorder. Seriously, that New Age rambling is pushed so hard and so consistently throughout the film that you can't just write it off as youthful energy. He's a blatant individualist with this desperate need for validation—at any cost, apparently—and Stacy’s whole awkward vibe just reinforces that discomfort. What's actually going on in that scene where the dad is out in the rain and he's over at the aunt's place? And what was with that terrifying look on his face during the lightning flash, right before the dad finds out he's terminally ill? Did he have something to do with it, and if so, why? It leads me to think that Dolly was really just a pit stop on his path to self-actualization. There was this one look after he first sleeps with Dolly—a look that seemed to say he finally got what he wanted. Because those moments, right before his brotherly arrival, are the last ones they spend together. Is that just a coincidence? One more thing—is the title *Do You Remember Dolly Parton* or *Do You Remember, Dolly Parton*? The second version makes zero sense given what I just wrote (it didn't make much sense the first time either, but that's irrelevant now), whereas the first option fits this theory perfectly.
Maybe people have already dissected my take a thousand times, but I intentionally avoided reading anything so I could hear some fresh perspectives here.
Nancy Carter43 said:I'm thinking maybe Neil Young fits in with this group of laid-back, mellow vocalists—even if his playing style is totally different from the others and he blends so many genres...
Neil Young isn't a "laid-back" singer at all—not even a laid-back songwriter, but that's a whole other conversation. His voice sounds like a guy who’s seen some serious shit and somehow made it out alive. Nobody—ever—is going to sound as fragile and as powerful at the exact same time as him. Even those tracks that seem "chill" or "mellow"—like out on The Weekend, Heart of Gold, or Love in Mind—they all have this hauntingly lonely thread running through them, showing a man basically obsessively hunting for a soulmate.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming for you over the Fleetwood Mac thing—you're good—but I just had to weigh in on this.
OT: I dig Bruce Springsteen up until Shamrock Diaries, but after that? Not so much. Take on The beach, for instance—it still just doesn't click for me. (The irony is wild—Young has an on The beach too, and it's everything Chris's on The beach isn't.)
Exactly this! I’ve never been big on Africa—always had this weirdly greasy vibe to it, even if the melody was solid—but Enjoy the Silence is a total gem, and Down Under is probably the greatest novelty track ever made.
Basically, what's missing is that pure "hit" factor—those tracks that are just fun to listen to, rather than being overly "important" or "influential."
I haven't checked the rest of the list yet, so I can't say for sure: - Driver's Seat - Sniff 'n' the Tears - Teenage Kicks - The Undertones - No More Heroes - The Stranglers - Year of the Cat - Al Stewart - Baker Street - Gerry Rafferty - Buddy Holly - Weezer - Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm - Crash Test Dummies - If You Don't Love Me I'll Kill Myself - Pete Droge - So Happy Together - The Turtles - Rock'n' Me - Steve Miller Band...
...so yeah, just a string of little masterpieces and hits that earned their status, mostly coming from artists who aren't considered "heavyweights."
frozenranger52 said:The people on this forum basically live in an alternate reality. Even the corporate hacks over at NPR put together a segment and a debate about the obvious anomaly happening right near the main station in Washington, D.C. But since apparently that never happened according to the mods—and they delete every thread or post mentioning it—I’m just dropping the links here.
The mod team should probably just take their reward and be proud—they’ve basically become the party-line mouthpieces for political cronies, acting like giants of moderation compared to anyone else on this sub.
To the person who started this thread, I'll just say I stay away from this whole section because it’s nothing but pure hatred and intolerance. And honestly, that kind of behavior is only allowed for a bunch of pigs. 🙂
If my memory serves me right, they only gave actual coverage to that third religious-nationalist attack on women's rights. Everything else was just quietly brushed aside.
Look, maybe I'm wrong, and if so, my bad. But again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the censorship on this board or how crimes are being downplayed. Of course, liberals love to spout nonsense like "a crime is a crime regardless of who does it." We aren't stupid—we know you have to look at the circumstances—but in my view, these rapes are a perfect storm of hatred, sexual impulse, and religious ideology.
The whole point is to burn through it all—like I said, treating it as a glitch in the system. Just making it look like some random fluke. It’s really just a matter of time before this double-talk becomes the new norm.
Regarding those blatant attacks on American citizens over the last few weeks—honestly, hardly anyone even had the guts to mention it in the papers.
Look, from what I've gathered over the last couple of years, the mods mostly go after posts they think are just "stirring up unnecessary panic."
It’s honestly no surprise—it's just the inevitable result of that brainless liberal mindset where anything that hasn't happened yet doesn't count, and even when it does, they just brush it off as some "isolated incident" that doesn't change the status quo.
So, whenever something actually goes down, they just roll their eyes, mutter about some glitch in our perfect liberal system, scrub any "uncomfortable" posts from those supposed reactionary crazies, and get right back to building our beautiful multicultural Arcadia.
Man, I remember back like two years ago, the vibe was just different—they were singing in a major key, you know? Now everything feels stuck in minor. I’m not gonna call anyone out specifically—if you know, you know—but I’m just stating facts here.
You really just have to look around at what's happening. It's not about being a doomer or trying to manifest something bad, it's just... the reality.
I’m looking for the actual guidelines you guys use to justify mass censorship—specifically when it comes to scrubbing posts from the New York Times forums, especially regarding hot-button issues like my case, Terrorism in Europe.
Someone already pointed out that it would be better to just hand out bans instead of actively promoting a culture of lies and subservience—which, let's be honest, is what you're clearly proud to follow.
Dennis Martin6 said:Tago Mago is one of those rare double albums where there isn't a single weak spot.
The River by Bruce Springsteen is the total opposite—the whole thing is definitely better than its individual parts. It’s got some filler, sure, but it has this epic momentum—both emotionally and musically—that just hits hard.
The Disintegration Loops by William Basinski—a four-disc set that basically breathed new life into the whole ambient and minimalism scene. Honestly, it's surprisingly melodic for such a high-concept project.
A few others that come to mind:
PiL - Metal Box Stars of the Lid - The Tired Sounds of Stars of the Lid Ali Akbar Khan - The 80 Minute Raga Captain Beefheart - Trout Mask Replica Tangerine Dream - Zeit ( 'Birth of Liquid Pleiades' is one of my favorites)
Solid picks. You actually made me think of Metal Box—thanks for that—I haven't spun that since my sophomore year of college, so I'm definitely gonna dive back into it now after all these years.
Yeah, and The River is great for the most part, even if some tracks fall way below Springsteen's usual standards—for instance, Drive All Night never really clicked for me, and I'm just not feeling Wreck on the Highway, Sherry Darling, or You Can Look.
Glad you brought up Basinski. I've been meaning to get into him forever, but I feel like I need to set the right mood first—if I remember correctly, the deluxe edition includes that experimental documentary footage of the World Trade Center in smoke?
Chris Myers said:Sure, money is tight—times are what they are...
But for me, it’s all about the utility—I’m mostly listening on the move, in the car, on planes, at work, or staying in hotels. I carry over 12,500 tracks this way; where am I supposed to do that with CDs or vinyl? 😁
Honestly, this PDF really needs a section on audio players and MP3 players.
I always figured Neil Young was just vibing, but the difference between vinyl sound and an MP3 player is seriously night and day. A CD definitely has its perks—say, for industrial, metal, 80s pop, or most electronic stuff—and even for me, classics and folk-rock hit better on a CD, but vinyl absolutely reigns supreme whenever the low-end is emphasized.
Yeah, those are the times we live in—it's wild how kids today don't have a clue; listening to music through those crappy phone speakers just isn't doing the soul any favors.
granitecyclist said:Triple threat: George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass" is a total essential for any serious record collection. Even if you aren't feeling the jam-session vibe, the rest of it—since it's a double album—is nothing short of masterpiece territory.
Kamasi Washington - "The Epic", spiritual jazz
The Clash - "Sandinista!"
Yeah, the jam sessions are definitely the weak link. Without them, ATMP is an incredible record, but looking at the whole thing, that third jam section really drags the quality down.
I gave Kamasi a shot, but jazz just isn't my thing.
And honestly, parts of Sandinista! actually hit harder for me than London Calling. I don't know why, but London Calling always felt a bit like a compilation to me—like they were trying too hard to please everyone. Not that it matters much, since I think The Clash are pretty overrated anyway.
I don't know, man—iPods and all those other gadgets are just straight-up garbage to me. Total cultural genocide, really; just a way for those tech bros in Silicon Valley to grab some pizza money after spending ten years grinding away on nothing but gaming consoles. I mean, what percentage does the crowd over at iTunes actually pay artists? Like 10-20%?
Just realized I totally left Eels - Blinking Lights and Other Revelations off my list above. It's an incredible record—maybe even the best thing released in 2005—and I’m telling everyone to listen to it. You won't regret it; might even change your life.