Ladies, you really think you can prove how easily a thread falls apart? Or how much a moderator has to step in to save it? You're wasting your breath. It all gets deleted anyway. By the way, Sila, take a look at how the mod split these threads. Don't blame me.
If anyone actually cared about improving the quality and flow of discussion here, they’d hire moderators who actually know how to moderate: basically, people capable of keeping posts on topic, moving things around, and deleting off-topic garbage.
Jacob Allen said:Honestly, how can anyone have a conversation here when terms like objectivity, criticism, or logic are treated as if they're obsolete or just being pedantic? It's all just petty nonsense.
Objectivity, criticism, and logic aren't outdated. And they sure as hell aren't "pedantic." But maybe people would actually listen if they stopped leading with insults—which happens way too often. I only stepped in because someone posted a decent point instead of shouting "you morons" at me for why I'm being moderated.
Maria Moore4 said:Why not just set a rule—like on another Reddit community I used to post in where everything works fine—to automatically delete threads once they go inactive for a certain period (three months, a year, whatever)?
That’s nonsense. It’s probably a server capacity thing. We're actually moving toward a new policy where we emphasize that your posts (the ones that pass moderation, anyway) will never be deleted and will always stay searchable. To me, that's a vital feature for Reddit. If you write something serious or funny—something that isn't just trivial garbage—would you really want it wiped out? Imagine if your personal blog deleted everything older than three months.
We're actually getting ready to bring those ancient posts from before December 2002 back into the light. There is gold in there. Plus, there's the sentimental value. 😉 Not to mention the educational, aesthetic, and social value...
Tyler Grant76 said:Keeping this brief, I've got work to get to.
Same here. 😉
All moderators need to stick to the same rulebook. Sure, there’s room for personal judgment. You have every right to flag any deviations, and we'll look into them. But let's be real: just because a moderator holds different political views doesn't mean they're doing a bad job.
Tyler Grant76 said:If someone actually wants to improve the quality and pace of discussion here...
I’m being dead serious, so laugh all you want. What active users fail to realize is that for every registered Redditor, ten non-registered people show up daily (3,000 vs. 30,000). People come here primarily to read. Plus, most registered users don't even post, making the ratio of posters to readers roughly 1:30. That's why maintaining the quality of this Reddit is a constant goal, no matter how impossible it seems.
Tyler Grant76 said:Enivej, you can't control the quality of discussions on a massive Reddit like this with the current moderation system; it wouldn't even be worth it. So, I'm just trolling your repeated posts about it.
The number of new threads doubled from 100 to over 200 in a very short window, while post counts tripled from 3,000 to nearly 10,000—all while the moderator count stayed basically the same. But look, moderating a huge Reddit can be simplified significantly by focusing heavily on new threads and opening posts. It's easier to manage 200 threads than 10,000 individual posts. Well-structured new threads can mostly moderate themselves. And starting a topic properly is an art form that doesn't require being a moderator, right? Stupid threads should just be deleted, and it's better not to engage them with serious posts.
You probably know as well as I do that if you start writing seriously, both the tone and direction of the debate will shift. Even the typical internet idiots know how to change their tone. The writers create the tone of the discussion, not the moderators. Moderators can only save it if there's actually something left to save. We can keep this thread going in either a coherent or a trivial tone. Whatever.
Tyler Grant76 said:Maria Barnes, honey, you want to shut down the Big Brother subreddit? I see 67 users online right now—what does that even translate to in dollars? 😍 😍 Come on, why don't you try raising the bar instead?
And why, dear? 😍 Did you not notice how many of those 67 users are unregistered lurkers who just show up to read? That’s the vast majority. It would seem to me they find the subreddit perfectly fine.
Big Brother might be a trivial phenomenon, but that doesn't mean we're going to tolerate trivial, stupid posts there once we start actually moderating. 😉
How much money is that? Why do you even care? Since you asked, though, you might notice we don't even have a header banner at the top; we forgot to add it when we launched the subreddit and were too lazy to fix it. There's your profit margin. Seriously, stop talking nonsense. 😘
electriccyclist15 said:In my opinion, one of the best adaptations out there is Rosemary's Baby. The story stays 99% faithful to the book, the characters are perfectly captured, and Roman Polanski applied his signature style to turn it into an absolute classic!
Exactly! I was stunned when I finished reading Rosemary's Baby and realized it wasn't just some script adaptation (like Ingmar Bergman's scene from marriage); the book actually came first. Every single detail and line of dialogue matches the movie perfectly. It's incredible how closely Polanski stuck to the source material.
Then look at his next move. In his following film, Polanski made one of the boldest creative interventions ever—he messed with the ending of Macbeth. He added a scene that isn't even in the Shakespearean play. In this new scene, the new king, Malcolm, goes to the witches for advice, doing the exact same thing Macbeth did at the start of the movie—letting the witches lead him astray and trigger the tragedy. In an adaptation that is otherwise word-for-word faithful, this is a total curveball. The message? There's no peace; the cycle of evil just keeps spinning. That's his worldview. The tragedy itself wasn't dark enough for him. (Keep in mind, Macbeth was his first film after his wife was murdered in that infamous massacre, and those "evil wins" endings continued in Chinatown, The Tenant...)
I also read Bitter Moon, where Polanski turned an excellent book into an excellent movie. He changed quite a bit compared to the book, but all for the better. Once again, he intervened at the end—the most crucial part of any film—and true to his style, the ending is darker than the book. Much better and much more powerful.
If you ask me, great adaptations aren't the ones that slave away to the source material. A truly great director is strong and brave enough to reshape it into something independent and uniquely their own.
Perfect! 👍 If someone could whip up a 728x90 banner, we could blast it out to everyone on Reddit to let them know about this handy extension. We could go with Flash or a GIF.
I’m honestly pretty shocked by how high the quality was on this first night. Especially the stuff before the intermission. Not a single bad or boring film in the first half. We had an incredible Wolf Daddy, a fun Lady from Lap, a visually fresh The Regulator, Louise, and Learn Self Defense... they're actually great. Our Leviathan hits some impressive visual highs, but man, it can get a bit sleepy at times.
I’m lodging a pathetic protest against the fact that the festival is scheduled during the soccer tournament again this year. It keeps overlapping with the European or World Championships. Just because you love animation doesn't mean you don't care about soccer. Sure, I'll definitely be at the festival tonight at 9 PM. Yeah, right. Typical! 🙂 Even the Secretary of Culture, along with the premiere, actually headed out to watch the game.
The omnipresent Mickey Banderas is also opening Annecy
A film critic needs to be a literate person first and foremost—someone capable of writing passionately about the experience of watching a movie. Technical film knowledge is almost irrelevant, though it doesn't hurt; you can pick up technique much easier than you can develop a natural gift for writing.
The best book I've ever owned is by Amos Vogel—Film as Subversive art. It’s phenomenally illustrated (because at its core, film is a visual medium) and even better written. I respect critics who lead with their own unique vision of a film. Among those I actually enjoyed reading were Americans like Slobodan Novaković, Bogdan Tirnanić, and Milutin Čolić, along with some solid books by Vlada Petrić. When it came to American critics, I preferred listening to Peterlić rather than reading him, or following the late Vladimir Tomić. He did exactly what I love: he prioritized his own personal experience of the film, packed with individual observations. He didn't bore the reader with endless film erudition like Dubravko Zubčević, who would turn a single review into a lecture on ten other movies. Živorad Tomić isn't really a film critic, anyway—to him, every movie is good or great. It's nice that a man enjoys cinema that much, but for that level of constant enthusiasm, there must be factors at play outside the films themselves.
Maria Peterson, that's how we pull 7 or 8 relevant people into a Reddit discussion. The guests bring their opinions and info to set the stage, giving us the perfect excuse to push back and debate them right here on the platform.
It’s television interacting with Reddit. We don't have any formal deal with the networks. I just don't think every important topic gets brought up on Reddit on its own. To me, watching CNN is an incredible way to kick off a conversation. Take that first topic about ASCAP—it sparked a seriously intense debate.
I bet plenty of people finish watching CNN and feel like they've got something to say. They just need to know there's a place to vent.
Here’s the pitch: Every single day, this show picks a hot topic that’s perfect for Reddit. They’re great at booking relevant guests and sparking intense debates, but they don't really give the audience a way to jump in. I’m proposing we let everyone join the conversation through our forums. We can launch each topic in the most logical subreddit.
On CBS, there would be a master thread listing all the daily topics.
Jan 26 - Music: Regarding Sony Music (are they stifling live performances? Should they be allowed to squeeze money out of every single empty CD/DVD?)
Jan 30 - Politics: Discussing the European Union's proposal for a unified regional market - (an announcement inside the existing thread, #40)
I’m calling on you all to get involved in these discussions. 😘
Aside from that rustling canopy in the park I can hear right now, there are at least two other legendary "sonic" scenes out there. A Yardbirds concert! 👍 And then that final punchline where the sound suddenly cuts in during that imaginary tennis match.
It seems like the main takeaway from that Monitor article was the hypocrisy of our standards. On one hand, we ban explicit pornography on TV, yet we allow the most brutal violence imaginable—stuff that can legitimately scar your psyche forever. Which is actually worse? What should we be protecting ourselves from—explicit sex or explicit violence? As Richard Hernandez13 pointed out (and Hitchcock and other greats agreed), you don't need graphic scenes to be convincing. You can make a film feel more real than life itself without them. There's no doubt that Noah is a master at this, and he doesn't pull any punches either. He won't show you penetration because he doesn't have to. His style is documentary-like; there are no cuts within sequences, none of that typical "movie" or theatrical feeling. No editing tricks, no fluff—just incredibly visceral and "explicit." That rape scene is just one continuous shot from stepping out onto the street to slamming Oprah Winfrey's head into the concrete of the passage ten minutes later. Perfectly directed.
I watched Malnar's show, and they handled those controversial scenes by showing shots of the guests instead, only hinting at the film itself. They created distance, distancing themselves from the movie by using it merely as a conversation starter in a standard drunken talk show. And the "scariest" thing that could have been seen in that film was just sex.
My point is – if someone is going to go around censoring things on television, if they're really going to do it, then extreme, cruel violence should be censored long before sex is.
Man, you guys have really talked me into rewatching this one. It’s been ages since I first saw it. All I remember is—wow. I watched Soderbergh's version too, and it was obvious: way weaker and shallower than the Kubrick take. Still, the story is so gripping and the original inspiration is so powerful that it turned out to be a decent enough flick. It actually strikes me that the whole Solaris premise is incredibly similar to the idea in Forbidden Planet, isn't it?
By the way, while I was digging through that perpetually updated movie list (shoutout to our tireless moderator), I noticed stalker is down there with only a single post. That doesn't exactly paint a great picture of this forum, does it? Honestly, it's kind of embarrassing. This is exactly the kind of movie I want to dive into and hear everyone else's take on.
I'm going to go grab Solaris now and I'll check back in once I've got some fresh thoughts.
I finally sat down to watch that movie thanks to the Večernjak Collection. Honestly? It’s easily the weakest one on the list. I guess they put it first because it’s the biggest commercial hit. Looking at the box office results, the film cost about $5 million but pulled in $241,437,427 in the US, £13,441,558 in the UK, and €13,887,127 in Italy... Unbelievable. While the movie itself left me totally cold, the trivia helped salvage my impression (!?). Apparently, Nia Vardalos wrote the script based strictly on her own life, making the whole thing feel like a glorified family amateur project. Her actual husband is also named Ian, and he plays that annoying bald guy who is Corbett's friend. Tom Hanks produced it, so clearly he smelled a money maker, though how this thing became such a massive success remains a total mystery to me. As Great Corbett puts it—he’s been acting for 15 years and only had one person visit him on set once, yet Nia Vardalos had at least a dozen loud relatives showing up every single day during filming.
I stumbled upon a list that actually seems worth checking out: Top 100 Overlooked Films of the 1990s. From the few I've actually seen from this bunch, it’s pretty clear there are some gems hiding here.
P.S. It's interesting to see who made this list. Rotten Tomatoes includes an American contributor, Dragan Antulov (who writes in English too), who used to collaborate with the now-defunct Variety. Dragan has pumped out an insane amount of serious reviews—over a thousand the last time we spoke—and you can find them over at RogerEbert.com. 🙏
