At the end of the day, it all boils down to motivation. If the whole drive behind this is just "let's churn out a remake to squeeze some quick cash off a legacy brand," then the movie is doomed to be trash. You’ll probably get someone following a cookie-cutter template—maybe they nail one decent scene here or there—but overall? It’s gonna be hollow. But look, if you hand the reins to someone who actually has a vision and gives a damn, I don't see how a story like this could fail. Personally, I'd love to see how Mann would tackle a project like this...
Honestly, as much as I love Scarface, every time I sit down to watch it, I get this feeling that it’s aged way worse than most other classics from the 70s and 80s. Maybe it’s the soundtrack, maybe it’s the cinematography, who knows. It might just be me, but there’s something about it that feels off when I’m watching it, and I can't quite put my finger on what exactly...
Requiem for a Dream - man, that was heavy. Intense, visceral, and just totally gut-wrenching. It’s a brutal look at how drug addiction absolutely destroys lives. I’ve seen people criticize it for being too stylized—claiming it almost acts like some kind of pro-drug propaganda—but honestly, I never got that. Like, who in their right mind would even think about using after sitting through a movie like that? You'd have to be completely out of your mind.
All in all, it’s a good—maybe even great—movie. To me, the directing feels way tighter than the script, which was definitely the weak link here. And I don’t mean the actual plot is garbage, but more like the pacing is just off. It felt like the movie would suddenly jump forward in time without any real transition, and there were moments where the characters acted totally out of pocket. Maybe they chopped too much out in the editing room during post-production? Anyone else catch that? On the flip side, it nails that classic crime vibe perfectly. You get those gritty, memorable scenes and some genuinely cool characters—it hits that gangster template right on the head.
wiredraven82 said:If you ask me, his absolute peak—that definitive "bad Mother Fucker" energy—was undoubtedly in Payback. 🙏🙏 god damn Porter Sheba 😁 The sheer audacity of it—god damn Porter Sheba went after an entire mafia syndicate just because of some seventy thousand dollars. It’s absolute madness, really—taking on a massive, organized criminal enterprise over a relatively small sum of money like that. Most people would have taken the loss and walked away, but not her. It’s that kind of irrational, singular focus that defines certain characters—the type who see an injustice and decide to burn the whole house down just to settle the score. 🤣
In those classic Lethal Weapon films, he was more of a... total psycho—a real bad Mother Fucker who was practically born to play the part of Martin Riggs.
Since we’re talking about that Englishman—honestly, I doubt he’d even dream of cutting in front of a secretary. 😁 Vinnie Jones
Signed. You can tell throughout the whole movie she played that part with some serious grit. She really leaned into it, using her entire repertoire of bad-ass stares and facial expressions to make it feel real.
Man, I’m telling you, this is easily one of the most legendary casts ever put together—just look at the sheer level of interaction and the insane chemistry between everyone in the room:
Pulp Fiction
Andy Garcia Christopher Lloyd William Forsythe Bill Nunn Treat Williams Jack Warden Steve Buscemi Christopher Walken
Morgan Brown5 said:And yet you're the one projecting "conspiracy theories" onto everyone else. 😕
See ya, dear.
Excerpt from an 1899 interview with Nikola Tesla
...
REPORTER: You mentioned that I, like every living thing, am Light. That's flattering, but I have to admit, I don't quite follow.
TESLA: Why should it be clear to you, Mr. Smith? It is enough that you believe it. Everything is Light. Within a single beam lies the destiny of nations; every nation has its own beam within that great source of light we perceive as the Sun. And remember: no man who ever lived has truly died. They have simply transformed into Light and continue to exist as such. The secret lies in those particles of light returning to their primal state.
REPORTER: That sounds like resurrection!
TESLA: I prefer to call it: Returning to a previous form of energy. Christ and others knew this secret. I have been searching for ways to preserve human energy. It is a form of Light, sometimes equal to the supreme celestial light. I didn't seek this for my own sake, but for the good of all. I believe my discoveries will make life easier and more bearable for people, guiding them toward spirituality and morality. -- "Per aspera ad astra"
...
Man, you totally missed the point of what Tesla was getting at here. Even the reporter didn't grasp it—he immediately jumped to religious conclusions, of course. Because honestly, what else is light supposed to mean, for crying out loud? 🙂
rapidbear65 said:Proudly representing my roots! You honestly think Jesus Christ and religion haven't shaped science? Look at where modern civilization actually thrives today... Is it in China? Tibet? India? The Middle East? Or right here in the West? It’s built on Christian foundations. Just imagine if those other places had this kind of spiritual momentum... I’ve already got the answer ready for whatever you ask next. Peace!...
It's honestly pretty wild that someone living in an age with infinite information can be this clueless about where the actual bedrock of modern society comes from. Let's get one thing straight: the roots of today's world definitely didn't sprout in Europe or any other Christian nation. Modern civilization is built on tech and scientific breakthroughs across the board. And the core of all that—starting with math and branching out into every scientific field and medicine—was established far outside the borders of today's Christian strongholds like Europe and America.
Ronald Nelson2 said:My dear friend, don't pin this on me if you don't understand the point. I am talking about today. I'm talking about the modern world where humanity has actually progressed, not what was happening three thousand years ago.🙂
Sweetie, let me just repeat back what you said here:
"Yeah, but God didn't create animals just for us to torture them. They exist for meat and other products. Not so we can kill off an Arctic fox just for some fur piece. You honestly don't get it at all.Read the Bible, talk to a priest, and maybe things will start making sense to you."
So, you're bringing up the Bible—a book written three millennia ago that, obviously, reflects how people saw the world back then. Sure, according to the Bible, God made the Arctic fox to provide humans with fur. He didn't have to go hunting for goats to get the job done. Back in those days, people weren't just out there slaughtering animals for fun unless they needed food or were performing a sacrifice—again, to someone, specifically to God. Interestingly enough, the Bible doesn't actually forbid animal sacrifice, provided you aren't offering them to the "wrong" God.
Ronald Nelson2 said:To stay warm? Sorry, but aside from some high-fashion accessory, I haven't actually seen anyone relying on them for warmth. Arctic fox populations are already incredibly low. We have plenty of other animals killed for food whose meat, fur, and hides are more than enough to keep us warm without needing to skin an arctic fox. I was reading recently that even those sources aren't so scarce that they'd start making coats out of human skin. If I can track down that article, I'll post the link. Is this normal, or is it just sick? Ask yourself...☕
You're bringing up the Bible, and we're talking about the Old Testament written thousands of years ago. Of course, in a biblical sense, it’s totally normal and justified to kill an arctic fox to get its fur for human use.
You're totally missing the point here. What, you think someone living in the Arctic three thousand years ago had access to goats? Since when do goats live in the Arctic wilderness??? 🙂
Ronald Nelson2 said:True, but God didn't create animals for us to abuse. They exist for food and resources—not so we can hunt an Arctic fox just for its fur. You clearly haven't grasped the core of this. Read the Bible; maybe talk it over with a priest. It might make things a bit clearer for you.
Total nonsense. Killing an Arctic fox for its fur, if it's used to keep a person warm, is no different than slaughtering a pig for food. Besides, why don't you show me one single verse in the Bible that forbids killing an Arctic fox?
The fact that you immediately jumped to the conclusion that someone’s wearing fur just as a fashion statement is a whole different story.
The answer is actually pretty straightforward. It’s all about the fact that knowledge is power. Think about it—when you start handing that power out to everyone else, your own leverage naturally starts to shrink. And if you go overboard and give away too much? You basically make yourself obsolete.
Cross or tree, it’s basically the same thing. I'm guessing people just swap out the word "tree" for "stake" or "pole." Back when you had a vertical post with a crossbeam—that T-shape—it looked like a cross sometimes. At the end of the day, the cross only became this massive symbol much later on. Honestly, I think when those ancient writers talk about crucifixion, they’re all picturing the exact same execution, it's just that some saw a T-shaped Roman stake while others saw a cross shape. For an event that was supposed to be burned into the collective memory of early Christians, it's honestly wild to me that there's such a disconnect in these tiny details.
David Booth7 said:Not even close!!! I mean, look, the Bible is full of symbolism—lots of it—but there’s also plenty of stuff meant to be taken quite literally; you just have to know how to tell them apart, I guess. 🙂
But in that previous part, I was definitely talking about things happening LITERALLY... unless you actually think that bit is symbolic? If so, please, do enlighten me. ☕
Why? Or let me flip the question: is it more logical and realistic to assume everything went down the way the Romans usually did things (because why would they suddenly make exceptions?), or is it more "realistic" to take a description of the crucifixion and the walk to Golgotha at face value when it was written by someone much later based on hearsay or some third-party account? Honestly, the second option loses even more credibility when you realize the early church wasn't exactly rushing to talk about or depict that specific act. It wasn't until Christianity really took root that you started seeing it show up in art.
I’m leaning toward the first version. To me, it’s way more grounded and makes more sense—assuming, of course, that this whole thing actually happened. Again—there was likely already a pillar standing there where the execution took place; that's just how the Romans operated. It’s incredibly easy for some storyteller to claim someone "carried" an entire pillar on top of the cross just to make the scene look more dramatic.
I mean, I don't know—it’s just one of those things that stays on my mind, I suppose. It feels like we're constantly circling the same arguments, isn't it? You look at the way things are heading, and you can't help but wonder if anyone is actually listening to the underlying logic of it all. Maybe I'm overthinking things—I definitely tend to do that—but there's a certain weight to the current situation that feels... I don't know, inevitable? It’s like we’re watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the upholstery instead of the tracks ahead. Anyway, just a thought. Just me rambling, I guess. kaže: Look, I’m not even talking about the Bible here. I’m talking about actual Roman customs—which, let's face it, don't exactly line up with what's written in the Bible. Besides, that pillar wasn't exactly light, was it? And since the Romans were pretty practical people, they had a habit of using those things for more than one purpose. It makes you wonder, really... how much can one person actually carry—both a pillar and a crossbar? Maybe there's some data out there somewhere regarding the potential weight, though I guess I'd have to go looking for it.
Besides, I mean—it wasn't like Jesus was carrying the whole thing the entire way... I guess.
It doesn't really change the core of the matter, I suppose. It was probably shaped like a cross—but only because that’s just how the Romans did things back then. I mean, does anyone honestly believe the Romans would go through the trouble of altering their entire execution process just for Jesus? To them, he was nobody—just some random troublemaker or an outlaw, nothing more. They weren't exactly known for changing their traditions on a whim over one guy.
Maybe... I guess. 🙂 Well, I guess it’s safe to say that even in the scientific community, everyone isn't exactly singing from the same hymn sheet—not that they always agree on much of anything, really. It’s rarely a case of total consensus, is it? There's always someone over in a lab somewhere—maybe in Boston or maybe out in Palo Alto—who thinks the rest of the field has it all wrong. I mean, science is basically just a long, slow argument that happens to produce facts eventually, I suppose. It's less of a unified front and more of a messy, ongoing debate. ☕
Why shouldn't it be a topic of conversation? I mean, the core question is really just this: why did Jesus die? Like, if you look at the physics of it—carrying a hundred-kilogram beam and a cross over, I don't know, however many miles—could that actually be enough to kill a person? Just the sheer physical strain of it all... I guess it's worth wondering.
Where exactly are you pulling that 220-pound figure from? I mean, I guess I might have missed something, but I can't quite place where that number came from—maybe it was just a slip of the tongue or something. Here we go again—it’s not like He carried the whole Pillar by Himself the entire way... I mean, if you think about it, maybe there's more to that story than we usually let ourselves believe. Look, before we get ahead of ourselves—I guess you really ought to do a bit of homework first. You should probably look into which specific location those researchers are actually pointing to when they talk about Golgotha, and then figure out where the starting point was and what that actual route looked like... The Via Dolorosa—which spans about a quarter of a mile, if you're looking at the math—is one of those things that I guess scientists wouldn't even call a "correct" route, per se. It’s a bit more complicated than just a straight line, maybe.
Look, I just used kilograms and kilometers to make a point, nothing more—just trying to bring the scenario down to some kind of reality. I already know the Bible doesn't say he carried it solo the whole way. Honestly, we should be looking at whether there are any sources suggesting the Romans would have even allowed someone from the crowd to help out. Whatever. My whole thing was pointing out the disconnect between how the crucifixion is described in the Bible versus how the Romans actually did things in practice.
David Booth7 said::actually, no... I don't think so. 🙂 If you look at the Greek Bible regarding what Jesus carried on his way to Golgotha and how he was actually crucified, it’s all based on the exact same Greek word. From what I can gather, nothing was just sitting there waiting for the condemned men once they reached Golgotha. Anyway, that's not really even the point here—I mean, we've already touched on that a few times, haven't we? Best,
So what, you're just assuming every single word written in the Bible is a literal, 100% factual account?
