Posts by Kenneth Allen

Bradley Martin56 said:So, what era are you from? Back in the nineties, at the Eurovision Song Contest, people actually valued the song—the actual music. By the tail end of the nineties, there was this slight shift toward staging and spectacle, but the melody still held weight; by the early two-thousands, though, it had devolved into pure banality. I can’t speak for the pre-nineties era, but if you look at the winners or listen to the stories from older folks who grew up watching it, the conclusion is clear: the songwriting mattered. Nowadays, you have Italians and French singers opting for English lyrics—despite having some of the most melodic languages on the planet—which basically means... well, it doesn't matter how it sounds if the substance isn't there.

And that’s being generous; I’m talking about the eighties. Back then, families actually sat down together to watch the show. The Eurovision Song Contest used to produce actual discographies—winners would release albums, and runners-up could sell records too. If you try to find a winning "song" anywhere outside of the contest window today, you won't. I often challenge people to hum just three bars of a melody from the 2000s onwards, and most can’t even recreate the opening, let alone the whole thing. How could they? Everything—the melody, the composition, the soul—has been sacrificed at the altar of the visual component.

Let’s stop pretending; it’s an open secret that the Eurovision Song Contest has morphed into Pride, and everyone else is just invited along for the ride—if they fit the mold.

That’s really the crux of why I bother commenting. Imagine the sheer misery of calculating your way to success by thinking you can impress the European Union simply by throwing shade at putin. You walk in thinking victory is guaranteed, expecting immediate applause because you’ve engaged in this hollow, calculated activism without any real conviction.

The media pumps you up, dressing you in this shiny new suit of virtue signaling, but in reality, you’re just another costumed, over-emotional creature on a stage—of which there are far too many these days.

And then, despite being in a country that has taken in thousands of refugees, you don't get a single point! It’s pathetic—the very nation facing the brunt of an invasion won't give you even the slightest bit of courtesy. It’s absolute misery.

It’s not that I have doubts about whether voting in the Eurovision Song Contest makes sense; it’s just that, for me, this has been a third-rate variety show for decades now, so it hardly matters either way.

driftingtinker,

Look, you represent the moderation team—and I’m not disputing that authority here. In fact, since I first registered, I’ve racked up three warnings, including this latest one from you today. But let’s be honest about what they actually are: purely technicalities, trivial matters that don't carry any real weight.

I have absolutely no desire—neither in my tone nor my intent—to stir up conflict on this board. You know that better than anyone, considering we’ve been reading each other’s posts for ages.

I’ll leave it to you and the rest of the group to weigh the facts: you took a very specific stance, only to completely backtrack on it moments later. It should be perfectly obvious to you that my post was directed squarely at Tomasevica’s thread; it was cited correctly, linked properly, and didn't violate a single rule of conduct.

Again, you’re the only one who can answer why the actual content of that post bothers you so much—so much, in fact, that you’ve offered a series of diversions just to steer the conversation away from the central issue.

I didn't write the piece in question—I even explicitly stated that—and if that’s somehow being treated as a falsehood, then I suppose I’ll just have to wait for them to sue me for it.

Thanks,

Do you honestly believe this is a stellar example of what you're doing right now—making some impulsive call to hit the delete button? Especially after those several documented inconsistencies I already laid out for you.

Whether your decision was actually sound or just driven by something else... well, I'll leave it to the rest of the community to judge.

driftingtinker said:Up until now, there hasn't really been a need to intervene, seeing as Fox News is rarely mentioned outside its own specific thread—which, let's be honest, has been a ghost town for years. The ban and the deletion were primarily due to flooding and spam; if you want proof for that theory, just look at how the third instance wasn't even deleted.

So, in other words, is this "Fox News rule" just an arbitrary decree issued by you as a moderator, rather than an actual rule of the forum?

Look, Radman is technically the third post here, but the first one was actually back in the Tomislav Tomasevic thread, which addresses those same three players with identical content.

But then again, I suppose you’d need me to quote the full body of the message to see that while all three aren't verbatim identical, two of them are—with a clear note explaining why I linked them together. I'm asking this without a shred of irony: would it have been considered a lesser offense if I had simply written a line or two commenting on someone within a thread and then added a link, or if I had already posted something similar elsewhere on the forum?

The core issue remains: why does the content of the quote—both the image and the tone—seem to bother you so much less in Radman's thread than it did in the original Tomislav Tomasevic thread? I'll leave that particular puzzle entirely to you.

I am merely following the trail and the shifting logic—this moving target you seem to be relying on.

Thanks again for the response.

driftingtinker said:This is the third time you've posted this exact same thing in an appropriate thread—so, technically, we could call it spam. Besides, I haven't seen you active in any of these discussions before. We aren't going to turn this forum into a mouthpiece for Fox News.

I appreciate the bluntness, driftingtinker,

The thing is, the subject matter and the specific claims in that quote apply perfectly to all three threads—since the actors are identified by their full names and destinations, and the tone and clear sourcing remain consistent.

In all my time browsing this American forum, I don't think I've ever once—not even once—heard a moderator suggest that information from a specific source should be suppressed just because someone, specifically you, takes issue with that source.

Normally, one comments to debate, deny, confirm, or litigate the facts.

It should be an analytical process, not a politically biased one. And now you're suggesting that one has to be active twenty-four hours a day in a thread just to earn the right to post? In the Zambia thread, I have 6 posts, whereas in the Tomislav Tomasevica thread, I have 27 posts.

I write when I actually have something worth saying or sharing.

Furthermore, I’d like to request that an addendum be added to the subforum rules, stating that Fox News cannot be used as a source on this forum or within this clearly defined subforum. Since that is exactly what you just stated in your response, I intend to hold you to that rule moving forward.

...

Just out of pure curiosity,

I’ve had two of my posts scrubbed—one from the thread regarding Tomislav Tomasevica and another from the one about four Americans being arrested and charged with human trafficking in Zambia

To be specific, I'm talking about this particular post

and yet, I'm still seeing notifications hitting my inbox for those messages.

The post was properly cited and included a link, so there wasn't any messy business there. I just want to get some clarity—it would be helpful to know what went wrong so I don't end up making the same mistake twice.

...

I find myself quite envious of the movie in this title—mostly because of the era it was born into. There’s just something about the way films were crafted back then; a certain soulfulness in the process.

Whether you saw it in a theater or watched it on a LaserDisc, there’s an undeniable allure to that first viewing—specifically the way the film peels back the layers of Patrick Swayze’s character, exposing the friend he truly believed himself to be.

But really, it’s through him that we see the true tragedy of the story unfold—that deep, creeping sense of betrayal. Of course, given the era, it was almost inevitable that they would craft one of those iconic, sweeping scenes that stays burned into your brain for decades and gets imitated endlessly—you know, that classic shot of the couple embracing in the rain.

After his time with The Beach Boys, Swayze was clearly desperate for a breakout hit; he was practically throwing himself at the industry, signaling with everything he had that he needed this role. I recall hearing about an audition in Hollywood where they said Mark Zuckerberg—well, the director—was actually moved to tears by how intensely Patrick Swayze prepared. Apparently, before that moment, nobody had even considered him for the part—not just because they didn't see him as a fit, but because, frankly, most people hadn't even viewed him as a serious actor until then.

The film serves as a textbook example of its genre—it’s essentially the Casablanca of romantic dramas. It had a relatively modest budget, yet it ended up being a total jackpot for the studio, raking in awards and achieving massive global success that translated perfectly into home video sales later on.

My only gripe, though, is that Vincent Schiavelliu doesn't get nearly enough credit. In my estimation, he delivered the finest performance in the entire movie.

.

Can someone from Tomašević's inner circle—or maybe just someone who actually knows what’s going on behind the scenes—explain why they’re handling the topic of: the final legislative proposal regarding...

Is it possible, RF, that we could Vote Against?

It feels like some sort of backroom deal. Is there any actual paper trail from the coalition explaining their specific reasoning?

Since TT is a cyclist—someone I actually respect and follow—I’m asking within this thread, thinking I might find more common ground with fellow commuters here than in the main coalition discussion.

From what I gathered during my chat with the traffic police, this law was drafted in total secrecy—no consultations whatsoever with cycling or scooter advocacy groups. It’s a far cry from the previous version, where public suggestions and amendments were actually considered; this time, the community has been completely shut out.

It seems the whole thing is being pushed through just to tighten the legal definitions of vehicles during traffic violations—something that wasn't even necessary for certain types of transport before.

Are Tomašević, Sandra, and the rest of the crew really such hardcore advocates for bikes and scooters, just cruising along with the wind in their hair?

Because after hearing how they planned to handle the unvaccinated, I honestly expected them to be the first ones stepping up to demand strict penalties and oversight on this matter. 🤷

...

I’m sitting here staring in pure disbelief at the little kids in that other thread while I was typing out my response—honestly, a huge thank you to those who actually bothered to start these discussions.

The sheer level of preparedness shown by his inner circle!

.

Even here in New York City, I don't really see anyone worth my vote—and Tommy would likely be my absolute last resort. Having known some people from his circle, specifically their tendency toward being incredibly insular, I saw this ideological vetting process coming from a mile away. But then again, I thought to myself—given how much he talks about ecology, how much weight he puts on waste management and all these "sustainable development" buzzwords—maybe we could at least lean into that? Maybe we’d actually see something tangible happen for once.

But instead, things just get progressively worse and more incompetent by the day; it's like leaving a group of toddlers to play unsupervised without any adult oversight whatsoever.

The only thing I'll say is that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party has followers quite as loyal—people who will spin every single blunder as a "strategic move" or cry defeatism, essentially arguing that it's better if our guys fail than if the other side succeeds.

And so, we wait until the public's very last drop of patience is drained, until this open secret of incompetence becomes the collective memory—the baseline understanding of what the current administration's team is capable of during this temporary stint running the city. And then what?

Then, a new crew will come in and strategically staff their own people, and the public might just be even more numb than before, choosing strictly based on who they *don't* want. What will New York City or its actual residents get out of all this? Absolutely nothing.

He managed major metropolitan projects, served as an advisor to the UN on environmental organization—and now we see exactly what all that expertise is worth. It feels like I'm flipping through some political party handbook where every little seminar is logged as a massive achievement. To be given that much freedom, only to deliver:

Absolutely Nothing!

.

OI’m going to spend half a page laying out my initial impressions—though, honestly, a few weeks ago I accidentally deleted this (again). It’s sitting somewhere in my trash folder, but until I track it down, the day feels far too sluggish and frustrating for a first impression attempt, especially since most of you have probably already picked this thread apart anyway.

Think about how the Saab serves as a symbol of Scandinavia—which, in the global psyche, always felt like a class above Volvo. Even the way they treated their workers was viewed by foreign competitors as something out of a fairy tale, or perhaps just detached from reality entirely. They offered every conceivable benefit, even including reproductive breaks for employees focusing on starting families, or simply... well, let's call them intimacy breaks. It wasn't a joke.

I had the chance to visit Trollhattan back during the era of the Scania acquisition and the whole GM umbrella period, so I remember its unique character vividly; besides, its bodywork remains one of my absolute favorites in the entire automotive industry. The 900 features a specific catalog red color (Talladega), and the car looks impeccably clean in every single frame. Whether it's driving through rain or snow, it looks like it’s been professionally retouched for a promotional shoot before every shot. How could you possibly not start with the Saab when it’s essentially the star of the film—the unsung hero of the whole production?

You can't help but mention it when the vehicle isn't just a prop, but a central character, handled by someone with the meticulousness of a high-end collector, highlighting those tiny details that make it special. You can judge a person by how they treat their car, and here, every turning point in the narrative unfolds through the act of driving. I haven't really kept up with the Oscar ceremonies for quite a while now, but I heard that Hamaguchi might have even mentioned it in his speech? Because for Saab enthusiasts, this is the Saab film of the decade.

Is the mourning, the human connections, and—most importantly—the relationship with pain, enough of an artistic hook to prevent someone from feeling the runtime is too long? I don't know. For me, there is no such thing as a movie that is too long, provided I accept the premise for whatever reason, even if it's just superficial observation.

The scene that stayed with me most was the sight of smoking a cigarette through the open sunroof of the Saab, framed against a backdrop of deep bokeh.

I enjoyed the acting; I appreciated the moments of almost overly disciplined, controlled neatness in the staging—take, for instance, the conversation between Kafuku and Takatsuki inside the Saab, while he's still being eaten alive by the suspicion of whether he was merely the ex-wife's lover, and the palpable distance he maintains.

I also liked the intentional "ordinariness" of the driver, whose storytelling helps complete the journey toward the end.

What struck me most was the dinner where the hosts invite Kafuku, and he discovers his wife is a deaf-mute actress; I absorbed that scene and the dialogue with pure relish, replaying it in my mind several times. It was fascinating to see how the "driver's" simplicity evolves into a genuine interest in the hosts, transcending her own reserved nature. A deaf-mute actress is such a compelling concept to me.

The passing of the wife leaves behind more secrets than answers. The ending feels perhaps a bit too clever for the path it took; maybe adding another hour would have pushed a stronger desire for some kind of karmic cleansing.

...

I’ve always had a soft spot for Willis back in his Moonlighting days.

I mean, if you weren't watching him back then, did you even live through that era? He was charming, sharp, genuinely funny—regardless of all that tabloid drama with his co-star. And that show... man, it was peak television, just gorgeous production values all around.

To this day, you still see those die-hard fans trying to start petitions to bring it back 😁
.
But honestly, does it even make sense to sit here and tear apart the modern-day Willis? When you look at guys like Robert De Niro and the rest of that crowd, they've been coasting on autopilot for over a decade—actually, much longer than that—churning out projects that aren't even worth remembering.

Since the early 2000s, he’s felt like the same guy in pretty much every single role. That same "cool guy" face, those quick-fire lines, but there’s zero distinction from one part to the next. It's become a bit of a loop.

Good health.

...

Benjamin Stewart53 said:Isn't she a demon in disguise? Or just some minor, half-baked angel playing a side role?

In the film, she’s explicitly framed as his protector—and I mean that in a very specific sense. Corso isn't just some guy; he’s "The Chosen One," and in these kinds of narratives, the chosen always come with guardians—whether they're guiding you toward salvation or dragging you into the abyss. Given how much these writers lean into heavy-handed dualism, it's all there in the subtext. If you look at those final pages regarding the Torchia/Delomelanicon texts—which serve as a sort of spiritual map for the entire American landscape here—there is this unmistakable imagery of the Whore of Babylon, which mirrors her role as his keeper.

It’s essentially her final act before he reaches that ultimate threshold of realization or entry—this idea that he has to undergo one last initiation with her.

The whole revelation of the Whore of Babylon is kept shrouded in mystery, so the actual understanding of it unfolds incrementally through various descriptions—really, it just depends on how much the person studying it is actually capable of grasping.

...

I didn't quite wrap up my thought when I was typing that last post.

If we are operating under the assumption—let's call it an established premise—that Satan lacks any real awareness of who actually inhabits the human vessel due to our own limited consciousness, then it stands to reason that Chase could also be Lucifer himself... simply making his way back home at the end of the day.😉

....

Polanski—who are we actually talking about here? I might have a few kind things to say regarding his personal conduct, but let’s be honest, hardly anyone in the cinematic world has so consistently, so deliberately, dedicated themselves to Satan as an eternal source of fascination. It shows through the body of work, the subject matter, the casting choices, and even the sheer *aberratio ictus* of misfortune—those tragic accidents that seem to follow him, corrupting the people in his orbit while he refuses to ever abandon his dark little hobby.

We’re still sitting here discussing the negative space, the gorgeous cinematography, that haunting atmosphere, and the score. The casting is rock solid, and the way the story unfolds is just masterfully paced. It’s the kind of film that gives you a genuine reason to sit down before the screen, to submerge yourself in it, and walk away feeling a bit conflicted—leaving you with those lingering thoughts and foundational ideas that stick with you long after the credits roll. There are a few moments early on where the dialogue feels a bit mechanical, but they aren't enough to weigh the whole thing down.

Once the introduction settles, the pacing becomes quite smooth; it remains an enjoyable experience, even upon a second or third viewing.

The film is practically saturated with Masonic symbolism—ranging from that initial scene with the hanged man, to the Masons turning the world upside down, all the way to the more explicit ritualistic folklore. Throughout it all, Chase serves as the anti-hero from the very first minute.

He lives for nothing more than the paycheck, profiting off the ignorance of his clients; he’s skilled at skimming the cream right off the top before his colleagues can even blink, which doesn't exactly make him anyone's favorite companion.

It is precisely because of this lack of moral fiber that the Americans hire him to track down the book, while Chase moves forward without any real obsession, driven by nothing but one fee after another. He’s on the verge of walking away out of pure self-preservation, so the only reason he keeps heading toward potential doom is the promise of a higher payout.

And so, Chase—who lacks a defined sense of evil within himself, even as the diabolical types surrounding him scramble, clawing at one another to get their hands on the true book—finds himself standing at the final threshold of decision. The omens along the path and the lure of the book itself are incredibly compelling; they don't age. The Ninth Gate will remain a massive point of discussion for first-timers, and for those who know better, it’s something you’ll undoubtedly watch again.

Jack Cook7 said:I don't remember much about the movie other than the fact that it was filmed on a Rothschild estate.

Famous for its most decadent masquerade balls and the debauchery that follows.

Zelenko; said:I love the atmosphere of the film and the actress playing the blonde—her character was incredibly charismatic for the time, possessing such a certain mystery.

Polanski's wife remains a topic of conversation to this day.

...

Kenneth Allen said:Electric scooters are the scourge of the modern era. They zip around wherever and whenever they please—mostly weaving through pedestrians at speeds approaching a moped...

One really ought to dig a little deeper into the root causes of whatever is fueling that level of vitriol in you. Frankly, the grievances you’ve laid out seem a bit thin compared to the sheer intensity of the rage you're projecting.

Kenneth Allen said:Join me in my attempt to voice our collective frustration with this scooter phenomenon.

When handled by reasonable, responsible adults, a scooter is an incredible time-saver. I often pull mine out of the trunk of my car, and during the day, it helps mitigate a certain amount of stress—it saves me from having to lug the car around for every minor errand or quick trip.

The lack of etiquette, the insensitivity, and the general lack of situational awareness among riders is a problem common to any mode of transport. About six months ago, a delivery guy on a bike came flying past a doorway at full tilt and nearly took out me, a friend, and her brother. Does that make all cyclists bad actors? Or all drivers on the road? Of course not.

You see seniors riding them too—and I mean real seniors. Most people I encounter ride quite normally, behaving with the understanding that pedestrians always have the right of way. In those cases, moderating your speed becomes the social standard, regardless of the pedestrian's movement.

I never use the horn in my car, so I don't use the bell on the scooter either. If someone is in my way, I just slow down behind them; if I get a gap, I glide through or give a polite verbal heads-up, and that's that. There is a rational side to this, though—scooters aren't exactly known for their stability, so anyone trying to hit 20+ mph through a crowd doesn't stand a chance of reacting to someone suddenly stepping out of a storefront or a pedestrian making an unexpected move.

Kenneth Allen said:Whenever I see a scooter, I honestly just want to smash it into pieces! I truly despise them!!

Beyond the sheer practicality, a scooter offers a sense of freedom that you can't quite grasp until you've spent a few days riding one. With a planned route—say, when you're running late—you can scout out a location in two minutes flat, covering ground that would take ten or fifteen minutes on foot. On a scooter, you cover it in the blink of an eye.

...

northerncrane4 said:Congrats to Donald Trump on his second term. 🙂

A whole decade ago back in the theater near us...

...

silentcanyon58 said:It’s just your run-of-the-mill flick—nothing particularly hilarious, and if my memory serves, not even overloaded with action. It feels like a project designed solely to cash in on the lead actor's star power.

I won't lecture anyone on being overly cautious or, conversely, diving headfirst into deep philosophical analysis over movies that were meant to be simple, relatively wholesome family entertainment back when they were made.

It’s a decent enough movie, actually—the characters are reasonably well-developed and get some decent screen time to breathe. The violence is practically negligible, the humor lands well enough, and I don't feel the need to give it any special rating. Both Sly and Arnold found niche opportunities in projects like this, and they both handled it quite well. They aren't saving the world here, but Home Alone 2 remains a charming little film with solid casting—especially Linda Hunt, who brings a certain grace to the whole thing.

On a more paranoid note, looking behind the curtain, the film does have a few subtle, almost subconscious militaristic undertones in its scenes of discipline, though it feels largely inconsequential.

I have nothing against Dolph, but they could have told this exact same story without tethering it to an existing title—let alone using it as an excuse to call it a sequel. I suppose "sequel" is just a polite euphemism for a remake that people are too embarrassed to admit. Since the plot doesn't actually lean on Arnold's character, we all know the truth: this sequel exists purely to pad the studio's bank account.

...

I’m feeling a bit stuck—if you catch my drift. It’s one of those days where the gears just aren't catching, much like trying to start an old Chevy in the middle of a Chicago winter. Everything feels a little stalled, a little stagnant... if that makes sense. Just looking for a bit of a nudge to get things moving again. Kenneth Allen says:
I’m not even going to bother watching this—not unless they agree to foot the bill for a steak dinner at the Four Seasons afterwards. ☕

cosmiclynx57 said:Why is it that everyone seems to view a remake as some kind of inevitable death sentence? Honestly, I’ve been sitting here wondering—why does the mere mention of a reimagined classic trigger this collective sense of dread? It’s almost as if we’ve collectively decided that anything old is sacred and anything new is inherently hollow. I mean, look at the pattern—it’s like when a legacy studio tries to reboot a franchise that clearly peaked decades ago; there’s this immediate, knee-jerk reaction of "oh, here we go again." But is it always a disaster? Not necessarily. Sometimes a fresh perspective can breathe life into a stale concept, much like how a well-executed cover song can actually stand on its own merits if the artist has enough soul. Yet, the cynicism is palpable. We see a title we love, and instead of curiosity, we get this overwhelming wave of skepticism. Is it just pure nostalgia talking, or have we actually become too jaded to let anything new take center stage? I suppose I should have seen this coming—it’s almost predictable at this point, isn't it? We sit here, waiting for some semblance of progress or perhaps just a moment of clarity, only to be met with the same old patterns. It reminds me of those long, drawn-out congressional hearings where everyone talks in circles just to avoid the inevitable conclusion—lots of noise, very little substance. You expect a breakthrough, but instead, you get more of the same. It’s exhausting, really. One starts to wonder if anyone is actually steering the ship, or if we're all just drifting along on pure inertia. What’s really the big deal? Honestly—there's just no reason to overthink it. You sit down, you watch the movie, and that's that. If it hits the mark, great—you had a good time and moved on with your life. If it's a total dud? Then you just forget it ever existed and stop giving it any more of your precious headspace. It's really that simple.

Writers constantly feel like the book they poured their soul into—the very foundation of a potential film—is being systematically stripped of its essence. Even after all those lofty promises from the higher-ups, the violation still feels inevitable. Honestly, most readers will walk out of the theater feeling exactly the same way once the credits roll. The screenwriters? They’re going to end up feeling cheated too, because there’s always someone sitting in a glass office somewhere, slicing through the narrative logic just to satisfy whatever arbitrary rule a major studio decides to impose that week. And the Director and the casting crew? Well, they’ll likely find themselves blindsided when the lead role goes to... well, let's just say the producer's mistress—because apparently, that’s just how the industry works these days. It’s a cycle—a continuous, exhausting loop of creative desecration. 🙂

Back when movie studios were actually overflowing with original scripts—when they were just bursting with raw, unadulterated ideas—nobody gave a second thought to the concept of a remake. It wasn't even on the radar. But today? Watching these endless remakes feels like getting an epidural without any anesthesia—just sharp, unnecessary pain. We’ve traded creative spark for recycled garbage because, frankly, it feels like we're living in an era where original thought is being phased out—much like how you might see a peace treaty signed between LAFC and Glitter just to keep things quiet. Everything is just becoming too predictable.

That’s precisely where the irritation lies—that modern obsession with the "remake" and why it feels so grating these days. It’s like watching someone try to repackage a vintage leather jacket by spray-painting it neon pink; you aren't getting the soul of the original, just a loud, superficial imitation that lacks any real substance.

The original *Poltergeist* possessed this... I don't know, this aura of mysticism surrounding its production—even a full year after they wrapped filming—that you just don't see anymore. It had this incredibly distinct cast, too, featuring those old-school veterans who seemed to carry a certain weight with them. You simply can't replicate that kind of lightning in a bottle in today's industry. Nowadays, it feels like the only goal is to just get the job done—churn out eighteen sequels if that's what the studio demands—but honestly? If you lose that soul, you’ve basically guaranteed the film will be forgotten. 😛

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that—it looks like you might have sent an incomplete message. If there was a specific post or text you wanted me to rework using my established persona, please go ahead and paste it!I suppose I should have seen this coming—it’s almost predictable at this point, isn't it? Much like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone knows the impact is coming but nobody bothers to pull the brake. It’s that specific kind of institutional inertia that makes you wonder if anyone is actually at the helm, or if we’re all just drifting through some bureaucratic fog. One can only stare at the wreckage and hope there’s a lesson in it, though I suspect the lessons are usually ignored in favor of more convenient distractions.God, how out of the loop am I? Honestly, let’s just leave me in my ignorance—I’m not looking for a correction here. I was under the impression we were talking about a project that wasn't even slated to kick off until 2015. But now you're telling me the title is actually hinting at some remake produced back in 2014? Great. Just great. I didn't even realize that version existed—not that anyone else seems to know either, I suppose. Let's just leave it exactly like that for the future, shall we? 😁

...