Posts by Richard Howard2

I should probably also mention Spider-Man, where the final shot features the waving American flag, and then there’s Armageddon, and so on and so forth.

The crux of the matter is this: Americans love to glorify their nation—which, ironically, is actually composed of various other peoples with their own traditions, serving as the ultimate symbol of the "melting pot," though I suppose we are all well aware of that already...

OFF topic Pandora

Rachel Bishop, it’s quite lovely how romantically you view the world.

I didn't explicitly mention this before, but I maintain that a subjective perspective is just as vital as strict, objective science. In my view, we might grasp the mechanics of our world through objective science, but the ultimate meaning remains something only found within the human spirit.

Science—even as it increasingly strips philosophy of its primacy—ultimately serves to confirm just how magical and magnificent our world truly is.

Our imagination and thoughts can wander quite far, yet it is only through science that we realize the actual reality has ventured much further still.

That is simply my take on it.

Mickey, you're overreacting. Even the guy who started this thread would probably tell you the same thing, considering he was the one replying to you despite thinking you're an idiot.

Look, man, just like me and most of the rest of us here, a person just wants to have a little fun tearing these kinds of movies apart. It's a simple pleasure, really, but you actually have to sit through the film to enjoy it properly.

A plane is essentially a cross-section of a cube, where every single point on that "cross-section" also possesses its own "altitude," even though the plane itself only occupies two dimensions and lacks a third dimension—height—within its own internal structure... rather, movement occurs along it.

From this incredibly muddled sentence, my takeaway was that the core idea was that a point only displays two of its dimensions despite possessing a third, acting as a cross-section within a larger framework—meaning the point is three-dimensional. You need to be more precise if you expect to be understood.

It’s true; not everything in your post was incorrect, as I stated at the start of my last message, but it lacked cohesion. Regardless, my apologies.

Look, regarding space as a mathematical model where light and time move linearly—science has provided a definitive answer, which pertains to what I noted under the numbered points.

That particular model is easily applied to smaller spatial scales (up to interplanetary distances), but for anything beyond that, one must utilize the additional frameworks established by Einstein when he discovered that the entirety of space-time is curved within a higher dimensional space. As for those specific complexities, however, science is still investigating and has yet to reach a final conclusion.

What I was discussing falls within the boundaries of answers already established. Science is still a long way from a final answer, but one thing is certain: what you are writing is much further off.

If it isn't... and it isn't, you can just blame your convictions on the idea that science "strips competence from philosophy"... and, just between us, I'll whisper to you... that is never going to happen.

Of course, there will always be people who choose to philosophize about certain things.😁

...... so now I know absolutely nothing...

Yes, that happens to be the only accurate thing in your last post.

I hate to disappoint you, but you aren't exactly well-versed in the laws of space; rather, you seem to be operating more on mere intuition, wouldn't you agree?

I suppose your efforts are commendable, given that we are discussing philosophy here, but I have already noted on science for science that science is increasingly encroaching upon the territory once held by philosophy. As these subjects begin to undergo rigorous scientific study, we arrive at conclusions that are far more precise, convincing, and—crucially—verifiable than any purely philosophical insight could offer.

But, returning to the matter at hand:

According to the explanation of space, there are four levels of primitive/fundamental entities existing within three spatial dimensions:

1. A Point — a position defined by coordinates; a zero-dimensional entity (zero dimensions required for description)

2. Length — a set of points arranged linearly; a one-dimensional entity (one dimension required for description—length)

3. A Plane — a set of points arranged in all directions within a flat surface; a two-dimensional entity (two dimensions required for description—length and width)

4. A Body/Curved Surface — a set of points distributed in all directions through space; a three-dimensional entity (three dimensions required for description—length, width, and height)

If we incorporate the temporal component, we arrive at a fifth entity:

5. An Event — a point possessing a position not just in space, but also in time; a spacetime entity (one temporal dimension included)

Beyond this, one can make further assumptions, similar to the initial entities but with the addition of time, though those descriptions become significantly more complex due to the inclusion of motion and transformations.

Therefore, your point within the cross-section of a cube is not some three-dimensional body possessing its own "invisible" dimensions; it is merely a point with its specific coordinates. The cross-section itself is simply a surface, yet all of this exists within the context of the three-dimensional body of the cube. Please, do not conflate coordinates with the dimensions that certain concepts occupy in space.

It is true what you say: in practical application, every spatial point is simultaneously a temporal one, but that is not necessarily the case when we are looking at a mathematical mental model.

Alex Ramirez40 said:Expanding into what, exactly?

Since we're on the subject of expansion—the universe is expanding, right? But into what is it expanding, if it's infinite? One could argue yeast expands within a container, but does that imply the universe is merely expanding into some cosmic Tupperware? It's a bit of a circular thought, I suppose.😕 😁

First off, expansion isn't something you can assign a spatial destination to. You aren't moving toward a target; you're simply expanding uniformly from an origin point in every direction simultaneously. It’s a matter of geometry, really.

Second, the universe isn't infinite.

Pandora said:It’s… well, it really is a shame you didn't say what I assumed you were going to say… because if you had, you would be… mistaken.
The theory of relativity essentially proved the unity of space and time, which is why it’s referred to as the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Under relativity, time functions as the fourth dimension of space... and the example you provided actually confirms my point... (every single point in space is simultaneously a temporal point, and vice versa... every point serves as an intersection within this four-dimensional space-time).

Now, let us entertain the hypothesis that we travel at infinite speed... what happens then...
what happens is that we are present at every single point in space simultaneously, and time effectively... STOPS...
which implies that time is simply a dimension of space...

Naturally, everything we use to describe the world we inhabit is relative; there is no such thing as an absolute value... therefore, our "time" and our "space"... how we perceive anything depends entirely on the observer and their, uh, positioning—which is exactly what I am constantly pointing out.🙄

Every point in space-time possesses its own temporal component, yet it is NOT temporal, and vice versa. Spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension are distinct; they are not the same coordinates. Consequently, space and time are not identical. It is a continuum of interdependence, but a spatial component isn't a temporal one, nor is a temporal component a spatial one.

If we were traveling at infinite speed, we wouldn't be at every point in space simultaneously unless we were expanding at that infinite speed.😉

Perfectly put. I'll just assume you hit the nail on the head; there isn't much ground left to cover.

Alright, here we go again. After a brief hiatus, we’re being served yet another disaster flick wrapped in flashy special effects.

Hillary Swank takes the lead here.

Personally, I think the whole concept is nonsense. But since it hits theaters this week, we still have a tiny window to attempt the impossible: predicting the next predictable mess from Hollywood, where apparently nobody possesses the talent to film anything outside of a tired formula. What are your expectations?

IMDb : Core, The

Rachel Bishop,

Why on earth are you assuming I said something I didn't actually say?

Let me be perfectly clear: I did NOT claim that time is merely a dimension of space or some inherent property of space itself. Time is its own distinct dimension that operates in correlation with space. That is precisely why we use the term spacetime rather than a single unified noun; they aren't the same thing.

I suppose I should demonstrate how time functions as a dimension in relation to the three spatial dimensions. If you have a point within a coordinate system defined by its x, y, and z axes, that point exists only at a specific temporal coordinate, t —> T(x,y,z,t). Once that time coordinate shifts to t', the object might occupy the same physical location, but it is no longer that same point at that specific position. It becomes a different point entirely: T'(x,y,z,t'). And the logic holds true in reverse as well.

To achieve a complete description of the universe we inhabit, the factor of time must be included. This might seem trivial in my little example, but when dealing with massive cosmic phenomena, it becomes vital. For instance, if one were traveling through space at velocities approaching the speed of light, time would dilate—or, if you prefer to flip the perspective, you could argue that time remains constant while space undergoes contraction. It really just depends on your vantage point: whether you are the traveler or the observer.

Time is an actual dimension, just as real as physical space itself—that’s what Einstein and those who followed his lead proved once and for all. Space and time aren't separate entities; they are inextricably linked, functioning in a state of constant mutual dependence.

Commercialism, in a nutshell.

Naturally. Casual enough. 👍

Blue Eyes said:Richard Howard2 starts whining the second anyone dares to question his supposed cinematic expertise, yet he’s always the first one looking down his nose at everyone else's taste.🙄

Yeah, you're right about that.

frozentiger6, my apologies!

If you'd like, I can just delete my previous post.

Ugh, this list looks like something a ten-year-old put together...

You’re trivializing the very concept of a masterpiece... if masterpieces were actually that easy to produce, they wouldn't be masterpieces anymore...

Exactly. That was my point. Look at my previous post.

In terms of pure profit, a genius would be someone who builds something out of nothing... like... The Blair Witch Project, or My Big Fat Greek Wedding...

Well, you're mistaken there. Those aren't geniuses; those are just individuals with charisma who happen to transfer that charisma onto their cinematic work. It's the exact same thing as those musical hits we discussed.

To me, the biggest pile of garbage ever made is that "Titanic" film by your precious Cameron...

Nevertheless, that specific movie is "the greatest film of all time, larger than life, the most Oscar-winning, and most watched in history," so feel free to spit on James Cameron if it makes you feel better about yourself...

(The text inside the quotes is phrased that way because I actually believe the complete opposite, but who am I to judge?)

And how is Bay a genius if he had a budget of over 100 million for that film?

He was granted that budget because of the reputation he built up through his experience with blockbusters. He is essentially the "father" of those terrible, hollow, pathetic American popcorn blockbusters. And that is precisely why he is considered a genius.

I have no desire to engage in some tedious debate over whether a standard blockbuster holds more weight than a typical "artsy" flick. That’s a circular argument. However, claiming that just anyone can whip up a masterpiece is an absurdity. If it were that easy, we wouldn't call them masterpieces, for heaven's sake.

Look, I wasn't suggesting we treat it like a "masterpiece" in that lofty, academic sense where the term actually carries some weight. I was talking about practical usage—how people actually talk. If you bother to look at the data, about 20% of movies released these days get slapped with the "masterpiece" label. When everyone is calling everything a work of art, the original meaning of the word—something truly unique and one-of-a-kind—just gets lost in the noise.

Most cinematic masterpieces aren't engineered; they happen by sheer accident. It’s a volatile cocktail of luck, a solid script, inspired direction, and performances that actually feel alive. I’ve always felt that Oscar bait is just a prime example of a manufactured "masterpiece"... *A Beautiful Mind*, for instance? Sure, it's fine. But let's be honest—it isn't a true masterpiece.

I find myself in agreement. There is simply no blueprint for a masterpiece; most often, they emerge by pure accident. You might be able to map out a general trajectory—a certain path one ought to follow to enter that creative realm—but there is never a guarantee. It is much like the music industry: a song can be anything, yet it may fail to become a hit entirely, leaving everything to the whims of fate. What we are discussing here are truly great films—those rare works that exist solely due to the sheer merit and vision of their creators.

There are, quite obviously, superior blockbuster directors—think James Cameron or Steven Spielberg—and then there are the lesser ones, like Michael Bay or George Lucas. But let’s be honest: the sheer volume of cash a film pulls in isn't usually determined by directorial talent alone. It isn't that the first two Star Wars films cleared over 300 million because Lucas is such an unparalleled master of the blockbuster format. They hit those numbers because, by that point, he had already built a massive reputation. Brand recognition carries weight. Talent is secondary to momentum.

Don't you dare lump George Lucas in with Michael Bay.🙂

The original Star Wars trilogy achieved masterpiece status due to those nebulous, indefinable qualities I previously touched upon—much like how certain pop hits just capture lightning in a bottle. Despite twice the effort being poured into the newer trilogy, it simply will never reach that same zenith. That isn't to say the recent installments aren't excellent films in their own right... but that is a conversation for another time.

Months before a movie even hits theaters in America, the outcome is essentially a foregone conclusion. You can already tell which films are destined to soar and which will sink. They know exactly who the target audience is, how to manipulate them, and precisely what levers to pull to ensure they show up. Blockbusters aren't accidents; they are engineered. Marketing budgets are strategically funneled toward the "sure bets," and the prime release windows are handed out like prizes to the studio favorites. It’s all very calculated. There is a clear hierarchy where certain films are prioritized over others, creating these so-called blockbusters through sheer artificial force. In this system, the supposed "aura of the director" is nothing more than a myth.

Precisely.👍

Let’s say James Cameron decides to take a crack at a new project—just a hypothetical, mind you. If he were to kick things off in September and only throw $10 million behind the marketing instead of the usual $40 million most blockbusters demand, I'm almost certain that film wouldn't even crack the $100 million mark. It's quite simple, really.

I concur, though I’d argue James Cameron is the exception here; he possesses the sheer capability to rise above such limitations.

Finally, someone who actually understands what BIT is shows up in this debate. slyrider16, you legend.

It is incredibly shallow—if I may be so blunt—to judge films based solely on searching for some "central theme" or a "moral message." The film industry has evolved far beyond that, and things are much more complex now.

In my opinion, the directors and writers behind those massive blockbusters are greater geniuses than the ones churning out "masterpieces." You could find at least ten million people in L.A. capable of making a masterpiece, but to pull in over 200 million dollars with a movie that is often total garbage? That takes true genius. People like Bay, Spielberg, Lucas, and especially Cameron, whom I consider the ultimate mastermind when it comes to balancing money and the audience.

Once again, slyrider16, respect!

Look, I’ve had enough of people just declaring a movie "good" or "bad" without actually bothering to explain why.

In my estimation, while the film isn't exactly a masterpiece, it still sits well above the mediocre baseline.

The massive budget and the sheer amount of effort poured into every single second of the runtime are impossible to ignore. The excellent special effects and that specific visual atmosphere—that heavy gray-blue tint—really drive home the mood. Toss in a tight plot and a stellar cast, and you have several strong assets on your side.

It is a monumental piece of cinema, and certainly an engaging watch.

However, if one looks slightly beneath that visually and narratively striking surface, the reliance on tired tropes becomes glaringly obvious. You have the sweeping finale where everything is tied up with a bow, followed by the inevitable disgrace and scandal of the main antagonist, then the villain's turn, and finally that predictable clash between logic and emotion. It’s all standard formulaic filler. There is nothing truly groundbreaking here. In fact, in many scenes, it’s painfully clear how much this film is trying too hard to be "impressive," which ultimately achieves the exact opposite effect.

I find myself wishing for a > of >. To be clear, I am not suggesting we touch the plot—the narrative is absolutely flawless as it stands.

Furthermore, a modern reimagining of > would be welcome, as would a truly competent version of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea...

1. Star Wars, all installments
2. Blade Runner
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
4. Alien 1, 2, 3, and 4
5. The Abyss

I have more to list...

6. Terminator 1 and 2 (By the way, does anyone actually know when these will finally be released on Blu-ray)
7. Indiana Jones 1, 2, and 3
8. Back To the Future 1, 2, and 3