Ultras said:Whatever. For me, hitting the theater is a whole ritual. It isn't just about watching a movie; it’s much more than that. A ticket costs me $10, which is about the same as a bootleg DVD, yet I still prefer going to the cinema.
Times have changed. Going to the movies used to be the definitive way to go out. But back then, we were living under socialism—there wasn't a massive flood of programming, video rental stores, the internet, DivX, or DVDs everywhere. And outings weren't just some teenage sexual conquest for sixteen-year-olds...
Icepick said:sorry Jango, but you’re acting like you actually KNOW what the producers and director intended for this film. I think we both know—well, at least I know—that isn't the case.... 😂 😉
No, I am not claiming that. But it is obvious. Crystal clear.
They started playing one tune and ended up playing an entirely different one.
It is like when you are writing a term paper for a college professor. You start out strong; you write a massive introduction and deep analysis, detailing everything perfectly, hinting at a masterpiece. Then, halfway through, you lose interest or run out of time, so you just scramble to slap together a bunch of adjectives and metaphors to finish the body and conclusion in a single frantic burst... anyone looking from a distance can see it happening.
Look, this isn't a serious film. Not even for a second. It doesn't attempt to be, which is exactly why it actually works—unlike something like Van Helsing, where I honestly have no clue what on earth they were thinking. 😵
This film is an absolute joke. It was made as a joke, and that’s exactly how it’s being served up to the audience. And honestly? That is precisely why it works. It isn't pretending to be anything other than what it is.
Look, I already know that. Honestly, I wasn't exactly expecting anything profound from it. My main issue is just how inconsistent the film was regarding the tone they established right at the start. It shouldn't have been trying to pass itself off as Spy Kids or Jurassic Park. It had its own distinct flair and style, regardless.
The opening sequence was truly something else—a masterclass in audiovisual design that managed to build an atmosphere so immersive it practically pulled you in by the collar. It was striking. But then, halfway through, everything just falls apart. The cohesion vanishes. That sense of mood, that beautiful touch of nostalgia... it all just shatters into pieces. By the end, the wonder is gone, replaced by nothing.
Adam Wright56, I have to say, the opening sequence of the film was handled with real finesse; they used that parade of special effects quite purposefully to build up the hype and really nail the atmosphere.
But by the midpoint, things take a turn for the worse. It turns into this bizarre hybrid of Jurassic Park and Spy Kids—just a complete breakdown of what were otherwise brilliantly designed individual elements. They simply stop working together, losing that cohesive flavor they had at the start.
Look, to be perfectly honest, I actually enjoyed watching the movie, especially on the big screen.
Generally speaking, this flick is miles ahead of most of the garbage being churned out lately; it’s an atmospheric, thrilling visual journey that modern audiences genuinely need.
And it is precisely because I liked it so much that I feel such bitter resentment that it wasn't executed with the sheer brilliance it displayed at the start!
I have no desire to waste my breath commenting on mediocre, bad movies anymore, but this one had such potential that I felt the urge to just scream, "DAMN IT, WHY DIDN'T THEY FINISH IT PROPERLY!"
So, while my rational mind recognizes the film is flawed, I am still fucking gutted about it.
What is wrong with you people? The movie is just plain terrible. It isn't because it tries too hard to channel the 1930s, nor is it because the characters are flat husks serving as mere scenery, or because it leans into trash aesthetics, or even because it functions as nothing more than a visual picture book. No, the real issue is the massive gap between a brilliantly atmospheric, nostalgic opening—where the effects and sequences captured the mood of the classics so effectively (I am thinking specifically of the 1939 film Things to Come) that they actually stir the viewer—and the poorly articulated mess that follows. In the rest of the film, the effects are just piled on without any purpose in building atmosphere; it becomes a mindless parade of technical demonstrations, plagued by jarring set changes and total inconsistency. It utterly ruined what could have been a genuine treat. It is always the same story: the first act is excellent because actual work went into it, but then they have to cobble the rest together just to hit a runtime requirement...
Simone said:Traditional movie houses are dying because ticket sales don't even cover the overhead.
I suppose I could agree if we were discussing those struggling little neighborhood theaters. But let’s be clear—we are talking about those incredibly brazen multiplexes overseas. They waste money on hundreds of digital displays just to show their schedule, then they have the audacity to charge $3.25 for a bottle of water and price a bag of popcorn like it's a full dinner at a steakhouse. You pay enough for one ticket to equal two tickets at a local indie cinema, all while being swarmed by the heavy-handed sponsorship of some obnoxious multinational corporation...
Unfortunately, Broadway is starting to follow right in the footsteps of AMC Theatres. It’s nothing but commercials for AT&T and other mindless nonsense, and now the ticket price has climbed to $9.75!
I’m with you on that. I don't even step foot inside an AMC Theatres anymore.
Just plain old highway robbery— $3.25. Honestly, I won't even glance toward the concession stands. It was bad enough paying $25 just to sit through two tickets worth of commercials...
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if they started shoving ads right into the middle of the movie itself!
It is absolute, unmitigated gall, and for no reason at all.
Frank Moore77 said:Well then, by all means, feel free to just ignore the ads that bother you so much. It’s fundamentally the same principle. When you download emails to your computer, you inevitably pull in spam too—or, at the very least, you have to delete the junk before you even start reading your actual messages. Either way, you're wasting precious time and energy that could be spent on something more productive or, frankly, more enjoyable.
The one decent thing about going to the movie theater is that you can lazily show up ten or fifteen minutes late to dodge the previews, though even that isn't particularly fun if the theater is packed and you find yourself stuck right in the middle of a crowd.
It’s the exact same issue with those flyers cluttering up American mailboxes—you didn't ask for them, yet they force them upon everyone. I often feel an intense urge to just grab the whole lot and toss it straight into the trash, but I hesitate because there might be an actual utility bill buried in there somewhere.
Look, I'm not making a point about the general existence of spam. Unfortunately, the reality of our modern era is that spam surrounds us wherever we look. However, if you are actually paying for a service, it is nothing short of rude to bombard you with ads. For instance, Yahoo offers an email client without advertisements if you pay for it, which is perfectly reasonable; if a service is free, it's funded by advertising, but when a service is paid for out of a user's own pocket, it shouldn't require advertising. At that point, it simply becomes an affront that one ought to resist.
I don't go to the cinema anymore. I'll just buy myself a home theater setup with a projector and watch pirated movies instead; let them run their ads there for all I care...
On one hand, we complain about being disrespectful toward legitimate companies selling movies and music, yet on the other, they hit us with this kind of blatant rudeness. It creates this frustrating dynamic where they’re actually in the right, and we aren't.
Who exactly decided we live in a democratic society anyway? 🤔
But this isn't what Blackadder would call spam. Spam is "free," in the sense that it lands in your lap and tries to annoy you, but you can just ignore it if you want.
This is different: this cannot be ignored, and you have to pay for it!
It is quite clearly a violation of basic ethical and moral principles regarding the individual—an issue for which, it seems, there is no specific law to regulate it.
As long as democracy isn't truly in charge, corporations rule, and they are the ones deciding which things get regulated by law and which don't.
Have you heard that story about how the U.S. Congress once considered banning advertising for companies selling junk food—like McDonald's (which, let's face it, ends up being worse for you than cigarettes!)—only for, get this, high-profile corporate lobbyists to storm into the halls of power and prevent the government from making the decision entirely!
If we aren't living under a totalitarian regime, then what exactly are we living in?
Here is the crux of the matter: we are talking about a form of harassment that you actually fund. You pay up, acting like a decent citizen, shelling out massive amounts of money for a premium subscription, only to be bombarded with advertisements in spaces where you practically have no way to escape them.
It essentially amounts to extortion, since they are forcing your hand to sit through those commercials.
It is frankly appalling. When you watch free commercial networks, you can simply look away or change the channel, but here—on a service you are paying specifically to enjoy—you are trapped!
In my view, this constitutes grounds for a lawsuit based on harassment, extortion, and coercion.
Does anyone know if there is any legal ground to file a complaint regarding the advertisements for AT&T and FOX playing right before a movie starts?
I mean, they are already ripping us off when it comes to $10 ticket prices—sometimes charging upwards of $12—only to force us to sit through fifteen minutes of commercials for AT&T or FOX just before the film begins. Look, I get the basic principle: if you aren't paying, you're watching ads, which is how FOX operates. But to blast advertisements on something I actually paid a premium for? That is a truly non-standard way to conduct business.
I would honestly sue them; it is the absolute height of insolence...
The posters displayed at SC are part of a fantastic tradition that should be actively preserved. I am speaking about art as a concept here, of course, rather than those specific pieces at SC. Frankly, they are a disaster. They completely fail to capture anyone's likeness, and the whole point of cinematic portraiture is to actually convey the character's essence.
Those ones from Ukraine are even worse. It feels less like an artistic endeavor and more like some sort of social awareness campaign...
I stick with Internet Explorer. It isn't because I think it’s somehow superior, or whatever people claim; it is simply that I see no compelling reason to bother switching, primarily because:
1. SECURITY - Ever since I dealt with that absolute nightmare of a spyware infection, I learned how to defend myself. Thanks in part to math_baby, I haven't been hit by a single piece of spyware since. I clear out some mindless cookies once a month using Adware, and for total security, you just need a few tiny plugins—only a few KB—and you're set. I can now prevent and scrub spyware in under fifteen minutes. An antivirus is standard practice, and I've used the built-in Windows firewall from the start. Zero issues.
2. SPEED - Well, let's be honest, there are subtle differences between browsers, but the real bottleneck is always the connection itself, isn't it? In an era where high-speed broadband is the standard, who really cares...
3. COMPATIBILITY - Naturally, Internet Explorer remains the most compatible with various websites and web content compared to any other browser.
4. CONVENIENCE - We are all conditioned to use Internet Explorer; it feels most natural. And the best part? It comes pre-installed with Windows!
There truly is no reason for me to migrate to anything else.
John Palmer4 said:I rely on a system of intelligently organized directories.
I mean, sure, but honestly? Just using the Media Library in any decent player is a much more comfortable way to go about it. The only thing that actually matters is keeping those ID tags consistent. If you don't stay on top of that, you can't sort anything by album or artist properly. As it stands, my entire collection is incredibly organized—everything is exactly where it should be and right at my fingertips.
I am currently making plans to burn all my MP3 files onto CDs, purely as a backup measure. I spent an incredible amount of effort tracking everything down, so it would be devastating if I lost it all due to some technical glitch...
That said, everything is staying on the Hard Drive. It is honestly such a tedious chore to grab an MP3 CD, swap it in, and get it running; you eventually just lose interest in listening altogether. As it stands, I have everything organized right in my Winamp Media Library.
By the way, do any of you actually use the Media Library?
It appears history is repeating itself; once again, we find ourselves facing that classic computing analogy.
There was a time when hundreds of MP3 files would eat up a significant chunk of our HDD space, but nowadays, capacities have grown so massive that only the most obsessive music collectors could even come close to filling half of them. That historical pattern isn't playing out with MP3 files anymore, though—it's happening with movies. We have much larger HDD units now, sure, but the file sizes have ballooned right along with them. I expect that in just a few years, we’ll be hoarding movies the same way we currently hoard MP3 files—stashing hundreds of titles on a single HDD, and eventually putting together movie compilations on DVDs, much like how people make MP3 collections on CDs today.
The reality remains that MP3 files are the primary culprits for hogging hard drive space, though movies are an even bigger threat. As for me, I still don't actually have as many gigabytes of movies stored away as I do my MP3 collection...