Posts by Jerry Martin19

Eric Hernandez said:

🤣 🤣 🤣

Gotta say, I’d also give a shoutout to the cast (Penna was especially good) and the directing. The whole performance was high-quality, at the very least...

not quote-ing anyone in particular.

I've got nothing against fighting for rights. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, so what gay activists are asking for doesn't bother me one bit, even if I personally wouldn't want to get involved in it. electro cute mentioned where he thinks the movie misses the mark, and I wanted to add my two cents. What would a movie about Milka actually need to look like to avoid feeling like propaganda? It’s not even about propaganda, really—it's about balance, and in this case, there isn't any. That definitely drags down the quality. Pushing the same thing in the viewer's face the whole time doesn't connect with anything; it just feels like those "Buy now!" commercials that make sitting in front of the TV such a chore. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the movie is infuriating—it's not (at least for me)—but relying solely on one angle just kills the quality. A movie should be a story, not a commercial or a lecture.

@Charlly, there's no such thing as a "template biography." A biography is just a portrait of someone's life, plain and simple. This movie just uses her traits to serve a different agenda.

@Wanderer, it's funny how you claim you weren't calling me out while writing "The point isn't even whether you're an auto-homophobic gay or just homophobic.". Okay, so what are my other "options"? Am I supposed to choose between being an auto-homophobic gay or a homophobe? I thought you were against discrimination 🙂

p.s. For the record, I'm neither. I'm just trying to talk about the movie objectively. If it were about a different topic, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Ashley Young4 said:Isn't that exactly what defines a biopic? It’s all about narrowing the lens to focus specifically on those pivotal life moments. Of course.When you look at why Harvey Milk matters so much and how he truly cemented his place in history—specifically through his incredible activism—it really makes you think, doesn't it? Personally, I’m not quite sure I would have found it quite as engaging if the movie had spent half its runtime focusing on his childhood or his relationship with his mom, grandmother, father, or even just his interactions with peers and local shopkeepers. After all, a film can't go on forever, can it?

You have his meeting with the love of his life, his move to San Francisco, the deep development of their relationship, even that second romance... and so much more. So, really, isn't it clear that the film isn't solely focused on activism—which you so maliciously dismiss as mere "propaganda"?
Ultimately, Milk secured his place in history because of the very causes he championed—that "propaganda" everyone loves to debate—and the monumental strides he made in the fight for gay rights, rather than just the personal dynamics involving his family or employers. Isn't it interesting how, by some stroke of cinematic luck, the film chose to focus precisely on the legacy that defines him?

After all, can we really expect propaganda to work when they try to portray their "hero" as someone who is occasionally harsh or even a little bit shady? It just doesn't seem to go hand in hand, does it?

What kind of objective perspective was I actually expecting here? Even if I feel like I’ve already made my point, I suppose it bears repeating. Throughout the story, they constantly imply that Harvey Milk was this universal champion for everyone's rights. Now, if their intention was to portray him as a broad-minded liberal, that would be one thing, but they simply didn't succeed—or perhaps, more accurately, it wasn't in their best interest to do so. It feels as though they just wanted the audience to perceive him through that specific lens, seeing him as an activist with empathy for all, only to use that carefully crafted mask to sell whatever narrative serves them best. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat subjective? I wouldn't have minded at all if they hadn't spent so much time constantly insisting, "this is who we are." Is there anything more refreshing than encountering someone who truly possesses a broad-minded perspective on life? It feels as though we live in such polarized times, doesn't it, where everyone seems so quick to judge and even quicker to retreat into their own little bubbles? I find myself constantly wondering how much more peaceful our daily interactions might be if we all simply took a moment to consider the nuances instead of rushing to a conclusion. Wouldn't a bit more intellectual curiosity go a long way in bridging the gaps between us?But did they actually live up to the hype? If I didn't quite make my point clear the first time, please accept my apologies, as I truly did try to be more precise. Besides, have you happened to hear what the screenwriter had to say during the Oscar ceremony?

He doesn't exactly present himself as a champion for everyone's rights, does he? It’s quite evident from the film that he is primarily a gay activist, specifically fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Perhaps you were a bit thrown when he mentioned at those public forums that everyone deserves equality—but honestly, isn't that just standard political rhetoric? Surely he wouldn't go out and say, "I only care about gay rights, and frankly, I couldn't care less about anyone else," would he?

The fact that he was an openly gay man who organized pride marches and constantly championed LGBTQ+ rights clearly places him in that specific category of politicians fighting for queer equality. It seems to me they were simply portraying him exactly as he lived his life. I didn't catch any scenes in the film where he was organizing civil rights marches for Black Americans or labor strikes for workers, but does that mean he wasn't interested in those causes? Of course not. Did he attempt to build coalitions and win over other minority groups and marginalized communities? He absolutely did.

I haven't actually sat down to watch the Oscars myself, though I did catch some of the commentary regarding what the screenwriter had to say. Honestly, what an absolute disaster; it seems the writer is gay and carries a deep emotional connection to the subject matter. Should we just go ahead and wipe the film from existence and re-shoot the whole thing with a straight screenwriter instead? 🙄

yeah, they really leaned into that life theme. felt like they just threw in those personal relationships to say "hey, we're all human too." correct me if i'm wrong 🙂

He's not portrayed as fighting for everyone's rights everywhere. He's a gay activist, and that's clear through the film. Translation: he fights for gay rights. Maybe you got tripped up because he said at a few public forums that everyone should be equal (what's the big deal there?)—but that's just standard political talk. It's not like he's gonna say: "I only care about gay rights, everyone else can go screw themselves."

if i recall, in one or two interviews he did mention he fights for everyone's rights.

No, I haven't seen the Oscar, but I read part of what the screenwriter said. Wow, what a tragedy—the writer is gay and emotionally connected to the subject. Let's just scrap the movie and reshoot it with a straight writer immediately. 🙄

okay, now you're just poking the bear. i don't care if the writer is gay. let them be whoever they want. I sent you the link earlier; if it's not clear enough for you, that's on you. tell me this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be considered gun propaganda?

Ashley Young4 said:Since you can't actually point out what specific parts of that movie constitute propaganda, it really feels like your posts are just baseless, homophobic rhetoric.

Isn't it wonderful if a bigot watches a film and is forced to pause and wonder why they feel so much irrational hatred toward gay people? If that kind of self-reflection is what you're labeling as "propaganda," then I say let the propaganda win! Though, honestly, I highly doubt those types of people ever stop to ask themselves those kinds of questions...

Looks like you’ve already lost your cool and started throwing insults. Just so we're clear, I'm neither stupid nor homophobic. Honestly, if anything, I'm more on the gay side than the homophobic side...

So you think I can't argue? Honestly, it seems more like you just can't wrap your head around a point or actually accept one... 🙂

Didn't even get through the whole post before hitting those salty remarks. What exactly was malicious about what I said? Since when is calling out propaganda considered being malicious?

Sandra Campbell2 said:Oh, give me a break... go sell newspapers or something. What kind of twisted logic is that? Honestly! You probably would have had a problem with > too...

I think it’s fair to say a huge part of who he was is defined precisely by the fact that he was gay. The greatest thing he ever achieved—the thing he’s likely most proud of and why anyone even knows his name—was his political impact fighting for human rights.

AND BEYOND THAT, there's a moment in the film where he HIMSELF admits that before he started fighting, he was absolutely nobody. Just a non-entity, a parasite, someone whose life lacked any real purpose. That clearly shows the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing when they glossed over his earlier years.

Your approach isn't great, but whatever. I'll ignore the attitude and just stick to the facts. So, it's fine if User A claims a movie titled Milk is supposed to be gay rights propaganda, but it's wrong if User B says it should follow the biographical setup it actually promised? I don't get it. Is a biopic about Charlton Heston supposed to be gun rights propaganda?...

I think they highlighted part of his identity by defining him through his sexuality. His biggest achievement—the thing he’s likely proudest of and why he's famous—was his political work fighting for human rights.

Right, because movies always explicitly preach about human rights struggles. Too bad you can't actually see that in this film.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, there's a part where he literally says that before he started fighting, he was nobody—just a parasite, that his life had no real meaning. It's pretty obvious the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing by cutting out his earlier years.

If this isn't enough proof of the pro-gay rights messaging, then sorry.

@Emily Thomas3, I'm not surprised by the propaganda itself, just disappointed by how it hides behind the mask of broad liberalism...

Ashley Young4 said:I have to say, I don't think what you've written makes much sense.
The central theme of the film is Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights. That is why the movie is titled "Milk," and why the poster features the actor playing Harvey Milk. Is it one-sided? Perhaps—but that is the entire concept and spirit of the film.
I'm curious, what kind of "objective" standpoint were you actually expecting? Did you expect that *your* subjective viewpoint would be represented? Or were you hoping that the opposing, homophobic views would be presented as equally valid or positive?

The discrimination that the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was quite real and objective.
Again, I'm at a loss as to what you were looking for. If you wanted a thorough exploration of the other side—for instance, the bigots who fought against gay rights, like that crazy woman whose name escapes me—then that would be a topic for a completely different movie. The subject of this film is Harvey Milk and the people surrounding him; so, it might seem "subjective" to you, which, of course, it is, just like every other film ever made. 🙂

hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...

One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film.
I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?

The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective.
Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂

What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?

That probably happened because you were holding down CTRL while scrolling at the same time 🙂

I think you're just hitting "back" to leave the thread, so when you return to the page, it naturally shows the timestamp from before you actually posted 😁
...

Look, I gotta admit this... if anyone even cares... 😬To be honest, I'm just not really feeling Scorsese anymore... Bringing Out the Dead Looking back at 1999... there was one that actually hit the spot for me, though I haven't really dug into any of his other work worth mentioning. He dropped three pieces during that era... New York gangs..., The Aviator I need more content to work with. Send over the posts you want me to rewrite... The Departed.Some of them walked away with a ton of nominations (and wins), but that last one actually managed to snag Best Picture... I don't even know... New York gangs... Haven't really watched it, so I can't say much for sure... though I did catch some of it. The Aviator That movie was about as satisfying as a hair in my soup... Honestly, I can say without hesitation that it was a total dud, but hey, at least I survived it...🙂I guess... then we'll see if that masterpiece actually holds up... The Departed I wonder who actually snagged that award just because they felt "guilty" for not giving *The Godfather* its due earlier... I mean, I can't even say the movie was particularly great, let alone see where all this supposed genius is hiding. Feel free to educate me if I'm missing something...

paying for an account lol 🤣

Michael Ortiz68 said:A THX 1183? Honestly, one of the most impactful dystopian sci-fi pieces out there. Highly recommend it to everyone, not just the Lucas and Star Wars crowd.

👍

By the way, I think American Graffiti is such a great, nostalgic flick. Lucas wasn't always the "questionable" director people make him out to be today... Star Wars was basically his meteoric rise and then his massive crash. Wish I’d caught this sooner...

Alright, found it... the thread, obviously 😁

What’s the consensus on Tom Tykwer? Personally, I thought he was solid to great with stuff like Heaven, The Princess and The Warrior, and Run Lola Run. But Perfume kind of fell flat for me. It seemed okay at first glance, but after digging into it a bit more—and reading a critique that felt way more substantial and layered, basically just better—it confirmed my doubts. It feels like he got lost trying to turn Perfume into some massive blockbuster for the masses. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like that charm he used to have (at least for me) has just watered down...

Not sure about his latest one with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, but hoping it beats the last one. If anyone’s seen it, let me know what you thought 🙂

Fair point, but it’s too late now. The edit window closed ages ago, and I already asked for some tweaks once, so I don't want to be "that guy" spamming requests again. Maybe it doesn't even matter that much. People will read it if they care, and they won't if they don't... and it feels like most people on this forum just can't be bothered with long posts, no matter how well they're laid out...

@hollowtrucker77/">@@hollowtrucker77, obviously you don't need to explain why a ban is justified when someone calls another user an idiot, but there are plenty of other cases. Situations that are a bit more complicated than just appealing a ban that the author knows they deserved. It's basically just that attitude of "I'm bored, so I'm going to harass them, not because it's necessary, but because I CAN."

Anyway, the whole reason I started this thread was to prevent these kinds of situations from happening as much as possible. Everyone gets called out on a subforum at some point, but it’s all about how it's done. I've been criticized too, but it actually sticks when it's handled right—when it isn't an "attack." When someone comes at you aggressively, you just get defensive, and suddenly the actual point they were making doesn't even matter anymore. You won't even internalize the criticism because you're too busy being pissed off to realize you messed up and should fix it for next time. But when someone gives you feedback politely and points out where you slipped up, it actually hits home, even if you don't go public and say, "Yeah, you got me. My bad." I've definitely been caught off guard by constructive criticism before, and I know I've made an effort afterward to make sure I didn't repeat the same mistake. It works, trust me. You can actually learn something if it's phrased decently 🙂

Where to start? Let's just go with this... I'm opening a thread for some well-intentioned criticism of everyone here. And I mean "everyone"—that means there are no special categories like regular users versus moderators. We're all in the same boat. Why bother criticizing at all? Honestly, arguments break out across different subforums all the time. This specific section used to be the epicenter of those flame wars, but since things are changing for the better, our communication needs to evolve too. It’s a positive shift. Since we've seen plenty of cases where people have issues with mods or other users but can't express them without it turning into a toxic mess, it’s vital that any critique stays objective. Don't just go after someone because you feel like being a jerk... Second, and this is huge, you have to actually be constructive. Don't just drop two lines of snark and call it a day. If possible, back it up with examples—like specific posts, or if you're calling out a mod, mention the specific sanctions you think were unfair. You can't just link a few posts from someone you think is a troll and say "get lost." You need to explain *why* their style is an issue and why it's bothering people. Third, don't take sides. No playing lawyer here. If someone is being criticized, they are the only ones who should respond to those points. The only way to quote-ate posts that aren't directed at you is to follow the rules, which means adding actual, reasoned arguments. Also, signing off with that annoying spammer move "I second this" is a no-go. You can quote-ate a post, but what you add must be meaningful. You can't just write stuff like "Yeah, you nailed it. That guy is exhausting" or "Agreed. This mod is terrible and needs to be stripped of her rank." Like I said before, no playing advocate. We don't want groups forming against a single user, like when a bunch of bitter people gang up on one moderator. That's strictly forbidden here.

Now, let's get to the point of this whole thing. As I mentioned, fights happen everywhere on this site, sometimes justified and sometimes not. Usually, it's because people don't know how to talk to each other, opting for insults over actual communication. They rely on irrelevant vibes instead of facts during a "debate." For example, we all know these classic lines:

"What do you even know?"
"How old are you anyway?"
"Oh, since you're such a genius..."
"What are you even talking about?"
"You gave me a [redacted] warning."
"You have no idea how to moderate."
"There's nothing to discuss. The ban was deserved."

etc., etc. It's impossible to list them all...
The goal of constructive criticism is to make the person reading it pause and wonder if they actually *are* in the wrong, or if their attitude toward others is genuinely off, even if they won't admit it to your face. The goal is for the person being critiqued (and yes, anyone can be critiqued) to realize when they messed up. The goal is to encourage people to fix that negative approach and foster better, more positive communication among everyone.

I want to see the people who are always pointing fingers try doing it the right way—with actual logic and substance. If this thread ends up being empty, it just says a lot about your own ability to communicate...

Just so we're clear, NO CHATTING ALLOWED! Not in any capacity whatsoever.

Mods, I did my best to keep this thread strictly by the book. If you decide to lock it for some reason, just let us know why so we can fix whatever isn't working and keep the discussion going. 🙂

Edit: Forgot one more thing. If someone tries to shut you down with that "I'm older than you, what do you know?" nonsense, don't even bother responding. If it bugs you, just report them for "Breaking thread rules." That's the whole point here—keeping the conversation civil...

Got a question for you guys (looks like it might’ve been asked already, but I haven't scrolled through all the replies yet). I've been following this whole "debate" surrounding Astrica lately, and I was also checking out the threads over on Reddit... what I really want to know is, is that kind of talk actually allowed here? Like, is it okay to call people sociopaths and tell them they need to go to therapy? As far as I knew, that stuff usually gets flagged. Just to be clear, though—I'm not taking sides. I'm definitely not defending Astrica; I've read her posts a few times and she comes off as a total troll, pretty aggressive too. She has this weirdly hostile vibe toward other users (well, based on the forum, obviously, since we haven't met in person). On the flip side, I'm not defending the people calling her every name in the book either, even if she probably deserves it. I just don't think this forum—especially the biggest community in the US—is the place for that kind of stuff...

edit: mods, don't come for me. I'm not here to troll 🙂

northerncrane4, what kind of criminal ☕

this movie is an absolute masterpiece to me ☕

but still doesn't top Time (at least when talking about Kim Ki-duk) ☕

James Garcia58 said:Yeah, if I’d waited a year to drop this poll, he wouldn't even have these 7-8%...

I'm with you there, though it's wild that with all this hype- a movie gets this few votes in a poll like this...

Joseph Watson3 said:I'm wondering the same thing. Honestly, it bugs me when people don't respect a film enough to even spell the title right...🤷

especially since No Country for Old Men isn exactly some minor flick 🤷
...

And which movie is that second option from the bottom for? ☕

James Garcia58 said:Honestly, I didn't expect people to take this poll so seriously. This is getting a bit ridiculous...

I figured everyone would just push for Slumdog Millionaire since that was the long shot... 😁