Posts by mistyangler86

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the concept of "true" champions in professional sports, and honestly, it feels like the more we evolve, the more the actual competition is being diluted by politics and ego. We all want to see the best face the best, right? That’s the whole point of following a sport. But lately, it feels like we’re living in an era of "paper kings."

You see it all the time in combat sports or even in high-level tennis. You have these athletes who are clearly at the top of their game, putting in the work, climbing the ranks, and looking for that definitive moment of truth. They want to step into the ring or onto the court against the person holding the other belt to prove once and for all who sits on the throne. And then, what happens? The other side suddenly has "scheduling conflicts," or "different promotional interests," or "injury concerns" that just happen to pop up exactly when a massive fight is on the horizon.

It’s incredibly frustrating to watch as a fan. I remember back in the day, when you were at the top, you didn't get to choose your destiny; you had to defend your position against anyone claiming they were better than you. There was a certain level of accountability that felt baked into the system. Now, it feels like the sport has become a series of protected silos. You have these different organizations or factions, each with their own "champion," and they all just circle each other without ever actually colliding. It’s like watching a bunch of people claim they’re the fastest runner in the world, but they all refuse to race on the same track because they're afraid of what might happen if they lose.

From my perspective, this isn't just about the athletes; it’s about the gatekeepers. The promoters, the sanctioning bodies, and the massive contracts that keep certain people from ever having to face a real threat. When a fighter is actively pushing for that big, unifying moment, they aren't just fighting for a trophy; they're fighting against a system that benefits from keeping things fragmented. If you unify, you risk losing your leverage. If you keep the titles separate, you can keep milking your specific niche of fans indefinitely. It’s a business model that prioritizes stability and predictable revenue over the raw, unpredictable meritocracy that makes sports worth watching in the first place.

I’ve noticed this trend creeping into other areas too, where "prestige" is more about who you represent than what you can actually do. It creates this weird atmosphere where a champion can be technically "undefeated" but still feel like a fraud to anyone who actually follows the deep history of the sport. You start to see these massive gaps in skill levels, where one person is clearly the real deal, but they're stuck in a loop of easy wins because the people they *should* be fighting are too busy protecting their brand.

It makes me wonder about the long-term health of these sports. If we keep moving toward this model of "protected champions," do we eventually lose the very essence of what makes a championship meaningful? At what point does a title just become a piece of shiny metal that lacks any real weight because nobody has ever had to prove it against the entire field? I love the drama, and I love the skill, but I hate the feeling that the outcome of a season or a ranking is decided in a boardroom months before the actual competition takes place.

Is it even possible to have a true, undisputed champion in the modern era, or is the "unification" dream just a fantasy that the powers-that-be will never actually allow to happen?

I won't quote you directly because I don't want to trigger any accidental spoilers, but those scenes set in the apartment were easily the most entertaining parts of the entire movie for me.🙂 spoiler alert The way he takes out that assistant using a piano? Now that is what I call a classy execution. And honestly, seeing how they managed to bust through those doors—it’s almost hard to believe, yet somehow perfectly normal in this kind of cinematic world when someone starts hammering away at heavy metal doors.

I just got back from the theater. While we were actually sitting there, most people seemed pretty engaged; it was an entertaining enough watch and the runtime flew by. However, once we sat down for a few drinks afterward, we started picking apart the plot and found about fifteen absolute nonsense moments and completely unnecessary subplots. Honestly, seeing people claim this movie has some kind of genius storytelling feels a bit misplaced to me.

Maybe dial back the condescension just a touch. There are people out there actually looking to learn something; it was just a broad generalization,

I don't mind the generalization—it's certainly not my first time hearing one—it’s just that I fail to see what one is supposed to learn from someone listing ten incredibly famous modern films.*

I certainly wouldn't want to presume I'm the sole authority on what constitutes true originality, so I'll offer my own modest contribution—mentioning a few more recent works that actually managed to pleasantly surprise me. Almost all of Park Chan-wook's films fit the bill. I found Oldboy to be somewhat original in its directorial techniques and specific stylistic choices, as well as the way it handles narration; even I Am a Cyborg... well, that's fine, given the story and the highly distinctive characters, even if it isn't exactly devoid of references to various other films.
By the way, have you seen that American sci-fi from 1916 🙂?

You really have to bring up Metropolis in this context. You could even make a case for Psycho, given how early the protagonist gets taken out, though obviously, the book was the source material there. Personally, I find myself wondering which films actually managed a genuine twist at the end. These days, it’s such a tired trope that nothing feels surprising anymore; movies practically market themselves based on their "shocking" endings, so the element of surprise has been completely bled dry by the hype. 😢

It really makes you wonder how much credit we can actually give Inglourious Basterds when it comes to pure originality. Don't get me wrong—it’s definitely unconventional and creative in its own right—but when a film leans that heavily on specific references and stylistic homages, one has to question if "originality" is even the right word to use here.

It appears someone has managed to outmaneuver me in the comments. 🙂

It’s always the same story with these kinds of threads. You get one group that can only recall the latest blockbusters everyone’s talking about, while the other extreme starts rattling off obscure experimental flicks just to prove a point. If we’re actually following the logic of what makes something truly "original," we should probably be looking at the films that defined entire genres or pioneered specific cinematic techniques for the first time. By that standard, *The Last Fight* is an incredibly original piece of work, even if some people might disagree—so I guess the thread title doesn't exactly capture the full scope of the debate. :P

Memento, Being John Malkovich, Repman, Unbreakable, Oldboy, Caché, Fight Club, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, No Country for Old Men, The Big Lebowski—and there are plenty more, I won't even bother listing the older stuff, though I'd say Jodorowsky is quite unique in his own way.

I’m on board with all of those, except for NCFOM... I mean, in what way is that film actually original?

Malcolm McDowell is essentially one massive collection of 176 distinct idiocies.

I’m not entirely certain if anyone else has brought him up, but in my estimation, John Schlesinger has transitioned quite seamlessly from Midnight Cowboy to being the next big thing.

A painfully drawn-out, cliché-ridden slog of a movie that likely wouldn't have even made a blip on the radar if it weren't for the prestige cast attached to it.