I was sitting in a coffee shop yesterday, just minding my own business, when I found myself staring at the person at the table next to me. They had this massive, folding device spread out—basically a tablet that could fit in a pocket—and they were deep into some high-def video. It looked incredible, obviously. The colors, the sheer real estate of the display... it was impressive. But as I sat there with my standard, "boring" slab of a smartphone, I couldn't help but wonder if we’ve collectively lost the plot when it comes to what a mobile device is actually supposed to be.
Lately, it feels like the entire tech industry is obsessed with a single metric: surface area. It’s like there’s this unspoken rule that if you aren't pushing the boundaries of how much glass you can cram into a chassis, you aren't "innovating." We’ve moved from the era of "how much can this do?" to "how much can we see at once?" And while I get the appeal—I really do—I find myself feeling a bit exhausted by the direction we're heading.
There’s a certain elegance to the traditional smartphone form factor that I think we take for granted. It’s a tool that disappears into your life. It fits in a pocket, it’s easy to use with one hand while you're grabbing a coffee, and it doesn't demand your undivided, two-handed attention every time you want to check a notification. But now, the trend is shifting toward these hybrid devices that demand you treat them like a mini-computer. They want you to unfold them, settle in, and engage with them in a way that feels almost... performative? Like you're making a statement about how "productive" or "multimedia-ready" you are.
I look at my own habits, and I realize I don't actually *need* a tablet in my pocket. Most of my "big screen" time happens on a laptop or a TV. When I'm on the move, I want something nimble. I want something that doesn't feel like a delicate piece of engineering that I'm terrified of snapping in half if I sit down too fast. There’s a psychological weight to carrying something that feels like it’s constantly trying to be two different things at once. Is it a phone? Is it a tablet? If it's trying to be both, does it end up being mediocre at both?
Then there’s the ergonomics. We talk about "immersive experiences," but we rarely talk about the physical toll of holding a device that is significantly wider or heavier than what our hands were evolved to grip. I’ve tried some of these larger, more expansive devices, and after fifteen minutes of scrolling or watching a clip, my wrist actually feels the strain. We are essentially redesigning our personal hardware to fight against our own biology, all for the sake of a more "seamless" transition between apps.
I’m curious, though—am I just being a luddite? I see the utility, especially for people who do a lot of mobile work or people who genuinely consume a lot of high-fidelity media on the go. There’s a legitimate argument to be made that the "gap" between a phone and a tablet is a space that needs to be filled. If you can bridge that gap, you're essentially carrying a workstation in your jeans. That's objectively cool.
But I can't shake the feeling that we're hitting a point of diminishing returns. We’re adding more complexity, more moving parts, and more price tags just to get another inch of digital space. At what point does the "wow factor" of a massive, beautiful screen wear off and just become a bulky inconvenience? Are we actually improving our digital lives, or are we just paying a premium to carry more glass around?
Do you think the push for larger, more versatile mobile displays is a genuine leap forward in how we use technology, or is it just a way for manufacturers to create a "need" for a new category of expensive hardware?
Look, I don't need a movie that basically points its finger at everyone and goes, "Hey, look at these terrible people living in our society." I’m already well aware of what kind of people inhabit our world. Honestly, if this film is actually trying to nudge anyone toward some deep moral epiphany, then I really wouldn't want to get dragged into an argument about it. You could potentially make a decent film about faith, but certainly not using the same approach Bill Maher uses.
Kenneth Williams60 said:Besides, who said I (meaning Alex Walker5) was actually trying to shake anyone's convictions? And honestly, why would any of the people being interviewed bother changing their minds in the first place?? As far as I'm concerned, the movie has a pretty clear point. People don't all need to undergo a total worldview shift for a piece of work to be meaningful... by the way, I think you might be taking the concept of fanaticism a bit too literally. But that's just my two cents. 😉
Alright then, what exactly is this "clear point" you're talking about? I still haven't received an answer to that, and it’s been sitting there since the very start of the thread. I'm certainly not the only one asking.
Kenneth Williams60 said:We’ve drifted into some light philosophical territory here, but fine. 😁 I don’t really follow—why would anyone want to shut down a one-dimensional perspective, or even have the capacity to do such a thing? Beyond that, if you supposedly "uproot" those shallow viewpoints, wouldn't you just be left with more of the same? 🤷 If you break up the religious monopoly held by the Catholic Church here in America, it doesn't mean you're automatically forcing a new monopoly on people; quite the opposite. And honestly, that rule applies to most things... mind you, I'm not suggesting any specific course of action, just speaking theoretically. 😛
Fair enough, but do you realize that the movie misses the point entirely? The people I’d actually want to interview certainly aren't going to budge on their religious views no matter how hard you try to shake them (the exceptions would just prove the rule). Meanwhile, the people who would actually enjoy the film—the ones who already agree with its premise—would only end up doubling down on their own beliefs, which just leads back to a mild form of fanaticism.
Alex Walker5 said:The whole point of the movie would be to find those "ordinary," "normal" folks—the people who hold religious or educational authority here in America, setting a "bad" example for their kids, friends, and everyone else just because they have narrow-minded, one-dimensional views on life. To show that people still believe in all sorts of nonsense.
If you decide to filter out every single one-dimensional perspective just because they’re "wrong," you're basically just left with your own one-dimensional perspective.
ruggedjackal46 said:What would even be the point of that movie, and more importantly, what’s the actual point of yours? If the goal is just to demonstrate that religious fanatics are, in fact, fanatics, then... hello, Obvious. But if that isn't the goal, then what is? 🤷
Did you just ask me the exact same thing I asked you, or does your post actually have some connection to my question above?
Kenneth Williams60 said:I haven't actually sat down to watch the movie, but I get what you're getting at. In my opinion, a documentary like this doesn't necessarily need to be boring or lackluster, nor does it have to lean into being trashy. It’s really just about finding the right subjects. If the goal is to maintain a sense of seriousness—both in terms of the message and the production quality—you should look for "average" people. Specifically, those who pass on narrow-minded views and one-dimensional perspectives to their kids, friends, and community, essentially setting a "wrong" example. Why bother turning them into caricatures out of some Malnar's nightmare? There are plenty of "normal," even successful individuals out there who lean toward the kind of fanaticism and intolerance that stems from that specific type of upbringing. Just look at the movie "all be white in Barking"—most of those characters are driven by racism, yet the film doesn't bother examining the psychological makeup of someone like Rojsov's, Vucin's, or Jaran's mindset. By the way, Alex Walker5—kudos on the idea. Don't let anyone discourage you. 👍 If I had the experience and the capital, I'd definitely help out 😁
But what would the actual point of a film like that be? Or even better, what's the point of that Maher's film? To me, that YouTube link looks pretty fanatical too.
Jerry Martin19 said: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...
I'm on the same page here. Gangs was the start of the decline, The Aviator was the rock bottom, and The Departed is the absolute floor of Scorsese's filmography.
I suspect some people are going to take issue with this, primarily because Milos doesn't even churn out movies that often. He’s made about ten films since leaving Europe, and if we assume maybe five of them were hits with general audiences—distributed fairly evenly across his career—I don't see any massive decline in quality. I’ve watched a few of his earlier European works, but those are fundamentally different types of movies compared to his later stuff, so comparing them is pretty pointless. In those early films, you can really see his fascination with Western culture, which shows up most clearly in the musical scores he chose. Don't mistake this for me being a Forman apologist; my actual take is that he was never all that groundbreaking to begin with. When he arrived in the States, he essentially stumbled onto a great foundation with Ken Kesey's work and instantly built a massive reputation thanks to a film that was hard to mess up given such a strong source material (even if the book and the movie differ quite a bit). He basically rode that reputation to make another two or three music-centric projects (*Amadeus*, *Ragtime*) along with *Walk the Line*, *Goya*, and *Man on the Moon*. So, in my view, there hasn't been much of a downward slide.
For me, The Deer Hunter takes the top spot without question. As for second place, though? I’m genuinely stuck. It’s a toss-up between The Godfather and Flight, and honestly, picking one over the other feels almost impossible. I truly can't decide which one deserves that runner-up position.
That’s actually true regarding the movie, and now that I've had some time to sit with it, I'm convinced the screenwriter is the one who really dropped the ball here.
Jerry Martin19 said:Watched it last night and honestly, I think the movie is totally overrated. Where do I even start? Look... I can't stand it when films tackling discrimination don't offer an objective viewpoint, but instead try to "force" you to feel sympathy for the victims and give them a "shoulder to cry on." I just don't vibe with that kind of "morally pathetic" approach toward the audience. Second, which ties back to my first point, I hate it when a story is too one-sided—when the viewer is funneled into seeing things through exactly one lens, the one the writer dictates. I didn't feel any sense of freedom here; if anything, it felt like being coerced into looking at things from the specific angle "they" wanted me to see. And no, I'm not some homophobe, I just don't want this kind of author-to-viewer relationship. Given that the subject matter is literally about discrimination, having a biased narrative is the last thing this should be doing...
To be fair, it’s not all bad. There are some good parts. Mainly, the acting by Brilliant Sean Penn is nothing short of incredible. I was actually surprised by how well he controlled the character, keeping him grounded in reality even when it seemed like he might slip, though he's always been a great actor. Josh Brolin is also really solid, and as far as the rest of the cast goes, I think everyone hit their mark.
Bottom line: the movie is okay, but it could have been much better, much more open, and less one-sided... I think it would have worked way better if the film wasn't basically just targeted gay propaganda.
I agree with this, though we have to admit the directing is excellent. As for an objective standpoint, the story is told through the lens of Harvey Milk, so objectivity wasn't exactly on the menu, but even so, I didn't particularly like the character, I didn't feel for him, and I wouldn't offer him a shoulder to cry on, even though it's obvious they were trying to manufacture that feeling.