Posts by ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:The word "interest" really captures how I feel about you, and the fact that you're asking suggests I might be more informed than you'd like to admit.

That's a dig at you.

Fine, I see you aren't commenting—it doesn't fit your theory.

I'm older than you (assuming your profile isn't lying).

In the "Culture" section of the New York Times from maybe three or four months ago, there was an interview with Steven Spielberg where he suggested exactly what I mentioned.

And then he said the exact opposite in Polimcev's article two weeks ago? That's strange. Actually, I think you might have mixed something up.

So, what now? Maybe you'll try answering those heavy questions I threw your way, but you decided to just ignore them instead?

Man, we're getting pretty pedantic here... Honestly, someone might say you've got a few "issues."

Just a reminder, you did the same thing in the Python thread, trying to look super knowledgeable only to end up talking to thin air again.

Does the video store in Napa Valley really have the only 14-disc DVD-box Python set in PAL format and R2? Oh, yeah.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:I put in a little effort to study how you handle people you disagree with, and I think I’ve spotted a pattern in your approach.

Oh, did I hit a nerve there? My bad! I honestly had no idea you were a psychoanalyst too. What’s next—are you going to start reading my future in coffee grounds?

P.S. You’d come across as a lot more credible if you just put a birth year in your profile. Honestly, even if you make one up. Right now, you just come off as a bitter fake.

Look, man, we’re all just hanging out in a virtual space here. There's really no point in getting hung up on how serious or impactful this is supposed to be. Let's just drop the pretenses.
By the way, after taking one last look at your profile, I have to say—your interests and what you do for a living are pretty telling.

ruggedmarlin15

P.S. Did they maybe disbar you from the State Bar?

P.S. I’m still waiting on that source you mentioned regarding the plan to move Napa Valley over to San Francisco.

Maria Peterson said:but you didn't direct a movie, nor did you curate the lineup. Or... are you actually Jim Naylor? 😁

God forbid.

okay, she said it’s a downside for the festival. maybe she just phrased it poorly, or maybe she really does feel that way. so what?

Neither of those points really hold up. Just "so what."
It wouldn't bother me nearly as much if there wasn't some lawyer on duty constantly stirring the pot over this. I honestly thought everything would just stay at the level of my one-line comment since it isn't such a massive issue. But, if northerncrane4 wants to go there, fine, I'll join in too.

well, regarding the criticism... when you work in the public eye, you have to be ready for public scrutiny. people are always going to talk...

Well, I guess I'm just a sensitive soul. 😉

ruggedmarlin15

Maria Peterson said:I agreed to this deal, so if I pay for a ticket, I expect decent picture quality, sound, and subtitles.

Definitely.

(however, if I had been at a screening where there were no subtitles, I’d have every right to complain, wouldn't I?)

Absolutely. I try to explain what happened and why, but it doesn't always resonate with everyone. The crew working on the festival tries to do their best, but some things are just out of their hands (for instance, when we receive the wrong film print—as far as I know, the festival offered refunds to those who were unhappy, and for everyone else, they screened the film with English subtitles—which seems fair, given the circumstances).

because I paid for my ticket. And by doing that, I am a customer, and the customer is always right.

An unhappy customer isn't always right. 😉 If I recall correctly, dissatisfied customers can get a refund (in the case of a problematic screening).

if I pay my own $8.25 for a ticket—I expect to get something in return, like adequate technical execution, rather than having to thank my lucky stars that some festival staffer let me hand over my $8.25 just to attend a "prestigious" screening, regardless of how bad it actually was.

Presley. I didn't mean anything else. Audiences aren't stupid, but I've already had enough of certain types of nitpickers and "lawyers" breathing down my neck.

I haven't read any further back-and-forth beyond your reply to me, so I don't know how your argument is progressing. I just wanted to tell you that people who pay for tickets are customers and have the right to complain and speak up if something bothered them (and I don't mean the depressing nature of the film, but whether they received a proper technical presentation).

We agree (in principle). I would never tell you a screening was okay if you had to stand up just to see the subtitles. I've been making this point for a while now, and I think certain things really need to change here. When it comes to subtitles, Bauer is a total disaster. And even at Barbacan, from what I can see, things aren't exactly great either. There's clearly room for improvement. If you read my posts carefully (without being defensive), you'll see that I am completely in favor of constructive criticism. But not nonsense. Sometimes there's a very thin line between the two... 😉

if I pay my $4 for stale bread, I'm going to grumble, but if I pay my...$8.25If I show up to a screening and get a Vietnamese movie with Spanish subtitles, a thirty-minute delay, and audio that keeps cutting out—well, I think I have every right to complain, regardless of whether the festival made a profit or not.

I hear you, I really do. But if you're a reasonable person, wouldn't you be willing to accept a logical explanation if something actually went wrong?

Whether the festival turned a profit or lost money isn't my concern. It's like complaining about stale bread; it doesn't matter if the bakery had a good quarter or not.

That’s fair. And honestly, at this point, I feel like I’ll end up disagreeing with everything you say just to stay consistent. That's not great.

Come on, ruggedmarlin15, please don't take everything you do so personally!

When some random stranger comes up to you and trashes your work in front of everyone, do you just sit there and take it? No. So please, just let me be...

As for the girls, I was simply saying, "The film wasn't for me, so what?" That's not me being "rude." Everything after that was just a reaction to northerncrane4's nonsense justifications.

And I explained that you can't group depressive films with non-depressive ones if the vast majority of the lineup was depressing. It's pretty straightforward.

Best,

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:>
From my perspective as an outsider, it seems to me that the reason blockbuster comedies aren't included in the festival isn't due to a lack of desire from the administration, but perhaps just a lack of funding.

1. The Sundance Film Festival has never been the kind of event that showcases blockbusters like American pie. You know that. In fact, every single introduction in the catalog or promotional material clearly states that Sundance wants to be—and remain—a festival for small (yet great) films. I don't know why that's so hard for you to grasp, and I honestly don't understand this intense effort to prove otherwise.
2. Your conclusion is based on some pretty malicious assumptions. And you know it.

The word "if" in the context you used doesn't carry the meaning you're trying to project onto it now.

It actually has two meanings.

"If" is a comparative conjunction in your sentence, meaning you didn't leave any room for the possibility that your answer hit home for the girl; rather, you asserted that it definitely didn't, as opposed to the fact that it probably did for me.

I never said "definitely." And as for it hitting you... I'm sure world wars and global famine weigh heavily on you too. It must be tough.

As far as I know, there is only one declared Happy Child in America anyway.

Wow.

Are you concluding all this from the fact that everything I've written so far suggests that audiences have a right, based on the ticket they bought, to publicly complain about their subjective experience of the films shown?

No. I said "I suspect," not "I conclude." Nuance matters. Small, but important.

And what exactly is my age bracket, you who concludes things so correctly?

?
Thanks!
Anyway, (drawing mode on) I wanted to tell you that you're playing with words you haven't quite mastered yet (drawing mode off).

If you could only compare the number of "main" screenings with the number of those that draw crowds, you'd see where you stand.

Should I compare them to the number of "normal" crowd-pleasers or the "free" crowd-pleasing screenings? Hmm?

It feels like you're always imagining things. If you’re feeling bored, maybe try digging through some old news archives for once.

I shared my own experience with you (I'm pretty sure it was published in Time or maybe National), and I asked you to provide your own source. Well? Don't tell me you don't have one.

The budget is supplemented enough that the ticket price isn't just some symbolic gesture.

Even the projections aren't symbolic, so that seems fine to me.

It wasn't really noticeable.

"Thanks."

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Got it. TO So, I finally figured out what "apologist" actually means. My bad—I definitely used the word in the wrong context before.

Are you kidding me?

The media basically just act as a mouthpiece for whatever narrative the festival directors want to push about an actor.

The media wouldn't even bat an eye without something flashy to latch onto. They don't care about "artsy-fartsy" titles; they just want something that sounds big. They light up at the mention of Hollywood, and we all know why.
Besides, what does that have to do with anything? I was saying that they would typically include blockbuster comedies, and then you pivoted to mentioning an actor who starred in one of those movies—which, by the way, was never actually part of the lineup. Sorry, but I’m genuinely lost. What exactly is your point here?

No way! It’s actually the exact opposite. You shouldn't mention any of his films at all, except for "American Pie."

?

Where did you get the impression that she was okay?

Look for the "if." If you can.

Maybe she just hasn't been on the forum lately.

And maybe she actually was. I mean, honestly...

I have to admit, unearned arrogance always gets under my skin. I can’t really help it—I think I might still have a bit of an inner child left in me.

Poor little girl.

Yeah, I just wanted to double-check one thing. Since you're an employee of the festival, you aren't really coming at this discussion from a position that could be called objective, even by a stretch.

Sorry, but are we actually trying to be objective here? I wouldn't say we are.

Me? That childish and uninformed? I don't think so.

Man, I honestly can't help you there.

Exactly. Honestly, I'm not sure. If I finish watching something and realize it wasn't actually worth the ticket price, I just don't feel the need to go out of my way to say it.

I get the feeling that if this festival actually offered refunds when people didn't like a movie, you’d be the first one in line to collect. Based on everything you've written so far, that seems about right.

Look, I'm just exercising my rights as a consumer here. It seems like this whole system is causing you some serious cognitive strain.

Are you sure you aren't using words that are a bit too advanced for your age?

But you said that since the audiences for the non-central screenings are mostly just accredited journalists, the ticket revenue from them is negligible and doesn't factor into my equation.

Exactly. But your flawed logic can't be applied to the entire festival. Why? Because at the main screenings, journalists don't make up the bulk of the audience. Not by a long shot.

You've pulled so many backflips during this exchange that I’m starting to think you’re an Olympic gymnast.

Haha... Have you ever thought about trying stand-up comedy?

No, I think the festival should move to San Francisco.

Unlikely. Very unlikely. Actually, I think you might have things mixed up. Steven Spielberg mentioned in an article that "it would be great to move the festival from San Francisco to Napa Valley." Now, please tell me who said the opposite.

And you claim those screenings are full simply because they're attended by accredited press.

No, you're being a bit cheeky there and twisting my words. But hey, that's your problem.

Can we conclude that it's "not for nothing," since ticket sales still contribute to the budget and help the festival survive to some extent?

It helps the budget, sure, but it doesn't generate a profit because the amount is tiny compared to the overhead. I won't keep repeating myself.

I feel like I'm already being incredibly redundant, but it seems like getting a straight answer from you isn't possible any other way.

Well, you get what you ask for, I suppose.

Yes. Especially to a festival employee.

And proud of it.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Fair enough. You mentioned I didn't know what an "apologist" was when you called me one regarding the festival. So, why doesn't that word actually fit the context of how you used it?

I’d only be an apologist if they screened a terrible movie at the festival and I responded with, "Whatever, the festival can do what it wants."

And the media is loudly hailing him as the star of the movie "American pita."

Who exactly are "the media"? The festival organizers?
Besides, what else were they supposed to do? Hide Jason from the journalists and keep his presence a secret? Leave out all his other films except for "American pita," which is probably his biggest hit? The guy acted in a movie that showed up at the festival, so what? Are we supposed to snub him just because he has blockbusters under his belt? You're acting like a child.

Because on the flip side, you're claiming with absolute certainty that the girl didn't look into the movies beforehand.

Well, that seems pretty obvious to me.

The girl is just saying...

And I was just responding to her. I'm not sure why that hit you so hard (if it didn't hit her).

It's just not clear to me whether you're the one putting the program together, taking her criticism personally, or if your whole job is just defending those wonderful people—the organizers—who give you a chance once a year to hang out and feel important.

What is this? An attempt at a joke? It's not working, man. I work at the festival. And I barely spend any time socializing with the VIPs. There's no time; we're busy working. Then we grab a drink at a party where the VIPs don't even show up. What can you do?

Yeah, if he's the only one in town.

Actually, he isn't. And you can organize a festival too.

...and selling goods to consumers at prices that aren't exactly a bargain.

Do you know ahead of time if every single movie is worth the ticket price? No. So please spare me the childishness.

Quote:
Hahahaha, don't even try it. "MOSTLY watched ONLY by accredited journalists." You're being ridiculous. By the way, have you actually ever been to Savannah, or do you just enjoy spinning theories?

Especially when you look at it from the perspective of the organizers' media statements, where they suggest to the Secretary of Culture that they be hosted in San Francisco, claiming their screenings are always packed compared to those in San Francisco.

Are you suggesting the organizers should host the San Francisco films? And yeah, the screenings are full.

Well, explain this to me—since I'm clearly so uninformed—something I've asked you several times now. If the festival doesn't live off ticket sales, according to your claims, then why ruin the spirit of universal friendship and humanity by charging ticket prices that are almost as high as Cinemark?

You wouldn't? Everything is free, right? Nothing is truly free, my friend. Do you work for nothing? I highly doubt it. I don't. Even the volunteers in Savannah get housing and food provided. So, they aren't really working for free either, are they?

Since you're clearly so well-versed and aware of my lack of knowledge.

It's enough to just read your posts. Everything becomes clear.

ruggedmarlin15

You've got a point there. It’s a total mess. But hey, what can you do?

northerncrane4 said:First off, you were talking about the actual meaning of the word—which, to be honest, I don't really have a handle on. You weren't talking about the American standard.

You don't have a clue which one it is.

Additionally, Klajić's dictionary lists both versions in bold print, treating them both as equally valid.

Let me try to explain it so it makes more sense. It’s not "apologeta," it's "apologist." It works just like any other noun—you wouldn't say someone is a "diplomata" or an "artista"; you'd say they are a diplomat, an artist, or a communist. Does that clear things up?

You’re totally messing with the festival directors now just because they invited the lead actor from that big American blockbuster comedy, "American pita," as an official guest one year. You really are being mischievous.

That’s quite a stretch of a theory if you ask me. The actor in question was actually there to promote a film that wasn't exactly a comedy, nor was it some massive Hollywood blockbuster, right? Also, what was that thing you said earlier about the whole football scene and all that malice?

Since he clearly knows the theme of the movie that was playing at the same time she went to see hers, I'm just speculating.

You're right, I'm just speculating here.

Yeah, I’m calling them a fraud. Honestly, the whole thing just didn't sit right with me—the idea that a girl wouldn't be allowed to leave a review after actually buying the product makes zero sense. It feels completely dishonest.

That’s not right. She’s totally entitled to hate the movie, but I don't get why people feel the need to frame personal dislike as some sort of failure on the festival's part. It feels a bit silly to me. Maybe I should have just stuck to drawing instead.

Look, if you want to see the movie, there’s really only one condition: you have to pay for the ticket. You keep talking about agreeing to that deal, but to me, an agreement should involve more than just one way of doing things. I already know what the other option is—I'm just waiting for you to be the one to actually say it.

I don't really have another opinion on this. My second thought is either to just skip the movie entirely or to go ahead and dress up for it.

And then they feel totally justified in saying they didn't like the movie, purely because of their own subjective biases.

Absolutely.

It’s like if you bought a jar of pickled beets and decided they were way too sour for your taste.

But you can't blame the local shop for that.

You keep saying ticket revenue doesn't matter to the festival. But they still collect it just fine. $8.25, 800 seats. Even if we assume 300 spots go to accredited guests—though half of them are probably passed out in the bushes somewhere—it still counts.

Right, there it is. 150 people drunk in the bushes. That’s the sum total of your "good intentions" and objectivity. Please, spare me the teenage tantrums.

So, $4.25 you're just counting the evening screenings for the main projection?

Wrong. You’d be surprised how many tickets are handed off to sponsors and festival friends.

Then multiply that by the number of nights and all those smaller screenings.

And those smaller screenings usually have about a hundred people (mostly accredited press who, I assume, aren't paying for tickets). Go ahead, keep multiplying everything. It's fine. As the saying goes, "you completely missed the mark."

Building on that math... man, what are the actual expenses then?!

Huge.

If the festival isn't profitable even after sponsorships and ticket sales, especially with all the volunteering, then someone in management is seriously incompetent.

Sure. And it's been that way for seven years straight. Look, either actually learn how festivals and cultural events operate, or grow up. I don't know what else to tell you.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Is there actually a difference between the meaning of "apologetic" and "apologist"? Or am I just overthinking my vocabulary here?

Nah. One of those words doesn't actually belong in standard American English. I'll let you guess which one.

The gentleman is offering a program this year that feels fundamentally different from anything we saw last year.

If I remember correctly, the films from a couple of years ago were pretty dark and depressing too. I don't really see that as being a good or bad thing—it just is what it is. The festival has certain standards and a specific vibe it aims to maintain. Otherwise, they’d probably just end up programming the latest big-budget studio comedies.

I mean, personally, I think this is actually a good thing, but apparently, she doesn't see it that way. Then again, who’s to say I’m right and she isn't?

Nobody. But honestly, it comes down to accessibility and basic principles. Someone actually said, "The movie I came to see was too depressing, and that’s a huge downside for the festival." Like, is there anyone actually home in her head?

So, who exactly was she aiming that anger at, if you ask me? In my view, she wasn't targeting anyone specifically. She was just sharing her thoughts on a Reddit thread dedicated to covering all of this.

You don't have to be a genius. Just read the beginning of her post.

It’s pretty obvious she did that on purpose, as soon as she realized which movies were playing at the same time.

Are you sure he actually knows? What makes you say that?

It’s actually interesting—I didn't even use the word "profit." I specifically said "revenue." Even when talking about a fraudster.

You guys really jumped on my comment about the festival not being a profitable event. PROFITable. Are you calling me a fraud now? Heh.

So, if you actually want to watch the movie—which is the whole reason you went there in the first place—does that mean the deal is off?

Look, let's make a deal. You can pick out a different movie to watch. Or you could head to a party. Maybe grab a drink somewhere. Or just stay in. Honestly, the choice is entirely yours.

Sure, people can charge for tickets. But the ones actually buying them? They aren't really the customers.

They’re just an audience that paid for a ticket, and they expect to get the movie they paid for. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if ticket prices aren't exactly a steal.

I mean, were you really expecting dirt-cheap tickets? Sure, maybe at a local dive bar in Springfield—somewhere without any awards to their name, no recorded albums, and just a decent sound system.

Could you try explaining that paradox to me one more time? Honestly, I'm not even entirely sure what "paradox" actually means.

Well, that explains a lot.
But honestly, there isn't really a paradox here. Ticket sales definitely aren't turning a profit because they barely cover the overhead and expenses.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Man, you really are something of an apologist, aren't you?

Stop using words when you don't actually know what they mean. You just end up looking a bit ridiculous.

If—and I’m just speculating here—about 90% of a festival's lineup consists of depressing movies, you have to wonder if the board, the artistic directors, or whoever is running the show is actually aware of this imbalance. It feels like they might be staying silent on purpose. If the theme were something like "Let's All Be Kids" and they filled the schedule with children's films instead, they'd probably face the same criticism. To me, it feels like a calculated move to manipulate the programming just to avoid the risk of lower attendance.

I think your assumptions are a little too broad here. You’re getting into "what if" territory, but I don't recall any year where this festival was branded specifically as a showcase for one particular genre—including this year. No one went in promising a comedy only to be blindsided by a depressing drama. To me, there’s no manipulation happening at all.

Maybe she just wasn't prepared to end up in such a mess every single night. Or perhaps she was just feeling a little wiser after seeing how things went at the festivals in previous years. Either way, she voiced her frustrations.

You shouldn't direct your anger toward people who aren't actually responsible for it.

The viewer isn't really given much of a choice here—they’re essentially being forced into a corner, regardless of which side they decide to support.

Could you let me know which movies you're planning to watch? I'm also curious about how you pick them—do you have specific criteria you follow, or do you just end up watching pretty much everything that comes out?

Oh, sure. You’re basically a one-in-a-hundred-years kind of enlightened saint, aren't you?

No, but I’m glad you feel that way.

Are you seriously suggesting that the ticket revenue is just being funneled straight into someone's private pocket?

Not at all. You might want to check the dictionary under "profit." Or, if you're feeling spicy, look up "apologist" (minus that extra 'a' at the end!).

Is there any other kind of deal on the table?

The deal is this: tickets are going for 20 bucks.$8.25You can grab them and watch the movie if you want, but there's absolutely no pressure to do so.

If her money isn't turning a profit for the festival, that’s on the organizers, not her.

Festivals are non-profit ventures. They basically survive on sponsorships and government grants (mostly). I'm not sure which part of that you missed.

ruggedmarlin15

Maria Peterson said:Then why on earth did they charge me for all the tickets at the register?!?!?!😲

Because you agreed to those terms. Just because the money came in doesn't mean it actually turned a profit for the festival.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:That's not right. The festival doesn't have one official theme. The programming makes its direction pretty obvious.

Actually, I disagree. This year, the organizers handed the selection reins over to John Pavicic. He picked most of the films. Whether Pavicic was the right choice is definitely up for debate. But this kind of nonsense—complaining like "boohoo, the movie was too depressing, the whole festival sucks"—is just ridiculous. Honestly, maybe people should do a little homework on the movies they plan to see. Did she expect some breezy summer teen flick? It wasn't some surprise screening; you can easily find info on these films online.

What was her actual complaint? It doesn't seem like she has much ground to stand on, even if she did pay for a ticket.

She’s allowed to complain, but there needs to be a logical argument behind it.

See, you also tend to comment without actually specifying what your point is addressing.

I'm not just commenting. I'm responding to nonsense.

Don't they charge for tickets?

They do, but that's not how the festival stays afloat.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:You see, she’s interested. She’s just a visitor at the festival, and since the event didn't come with a pre-set theme like "THE DESPAIR OF LIVING," she might feel a little misled.

It’s just not true. The festival didn't actually set any specific themes, so trying to dismiss everything based on "too many depressing movies" doesn't really hold water as an argument.

No. You just don't answer. If you don't have anything to say, then don't. Besides, I wasn't even asking you directly anyway.

Are you her lawyer or something? By the way, I’m actually a huge fan of those volley-based pause estimates. No, really.

That’s just how it works in a consumer-driven society—the customer is always right. You might as well get used to it.

The festival just isn't a profitable venture. Because of that, we can't really count on a steady stream of customers to bail us out. We just have to get used to that reality.

ruggedmarlin15

northerncrane4 said:Alright, so if "depressing movies" isn't actually a genre, is it possible that both films playing at the same time aren't actually depressing?

How so? Most movies this year have been pretty heavy (I can't think of a single comedy). So what's the issue? And even if they weren't, what kind of logic is that? "Give me one depressing movie followed by a lighthearted comedy"? Honestly, I don't care if a movie is depressing or not—I just care if it's good. The organizers are doing their best with the scheduling.

A festival attendee asked this, clearly unhappy with how the screenings were scheduled.

She’s just unhappy with a specific movie and wants to blame the whole schedule for it. I'm not buying it. Besides, she didn't even mention which films she was talking about. Like... what, should I just guess?

Since you're acting like the festival spokesperson,

No, it's just that these posts from entitled kids are getting a bit annoying. PewDiePie, it's not everything being exactly how I want it, "mommy please"... It's exhausting.

offer a meaningful response. Because the question itself isn't stupid.

Not really...

ruggedmarlin15

No, but I see that, unfortunately, there isn't even a "drawing board plug-in" available so I could just sketch it out for those who are having a hard time grasping a simple sentence.

ruggedmarlin15

soks said:First off, they hung the screen at the Barbican way too low. I couldn't see the subtitles properly from the middle, so I ended up dozing through that Brazilian Brotherhood movie.

Noted, though I managed to follow the subtitles behind the crowd without much trouble... then again, I'm a bit taller than average, so maybe that helped...
By the way, the subtitles at Bauer were almost impossible to read because they were positioned so low.

In that North American film, the actors were speaking Italian, but the subtitles were in Mexican using Cyrillic. Afterward, the organizer was apologizing and crying and all that, so they just threw on some English subtitles.

They didn't just "throw on" English subtitles; they had to switch to a DVD because the wrong copy arrived in Napa Valley (it had Mexican subtitles instead of American ones).

After sitting through fifteen minutes of that nightmare—just pure shock and depression—I decided my life was better off without it and just walked out.

Sorry, but you can't really blame the festival for this. You just didn't like the movie, right?

Besides, I think if they're showing two films at once, they should pick them so that both aren't incredibly depressing.

Films aren't scheduled by genre.

ruggedmarlin15

So, about that opening sequence... It didn't really follow a set format. Instead, they’d roll a different short intro every night showcasing various "connections" between Napa Valley and Vienna. They were styled like old-school newsreels—running about three to four minutes—and they always seemed to get a great reaction from the crowd. It was a nice touch, though we had to scramble a bit to get the English translations ready in time, which definitely kept us on our toes.

And honestly, Pavicic really did act as the curator. The films were mostly pretty dark.

ruggedmarlin15

@Jose Miller17/">@@Jose Miller17:
Spica? Pavicic?

@Karen Diaz32/">@@Karen Diaz32:
It looks like you spend every single day reliving your first sexual experience. Honestly, if it wasn't also your only one, I wouldn't be surprised. Not at all.

ruggedmarlin15

A little message for the grumpy kids (I can tell puberty is still in full swing at home):
I honestly feel for you guys. One day, I’m going to look back on all those days spent at festivals as a huge collection of amazing memories. What about you? Just gonna keep complaining?

ruggedmarlin15

Karen Diaz32 said:Why isn't everyone actually watching the screenings? I thought this was supposed to be a film festival! Give me a break.

Hold on a second—are you really the same Karen Diaz32 who acts way too cool to bother showing up, yet still finds every single chance to talk trash about the festival?

ruggedmarlin15