Posts by Taylor Gray5

The stadium at the waterfront has been going downhill since the day they broke ground.
Walmart’s been struggling ever since it opened its doors.
Even that massive mall downtown has been sliding toward mediocrity from the moment it was partially finished.

And now, this total spit of a politician wants to build a brand new stadium? 🙏

It’s pure megalomania, right up there with the Republican Party and Donald Trump. 🙏>

Then people would probably claim it’s just some cheap rip-off of the ending to Battlestar Galactica. 😁

wanderingbison9 said:A distant planet? It’s clearly Earth!

I mean, honestly, the guy completely missed the twist. It was practically laid out for him—it’s Earth during the dinosaur era. They explicitly mention how humanoids were exploring the cosmos long before us, and then you have that bit where it says 65 billion years ago under the 65 mark... I don't see how you don't connect those dots. Plus, that final timelapse at the end? If that massive meteor hanging in the sky wasn't a dead giveaway throughout the whole movie, I don't know what is.🤣>

neonfox65 said:Avatar 2 Release date December 16, 2022

hit streaming on March 28, 2023

65 Release date March 10, 2023

hit streaming on April 7, 2023

One showed up after three and a half months, the other after just a month. You’re telling me that has nothing to do with how much they pulled in at the box office? Yeah, right... give me a break.

Look, your original argument was that if a movie hits streaming too fast, it must be garbage. Then you pivoted to saying it needs to stay in theaters as long as possible to maximize profit. You seem to have no idea how to backtrack out of the flawed premises you started with, so I'll just quote my first response where I laid it all out for you.

It ends up on torrent sites because it's available on streaming services.
When a movie lands on a streaming platform really depends on the situation—sometimes it's about how well it did in theaters, sometimes it's just a pre-negotiated contract. Generally speaking, the standard window these days is seeing a film on streaming about 30 to 45 days after its theatrical debut.

The actual quality of the film doesn't dictate that timeline. If we followed your logic, only masterpieces would make money, which obviously isn't true. If a movie flops at the box office, theaters aren't going to keep it longer than their studio contracts require. In those cases, the only move left is to dump it onto streaming immediately to see if it can find any life there.

65 is a total box office bomb and it's already been out for about 30 days. That's it for the theaters; they're making room for the next big blockbusters now, and there's just no more space for this one.

In this specific instance, sure, the movie is bad, which is why it died out in theaters and moved to streaming so quickly. But that isn't a universal rule. Your initial correlation was fundamentally broken.

I basically told you the exact same thing you just quoted back to me:

“If a movie isn’t bringing in the dollars as expected in theaters after a few weeks, then it makes sense to move it to the small screen. However, if a movie is still killing it at the box office, let it ride,” he said. “The marketplace will decide the fate of most films.”

So, I'm really struggling to see what part of this is confusing you.

And honestly, circling back to where we started... all this copy-pasting you're doing doesn't actually support your original argument. You claimed the movie was bad just because it hit streaming so quickly, but like I already pointed out—those two things aren't inherently linked. One doesn't dictate the other.

neonfox65 said:Patience means profit

If we’re talking about hitting theaters alongside heavy hitters like > or >, then sure, absolutely. In the case of 65, they made what they could. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother commenting on the rest of your argument because I have no idea where you even dug that up—usually, people leave a link to the article they're referencing, right? But seriously, what on earth do pandemic-era movies have to do with this? Just because one ended up being a streaming exclusive and > had a somewhat neutered box office run... look, even if > had been released during a normal period without COVID, there is zero chance that movie would have cleared $600m globally, let alone hit a billion. That’s just pure fantasy. It's all just a bunch of nonsense.

mistyotter35 said:People turn to torrent sites simply because the movie is already available on streaming services.

Look, when a movie hits streaming really depends on a few things. Sometimes it’s about whether it crushed it at the domestic box office, and other times it’s just down to some pre-negotiated contract between the studio and the platform. Nowadays, there's this standard window where you can expect a film to pop up on a service like Netflix or Max about 30 to 45 days after its theatrical debut.

The actual quality of the movie? That doesn't factor into the timing at all. It turns out that people think only the masterpieces make money, which isn't exactly true. If a flick flops in theaters, obviously the cinemas aren't going to keep it on the big screen any longer than their contract with the studio requires. So, the logical move is to dump it onto streaming immediately to see if it can find a second life there.

Take *65*, for example—it was a total box office bomb, and it's been out for about 30 days already. That's it for the theater run; the big blockbusters are rolling out now, and there's just no room left for a dud like that.

Honestly, the whole movie is incredibly predictable from those first three lines of dialogue. You don't need an IQ north of 50 to connect the dots regarding *65* and where the plot is headed. Sure, the action is okay, even if it feels repetitive, but there's no substance to it. No meat on the bones. It's basically The Last of Us meets Jurassic Park, but stripped down to nothing.

Steven Newman50 said:I honestly feel like everything they pull off is done with a very specific goal in mind—a clear message, you know? Well, okay, maybe not the whole bit with the "shch" sound, which is probably just Dave Grohl’s unpredictable stream of consciousness leaking into the track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shcha

America 😁

Matthew Robinson6 said:Is it actually legal to hand over my Revolut card to my sixteen-year-old son? I was thinking about letting him link it to Google Pay so he can just tap through his trip to Rome without lugging around a massive wad of cash. Would he run into any trouble paying abroad using a card registered in my name?

Honestly, just set him up with a Revolut Junior account in his own name. Not that anyone really checks the name on the card anyway—especially when you're just tapping your phone at a terminal. It's fine. 😁

https://www.revolut.com/revolut-unde...and-guardians/

Patrick Martin said:this one single movie alone shows more creative grit and actual vision—not just throwing money at the screen, but real execution—than the entire American film industry produces in a year. And I’m totally with him on that ☕
.

As if that wasn't obvious. 🤣

Jose Miller3 said:I figured I'd hop in here and ask the same thing—why aren't we seeing anything like this over here? Guess I'll be heading back to the piracy sites again... 😢

So, I realized late last night that this had been playing at AMC Theatres (like, in NYC or Philly) for the last two weeks, but as of today, it’s completely wiped from the schedule. I did a quick Google search and apparently, it’s only showing up in a few smaller theaters in places like San Diego or maybe Austin. Like, seriously? Who is this absolute idiot distributor??????

The Film. Honestly, the supporting cast was an absolute disaster. I mean, I genuinely don't understand how anyone could call Gail an actress. She lacks charisma, she lacks talent—it’s just a pattern at this point, seeing her stumble from one movie to the next. And don't even get me started on the "woke" agenda; how that became the primary issue here is a bigger mystery to me than the actual plot. The movie misses the mark on basically everything a decent production should hit. The only saving grace, if you can even call it that, is the visuals. It looks nice, sure, but that's about it. I suppose those who enjoy that specific brand of nonsense will find something to love. 🍿

rustywalker1 said:It’s all just a mess of random bits thrown together until Poirot finally explains the whole thing.

Has anyone actually read a single book by Agatha Christie? 😁

Honestly, this was an absolute slog. There’s zero actual humor—I mean, once you see Dwayne Johnson and Ryan Reynolds on screen together, you already know the script is just going to be a relentless stream of dick and butt jokes, those overly dramatic "meaningful" stares, and all the other tired clichés they shoehorn into every single movie they make. It felt like a cheap, fake imitation of Indiana Jones.

Dwayne is usually either genuinely charismatic—even if his acting style stays exactly the same every time—or he’s totally lackluster, and that was definitely the case here. Same goes for Ryan Reynolds; his vibe just didn't land for me in this one, almost as if he couldn't quite find his footing and just defaulted to that autopilot "funny guy" persona he uses everywhere. As for Gal Gadot, she tried her hand at being a superhero, but she wasn't great at it. Now she’s playing the villain, and I honestly can't tell if she's worse now or if she was always this bad. And don't even get me started on the wife—she acts like she's never seen a script in her life.

Grace Sanchez50 said:"Stop living in the past, you work in a museum"—that’s what the husband snaps at his wife during one of their fights right at the start. Honestly? The dialogue throughout this entire movie feels like it was scribbled down by a middle schooler, and don't even get me started on the exposition. It's just painful.

That museum bit actually gets used way more cleverly later when she says something along the lines of, "We don't know each other, but since I work in a museum, you can trust that I'm not being hysterical." (Not a verbatim quote, obviously, but that's the gist of it). 🤣🤣

Edward Watson18 said:The whole Edward Mordrake thing, if I got the spelling right... Or maybe it's Mordrake...

Look, that story is just a classic old-school hoax, nothing more. It isn't some true tale. That character even popped up in American Horror Story: Freakshow back in the day. There’s really only one article ever written about him—believe it or not, it was by some sci-fi writer—and honestly, not a single verifiable fact in there actually holds up.😁

I'll say it one more time: if you actually liked the concept behind the movie, or if you thought the film itself was decent, do yourself a favor and go watch the Japanese Evil Dead.

Jacob Alvarez said:But let's be real—Peele isn't exactly part of that... how should I put this... specific cultural milieu. He probably lives in some massive estate with a pool, maybe just two blocks away from the very people his community was historically marginalized by. He’s moved past being part of the working class; now he’s just hanging out with the urban, hipster crowd where the biggest tragedy is when the curtains don't match the rug. Naturally, he lacks the perspective to offer a genuine critique of those systemic struggles.

Look, Peele is biracial—his mother is white—and he grew up in Manhattan in a pretty wealthy household with a top-tier education. It’s obvious he isn't the right person to be dissecting the realities of the Black working class. To a certain segment of "progressive" America, he’s viewed as the definitive voice for Black Americans, but honestly? Most folks actually living that reality probably don't see him that way at all.

neonfox65 said:Has anyone actually tried saying "Kendimen" five times into a mirror? 😁

Man, when I was just a kid, I used to try this stuff all the time. Tried the whole Bloody Mary thing too. Nothing. Just me staring at my own face in the dark. 👎

mistybison said:Based on this, there's no real promise of 😁, though I might end up watching it just because there's nothing else decent playing at the local AMC right now... 🙂

Honestly, if you go into it treating it like a total Shyamalan self-parody—where everything is cranked up to eleven just to hit those signature stylistic beats—you might actually find it entertaining. 😁

I honestly can't tell which is the bigger disaster here: the script, the acting—though, let's be real, it's hard to pick which one is actually worse—or that ridiculous twist. 😁

mistybison said:Look, I haven't sat through this movie myself, but the whole premise sounds suspiciously like that Brief Candle episode from "Stargate SG-1". 🤔

The only real similarity is how fast everyone ages.

Honestly, just go watch Evil Dead instead of this. It’s easily twice as good, and honestly? It’s basically a cult classic Japanese horror staple.