I've been finding myself checking the box scores for the lower leagues more often lately. There’s something about following the developmental stuff that feels more "real" than the big show sometimes. You see these kids grinding through cities no one has ever heard of, playing in half-empty stadiums, just trying to prove they belong.
It's a different kind of energy. In the majors, everything is polished and high-stakes, but in the minors, it feels like you're watching a raw struggle. I remember following a specific prospect back in the day, watching his stats fluctuate wildly, and feeling genuinely invested in whether he'd actually make it to the big dance or just become a footnote in a baseball encyclopedia.
Do you guys follow specific farm systems, or do you only really care about the major league standings?
Look, placidlynx23, You haven't addressed a single one of my questions regarding Mozart. My tendency to swear isn't some reflection of my appreciation for classical music. People listen to country or rock and they swear just as much.
Look, placidlynx23, Mozart had more children than you ever will, and he certainly slept with more women. I am still waiting for you to provide a single credible source for this claim that only psychopaths listen to classical music, or that listening to it turns someone into a psychopath.
placidlynx23 said:Mozart was the reason behind Beethoven's madness because he instilled morbid, anarchic ideas about poorly structured music into his mind during his youth. In any case, Mozart is a corrupting influence on youth, as evidenced by this example. Young people require structure and stability in life, not anarchy.
It has been quite some time since I have encountered this much nonsense in a single thread. How exactly did Mozart cause Beet's insanity? What specific ideas supposedly planted in his head? And what does being a "corruptor of youth" even mean in this context? Finally, provide a legitimate source for these claims, as I am genuinely curious to see the explanation behind such absurdity. Furthermore, it is interesting that you label his music as Mozart gay simply because it is cheerful, which is factually incorrect. Listen to his repertoire before passing judgment instead of making baseless assertions. By your logic, anyone who enjoys anything upbeat is gay, while only somber, grim individuals are considered "legitimate." Additionally, where is the data suggesting that all or most psychopaths listen to classical music? Your comparison implying that "intelligent" psychopaths favor classical while gangs listen to rap—suggesting the former deserve admiration—is flawed. A psychopath is a psychopath regardless of their musical preference, and they do not deserve admiration for it. Besides, what difference does it make what people listened to prior to the twentieth century? If you are going to post such nonsense, at least listen to some classical music beyond just a Requiem or the Ninth Symphony before commenting.
Sorry, but what kind of movie quality are we talking about here?
It’s essentially a concert in condensed form. Have you actually watched any of their live sets on DVD? There isn't much difference. This is just a filmed concert being projected in an IMAX 3D theater. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone is looking for a cinematic masterpiece in a concert film, that’s their own mistake. As for me, I enjoyed it. Thanks for asking.
Amanda Nguyen5 said:Even the expert Radić shared his take in his latest review here: . I’m actually relieved he agrees with me. He points out the exact same issue—the film is way too stylized—though he's a bit gentler about it than I am. He did give Marty credit for the finesse, though.
Forgive me, but both you and Stalin are talking nonsense. When that idiot claims U2 lacks charisma even under candlelight, he isn't offering a critique; he's just admitting he doesn't like U2, which is evident from the rest of his writing. Furthermore, I have to wonder where you were sitting in the theater. For 3D, seating matters differently than it does for 2D. The optimal experience is found in the first half of the auditorium. I have confirmed this in every city where I viewed it: Denver, Budapest, and Chicago. In Denver, it was rows 5 or 6; I can't recall the specific row in Budapest without digging up a ticket, but in Chicago, it was also around the 5th or 6th row. When a friend and I saw it for the first time, we thought it was incredible—we actually went straight back for the next showing. It seems you aren't much of a U2 fan, because they are decent, but the group I watched the film with travels the world for them, and they called the film phenomenal. They even compared the IMAX experience to being at a live concert. One must consider that the core purpose of this film is to present a 3D concert experience, not some standard documentary about U2.
The film was screened in Budapest this past spring (I was there that weekend when Bush visited the US).
Setlist: Vertigo Beautiful Day New Year's Day Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own Love and Peace or Elsa Sunday Bloody Sunday Bullet the Blue Sky "Miss Ottawa" / Reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights " Pride Reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights " Pride In the Name of Love Where the Streets Have No Name "One" Encore "The Fly" With or Without You " end credits With or Without You " end credits Yahweh[5]
Well, I saw this movie six times back in the spring, and now I've seen it twice here in Washington, D.C. I even made trips to Denver for the 3D version and out to Budapest for the IMAX experience.
Forgive me, but calling Waterworld a flop is just plain wrong. If anything, the movie actually turned a profit. Here is my data on the box office: Production budget: $175 million
And that doesn't even account for video sales, DVD, TV rights, or anything else. I recall seeing figures confirming the film was in the black, even if I can't pinpoint the exact source. As for The Postman, that's a different story entirely. David Brin was a bit too much to adapt, and you get what you get.
In about ten days, this new film directed by Doug Liman, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Hayden Christensen, hits theaters here in the States. Based on the trailer, the concept seems interesting enough, though we'll have to wait and see how the actual execution holds up. For those interested in checking out the trailer, here is the link:
Watched it last night. It felt a bit too much like an "Oscar bait" film for my taste. Honestly, I forgot about it within ten minutes of leaving the coffee shop. Nothing special—just some pretentious nonsense designed to chase Academy Award nominations for Clooney. Sorry, but not for me.
A must-watch. Jontra is excellent in the mother role, and the rest of the cast holds up perfectly. M. Pfeiffer is phenomenal. This is easily one of the better films released this summer.
You overlooked that moment right before the final massacre when everyone is staring each other down, then the camera pans to Pico, who slowly turns and takes out General Raccoon. Phenomenal.
Samuel Smith5 said:The movie is a disappointment. It falls significantly short of the second installment. While the character animation has reached perfection—the movements are so lifelike I actually assumed they were live-action scenes that had been edited down—the writing is abysmal. There are only a handful of jokes worth noting. It isn't worth a trip to the AMC Theatres. Just download it or wait for it to hit streaming if you feel the need to see it at all.
Exactly. Completely pointless. I forgot the entire thing the moment I walked out of the theater.
The trailer looks dark, I'll give it that. However, knowing Bay's track record, I have my doubts about whether the quality will actually hold up. It might provide some much-needed cover for Spielberg in his role as producer, but the real question is how much.