Posts by brightpilot6

https://www.facebook.com/tomislav.karamarko/?fref=nf

My uncle and my grandfather planted a deep love for this country right in my heart, so I don't feel the need to go around shouting "America, America" at the top of my lungs.

🙏🙏

The comments underneath are honestly gold.🤣

🤣

🐔

It seems the conversation has migrated here as well. There’s really no reason to be hesitant; after all, if the others don't know about it, they won't bother showing up anyway.

It’s hard to imagine anything being more intense than this Odyssey.

James Nelson8 said:Yeah... let's just absolutely crush them...

Greetings,
James Nelson8

🤣🤣

Nicholas Wells10 said:Nicholas Wells10 and those guys from Syria... man, I just flushed 600 bucks down the drain because I was stumbling off the pier after a few too many drinks. Seriously, screw the iPhone 6, screw Jobs, and screw whoever sent him to America in the first place. If I hadn't been such an idiot, I’d probably have enough cash to live like a king all winter. Instead, they can just stay over there in their own Tehran or whatever.

Goddammit

I haven't really dug deep into this specific situation—what's actually driving such a massive surge of refugees right at this moment? I mean, all that heavy chaos over there has been dragging on for years, yet it feels like tens and tens of thousands of people are only just now deciding to make the trek toward America.

Perhaps he was referring to the background music playing in those MGM Grand casinos.

Matthew Young35 said:After a liter of Budweiser, you're looking at 48 of them.

Patrick Martin said:24 pieces ☕

.

Patrick Martin said:24 pieces ☕

Is that after a pint of Budweiser?

I’ll simply say that if you absolutely require some specialized background knowledge just to grasp or experience a piece of art, then in my view, it belongs in Category B. This applies to everything, not just cinema. It’s the same logic I apply to "art" that functions exclusively for idiots—pieces that essentially insult one's intelligence by being mindless.

Category A art is the kind that strikes a chord whether it’s being viewed by a guy working construction on a roadside or a tenured professor at Harvard.

Essentially, those specific elements of an artwork that correspond to our existing knowledge or niche interests provide pleasure precisely because of that recognition. We gravitate toward stacked references, subtle homages, or when certain technical flourishes are pushed to the foreground, because noticing them makes us feel smarter, more cultured, and more enlightened than those who miss the cues. People love that feeling, of course, and they consciously or unconsciously link that sense of intellectual satisfaction to the quality of the work itself. But to prioritize those components over the overall impact of the piece—or to assume someone like Joe Smith would find value in them—is nothing more than intellectual posturing or professional blustering. Or snobbery; call it what you will. I’ll admit, I sometimes catch myself falling into this trap in other artistic fields closer to my own interests, where I notice technical subtleties, but I can usually recognize the impulse and shut it down.

It would be like me trying to explain to you that you can’t enjoy a painting because you didn't notice the exact brushstroke technique used. How many people actually know how to spot something like that? Is that specific brushwork, which a few connoisseurs will argue about endlessly, more important than the final result that gives a broad audience butterflies in their stomach? Or is a painting inherently flawed just because you haven't studied ten thousand others in your lifetime? To put it in sports terms, do we need to understand the exact physics of the ball or every single muscle contraction involved for us to appreciate a legendary volley from Lionel Messi during a match in London? Why should I have to master the mechanics of directing and editing just to find a movie compelling—aren't directing and editing simply the very tools the artist uses to move me?

Matthew Anderson4 said:Not sure what's "anti-mainstream" about this list. I mean, Citizen Kane is sitting right at number one, for crying out loud. 😕
What would you even call mainstream here? A list topped by The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, or Inception? Putting Kane at the top is the ultimate mainstream move.
So they squeezed The Godfather Part II, Casablanca, Psycho, Singin' in the Rain, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, and Citizen Kane into the top 10. And that's supposed to be "counter-culture"?

Plus, I don't see where I implied any one era holds a monopoly on quality. You think basically the whole history of film is one era, and then the last 15 years is just another one?

Well, I was referring to the modern mainstream, though I assumed that was self-evident.

When I say something goes against the current mainstream, I mean that films falling into that category are often dismissed from the very jump just because of where they sit on the spectrum. We see this play out repeatedly here on the forums, seeing the specific biases people bring to these films and the slim chances they afford them before they've even seen a single frame.

We can certainly agree that there is more garbage being produced today than there used to be, simply because the technical barrier to entry has dropped, allowing anyone with a camera to make something and put it online. But does a decline in the overall quality of the pool really imply that the absolute best works are automatically subpar?

It’s a bit like saying that because you could only watch major league baseball in the past, but now you have access to every minor league game in existence, all of modern baseball must be trash.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Not sure what's "anti-mainstream" about this list. I mean, Citizen Kane is sitting right at number one, for crying out loud. 😕
What would you even call mainstream here? A list topped by The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, or Inception? Putting Kane at the top is the ultimate mainstream move.
So they squeezed The Godfather Part II, Casablanca, Psycho, Singin' in the Rain, Vertigo, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, and Citizen Kane into the top 10. And that's supposed to be "counter-culture"?

Plus, I don't see where I implied any one era holds a monopoly on quality. You think basically the whole history of film is one era, and then the last 15 years is just another one?

Not for me, perhaps, but it certainly seems to be the case for those who compiled the list. As for what I mentioned regarding a "primacy" of quality—or rather, a shift in standards—it applies to the decline just as much as the rise. While talent can fluctuate wildly from year to year, when we look at broader windows of twenty or thirty years, it becomes difficult to argue there are any truly massive deviations.

The Iliad?

Has anyone here actually made their way through Odyssey in Space?

Matthew Anderson4 said:Still don't get why that whole movie list is being called hipster nonsense. 🤷

It’s almost performative, isn't it? That desperate need to be contrarian just for the sake of it—embracing something purely because it stands in opposition to the mainstream, regardless of whether the actual quality holds any water.

It’s pure posturing, really—the kind of performative intellectualism where someone pushes a narrative they know is false just to cultivate that certain "expert" persona. Is there anything more transparent than someone sacrificing the truth simply to bolster their own image?

It’s clearly untrue for one simple reason: there is never a single moment in the history of human endeavor where quality or excellence—or whatever metric you care to name—is the sole driving force. It doesn't happen in professional sports, it doesn't happen in the fine arts, and it certainly doesn't happen in our pursuit of wellness. In fact, if we look closely enough, we find that even in Hollywood, pure meritocracy is nothing more than a convenient myth.

Walter Grant5 said:Anyone actually using logic wouldn't even bother saying that sentence.

Look, we went from talking about "paradoxical logic" straight down to these mindless little details, and honestly, it's just too ridiculous to keep arguing about how illogical this is. Especially considering the standard you were using before. Peace out.

See where this ends up...

Man, what can I even say. Just whatever.

🐔

Walter Grant5 said:Man, why do you act like you're some logic god and everyone else is clueless? Since when did you become the ultimate authority on what makes sense?

I know I am.

But honestly, we’ve drifted so far from discussing "paradoxical logic" into these incredibly trivial details that I find it almost laughable to continue arguing about what constitutes an illogical point. Especially when I consider that metric you were leaning on earlier. Cheers.

Larry Fox5 said:It always comes back to that desperate need to be right—especially when we're talking about stuff as subjective as music or movies... just constant proving points for no reason...

Nobody’s willing to budge an inch—everyone just keeps trying to shove their own "absolute truth" down our throats... and newsflash, that kind of thing doesn't even exist...

Not quite.

As far as I'm concerned, you can think *The Dark Knight* is a total disaster for whatever reasons you choose—and I certainly won't spend my energy trying to talk you out of it.

However, logic remains an exact science, and it is entirely possible to debate the mechanics of a film independently of one's personal tastes. If your critique rests on the grounds that a plot point simply doesn't make sense, then we actually have something to discuss.

Previously, I was focusing strictly on the internal logic and the narrative structure of the Odyssey, rather than the cinematic experience as a whole, yet almost everyone involved in that conversation—with the exception of ruggedjackal46 and Branko—reacted like someone watching their favorite steak being threatened.

Walter Grant5 said:you know what the internal logic fails at?

it’s that whole setup where they present this modern world—where some guy in a bat suit acts like he’s some kind of authority—and they try to show us reality (like Bruce Wayne flying a private jet to Tokyo), but then all that real-world influence just evaporates the second the action hits Gotham. It’s basically just Chicago, right? But once those characters start tearing through the streets with high-tech gadgets, explosions, and all that crap, any trace of the modern world just vanishes. The cops, the military... everything "real" just disappears overnight once that little group starts messing around. The movie is stuck in a trap it built for itself.

Perhaps because the entire point of Gotham is its utter lack of order? That very chaos is what gave rise to a vigilante like Batman in the first place. Isn't that the core internal logic of the story?

Batman isn't out to save the whole world; he’s just trying to manage a broken Gotham, a city that’s arguably in worse shape than anywhere else in the country.

Would it be more logical for you if Batman emerged due to an inactive or corrupt police force, only for that same police force to suddenly help him catch petty criminals once the sun goes down?

Walter Grant5 said:Hold up. I’m not interested in these massive, over-intellectualized debates where someone asks me who built the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s like me asking you who designed Gotham City. It's a nonsense question.

And what "acting superior"? We both know who's struggling here—you. You use this pointless deduction thing. You always have a follow-up question, digging into every tiny detail until you focus on stuff that doesn't even matter. You trivialize everything anyone says until the original point just gets shredded into useless little scraps.

Hannibal Lecter is getting treated exactly how he deserves in this context. The analogy is off.

Let's not be dramatic. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding that I specify exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're using those very questions against me.

Walter Grant5 said:Look at this nonsense. "The film has characters as it portrays them." You could say that about literally any movie ever made. By that logic, nobody deserves a single critique.

Stop playing games. We went through this whole headache with *The Odyssey* and *Interstellar*, and now you're trying to drag every new trend back to that same tired argument.

Precisely. A film presents the characters as they are written, not how templates or previous iterations dictate they should be. If you hadn't read the comics or seen older Batman films, you wouldn't view the Joker as some cartoonish caricature; you'd see him as someone like Hannibal Lecter—a brilliant, terrifying enigma. You wouldn't even think of calling him a cartoon.

So, when you mention a cartoon on one hand, but claim to watch movies independently of their source material on the other—what am I supposed to make of that?

Walter Grant5 said:Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

What kind of extremes? The questions are straightforward. If you insist that the film suffers from paradoxical logic—specifically its internal logic—and I ask you to point out exactly where, then we are merely discussing the basics. Point out an illogical occurrence, and I’ll accept it without a fight. On the other hand, I will never accept a logically flawed argument, no matter how popular it might be.

And sure, if your argument—that it’s completely illogical for Gotham to lack police and military presence during the night, given that in the real world there’s an armed response everywhere things go south—is supposed to be the definitive proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then I really don't know what else to say...

Walter Grant5 said:Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

Walter Grant5 said:Look, the movie doesn't follow its own internal logic. It uses caricatures but tries to present them—and a non-realistic world—as if everything is grounded and real. Get it? In this day and age, calling someone a "cartoon character" is just describing their nature. I don't see them that way because they evolved from comics to video games, but because they're just caricatures at their core. Trying to force them into some modern social context is just plain stupid.

But I see where you're heading with this, Prika. What happened to you?

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.