Best movies from Sundance?

@ ruggedmarlin15

ruggedmarlin15 said:You're using words you don't even understand. Don't. You just look ridiculous.

Is there a difference between the meaning of "apologetic" and "apologist"? — Not really, they both stem from the same root—just different parts of speech.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Your assumptions are a bit too loose—"what if this happened, what if that happened..." Honestly, I don't recall any year where the festival was branded specifically as a "festival for certain types of films." Not even this one. No one promised a comedy only to bait people into some depressing drama. I don't see any manipulation here.

The gentleman is offering a program this year that’s fundamentally different from previous years—which, if you ask me, is actually a good thing. But apparently, he doesn't see it that way. Who's to say I'm wrong and he isn't?

ruggedmarlin15 said:You shouldn't be taking your anger out on people who aren't even responsible for it.

And who exactly was she targeting, in your interpretation? To me, it’s nobody—she simply shared her opinion on a Reddit dedicated to covering all of this.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Could someone please give me some info on what movies are playing?

She obviously did it—the moment she realized which movies were playing at the exact same time.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Not at all. Check the dictionary under "profit."

It’s interesting—I didn't actually use the word "profit"—I used the term "revenue." To the fraudster.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The deal is this: tickets are sitting at 20 bucks.$8.25You can buy them and watch the movie—but you don't have to.

So, if you actually want to watch the movie—which is the whole reason you showed up—the deal is off?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Festivals are non-profit ventures—period. They survive on sponsorships and grants—mostly. Which part of that did you fail to grasp?

So they charge admission—but the people buying those tickets aren't actually the customers. Even though the price isn't exactly "symbolic." Go ahead—try explaining that paradox to me one more time. Though, honestly, I don't even know what the word "paradox" means.

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, I have to give you props for this one:

The viewer basically lost the right to choose whether she wants to be tossed into a dumpster based on whatever side she decides to take.

🤣 🙏 🙏

ruggedmarlin15, I honestly don't know how you find the energy to reply to such nonsense... I'm actually fascinated by your compulsive need to make sure everyone loves the festival... and clearly, northerncrane4 is providing plenty of inspiration. 😁😁

ruggedmarlin15 said:No. One of those terms isn't part of standard American English. Go ahead—guess which one.

First off, you were talking about word meanings—which I clearly don't know—not about standard American usage.
Second, Klajić's "dictionary of foreign words" lists both versions in bold as legitimate.
Once again, you missed the mark entirely. My apologies—you missed the entire stadium. Coach, sub him out!

ruggedmarlin15 said:If I recall correctly, the films from a couple of years ago were also pretty dark and depressing. I don't consider that good or bad; it just is what it is. The festival has certain parameters it needs to meet—otherwise, they'd just be screening the latest blockbuster "comedies."[/B]

Madness.

So now you're attacking the festival's direction just because they invited the lead actor from that American blockbuster comedy "American pita" as an official guest one year. How malicious of you.

Quote:Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: Nobody. It’s a matter of access and principle. "The movie I came to see was too depressing, and that’s a huge downside for the festival." Honestly, what is going through her head?

Is that in quotes a direct quote? Or are you fabricating things again?

Quote:Madness.Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: You don't have to be an idiot. Just read the beginning of her post.

Which reads (exact quote): "Yeah, I have objections to this year's film festival, and they are veeeery big." Who exactly was she "angrily" targeting? You?

Quote:Madness.Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: Are you sure she knows? Based on what?

Well, based on the fact that she obviously knows the subject matter of the film playing alongside the one she went to see. I'm speculating.

Quote:Madness.

ruggedmarlin15 says: You reacted to my observation that the festival isn't a profitable event. PROFITable. And you're calling me a fabricator? Heh.

Yes, I am calling you a fabricator. Because it doesn't sit right with me that a woman, after buying a product, shouldn't have the right to comment on it. Unless, of course, she's just being difficult. So I said ticket sales generate some sort of revenue. And you want me to check a dictionary to define the word "profit."

Quote:

[B]Look, there's a deal. You pick a different movie—or you hit up a party, grab a drink, or just stay home. The choice is yours. Let me clarify—if you want to see the film, the "deal" is simply buying a ticket. You’re talking about consenting to a deal, but consent implies having an alternative. I know what the other option is; I’m just waiting for you to name it. ruggedmarlin15 said:They are just an audience that paid for admission to see the specific movie they bought a ticket for. Nothing more, nothing less. And once it's over, they have every right to say they didn't like it—purely based on subjective taste. It's like buying a jar of beet juice and deciding it's too sour for your palate. ruggedmarlin15 said:Did you honestly expect symbolic ticket prices? Sure, maybe at some dive bar in Springfield—no subtitles, grainy DVDs, and terrible sound systems. I wasn't expecting anything. You keep claiming ticket revenue doesn't matter to the festival, yet they still charge full price. $8.25, 800 seats. Even if we assume 300 spots go to credentialed guests—though half of them are probably passed out in a bush somewhere—that still leaves $4.25 per night for the main screening alone. Multiply that by the number of nights and all the side screenings, and sorry, but that is not "small change." ruggedmarlin15 said:No wonder. There is no paradox here. Ticket sales obviously aren't generating a profit because they can't cover the overhead. To build on that math—what on earth are the expenses, then?! If the festival isn't turning a profit even after sponsorships, ticket sales, and a mountain of volunteer work, then someone in management is clearly incompetent.

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

ruggedmarlin15 said:You don't know either one.

Fine. You claimed I didn't know what an "apologist" was when you called me one regarding the festival. So—why exactly does that word fail to fit the context of how you used it?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Let me school you then—it’s "apologist," not "apologeta." Just like it isn't "diplomata," "artista," or "komunista"—it's "diplomat," "artist," and "communist." Clear enough now?
.
.
.
Give me your teenage diarrhea posts—please.

Good grief.

Budal.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What a stretch of a theory. That actor showed up to promote a film that wasn't exactly a comedy—or even a blockbuster, if we're being honest.

The media is already out in full force—loudly announcing him as the lead in that "American pita" movie.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Exactly—you're just speculating.

I'm just trying to keep up with you—since you're out here claiming, with absolute certainty, that the girl hasn't even looked into these movies.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Wrong. She can hate the movie all she wants—but thinking that a lack of enjoyment should be used as a metric against the festival itself is just plain stupid. I really should have stuck to drawing.

No. You should have just provided an exact quote. The actual quote is:
Another movie—well, I only caught the beginning at the same theater, that one about the son and his schizophrenic mother. The whole thing felt like "I was tortured as a kid, so now I’m going to torture you." After fifteen minutes of that nightmare—all the electroshock therapy and pure depression—I decided my life didn't need that right now and just walked out. Long story short, I didn't have much luck with Barbacan.
She just claims she had bad luck with the screenings at that specific theater—that she was simply unlucky. Not a single word about the festival being a failure.

Then he goes on to say—and I quote—"Besides, if you're going to screen two movies at once, the lineup should probably be balanced so they aren't both depressing."
That’s a pretty pointed critique of the programmer. I honestly can't tell if you're actually the one putting this lineup together—taking her comments personally—or if you just view it as your job to defend those lovely festival organizers, who give you that one chance a year to hang out and feel like you actually matter.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I don't know about you. My advice? Don't bother watching the movie—or just go ahead and skip it altogether.

Or

ruggedmarlin15 said:You'd be shocked at how many tickets go straight to the festival's sponsors and buddies.

Exactly. You get it.

ruggedmarlin15 said:But you can't blame the local corner store for that.

Sure—if they're the only shop in town and they're selling junk people don't even want at prices that aren't exactly a bargain.

ruggedmarlin15 said:And those smaller screenings? Maybe a hundred people—mostly accredited journalists who, let's assume, aren't paying for tickets. Go ahead, multiply all that to your heart's content. Whatever. Like they say, "you missed the whole point."

Well, that brings us to the real question: does this festival even matter if most of the screenings are just for the press? Especially considering the organizers tell the Secretary of Culture that their screenings are always packed—unlike the ones in San Francisco.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Right. And it's been that way for seven years now. Look—either learn how festivals and cultural events actually work, or just grow up. I don't know what else to tell you.

Then explain it to me, since I'm clearly so "immature"—tell me what I've asked you several times already. If this festival doesn't live off ticket sales, according to you, why then ruin the spirit of community by charging prices that are nearly as high as Cinemark? Since you're such an expert and I'm apparently so clueless.

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

ruggedmarlin15 said:I’d only be an apologist if they screened the wrong movie at a festival and I turned to you and said, "Whatever—the festival has the right to do what it wants."

Aha. TO So, that's the meaning of "apologist." My bad—I used the word in the wrong context.

ruggedmarlin15 said:And who exactly are "the media"? A festival?

The media simply mirrors whatever narrative the festival directors decide to feed them regarding an actor.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What were they actually supposed to do? Bring Jason and the press along just to hide that he was attending the festival? Or list his entire filmography while conveniently leaving out "American pita"—the one he’s probably most famous for?

No! Quite the opposite—don't you dare mention any of his films except for "American pita"!

ruggedmarlin15 said:Well, that should be obvious.

It’s all pretty obvious to me—but hey, good for you.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I just gave her an answer—that's all. I have no idea why you're taking this so personally (unless she is).

Where exactly are you getting the idea that she wasn't affected? — Maybe she just hasn't been on Reddit in the meantime.
Every bit of unearned arrogance gets under my skin—I can't help it. I guess I’m just an immature kid at heart.

ruggedmarlin15 said:What is this? You trying to troll me? It’s not working, man. I actually work at the festival—I don't exactly have time to rub elbows with the elite. Between the grind and the actual labor, there's no room for that. Besides, if I did find time to party, the big shots wouldn't even show up anyway. So, what's the point?

Yeah, I just wanted to confirm one thing—you’re an employee of the festival, which means you aren't exactly coming at this discussion from any position that could be called objective.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Not exactly. You could organize a festival too—if you think you have what it takes.

Me? As in—infantile and clueless? Hard to believe.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Do I know ahead of time if every single movie is worth the price of admission? No.

Exactly. I don't know. And if I watch it and decide it wasn't worth what I paid—I’m not going to hold back from saying so. That's my right as a consumer. It seems this whole concept is causing you some serious cognitive dissonance.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Hahaha, don't even try it. Saying "MOSTLY accredited journalists attend"—you're being ridiculous.

I'm the ridiculous one? You claimed the audiences for non-central screenings consist mostly of accredited press, which makes their ticket revenue negligible and irrelevant to my equation. You've pulled so many backflips during this thread that I'm starting to think you're an Olympic gymnast.

ruggedmarlin15 said:You mean, do organizers host San Francisco films? And yes, the screenings are packed.

No, I mean the festival should move to San Francisco. And they're "packed," according to you, because they're full of accredited journalists.

ruggedmarlin15 said:You wouldn't? Everything for free, huh? Nothing in life is truly free, kid.

Oh, look—we've reached the "folk wisdom" stage. Does that imply there's "nothing for free" simply because ticket sales provide a necessary buffer for the festival budget? I feel like I'm being incredibly redundant here, but apparently, getting a straight answer from you is impossible.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Volunteers in Savannah get room and board. So, they aren't exactly working for free either, right? [/B]

Hm. An interesting apology—(damn it, there I go again!)—for a slave-labor system.

ruggedmarlin15 said:It's enough to just quote your own posts. Everything is perfectly clear.

Yes. Especially for a festival employee.

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

ruggedmarlin15 said:The media wouldn't even lift a finger without a hook—those "artsy" titles don't mean a thing to them. They only care about the Hollywood connection, and you know it.
What does any of this have to do with New York? I said they would normally include blockbuster comedies—and you’re pivoting to some actor who starred in one that was NEVER even in the lineup.

The whole point is that they're leveraging the popularity of blockbusters like that for marketing. From my perspective—as an outside observer—it feels like the reason these big comedies aren't hitting the Sundance Film Festival isn't because the board lacks interest, but rather a simple lack of budget.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I’m sorry—but what exactly do you mean by "q-rac"?

Wow—you’re really something else. A total jerk.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Spot the "if." If you actually can...

Your usage of the word "if"—the way you're twisting it now—doesn't carry the meaning you're trying to claim it does.
I just gave her an answer—simple as that. I’m not sure why you’re taking this so personally (unless she is).ruggedmarlin15, you wrote: "If" is a conjunction in your sentence—meaning you didn't actually leave any room for the possibility that your answer hit the mark—instead, you flatly asserted it didn't, even though it likely did for me.
Just a heads-up—I see you’re getting pretty worked up over your own interpretations of certain words.

ruggedmarlin15 said:And maybe she was—I mean...

Which ones?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Poor little girl...

As far as I know—and there’s really only one declared "Happy Child" in all of America anyway—it's hardly a crowded field.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Excuse me—are we attempting an objective discussion here?

Only halfway.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I suspect you’d be demanding the Sundance Film Festival issue everyone full refunds if they didn't enjoy a movie—judging by your track record so far.

So you're concluding—based on everything I’ve written so far—that because an audience pays for a ticket, they have some inherent right to publicly slam the quality of the films they see?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Aren't you using words a bit too big for your age?

And what exactly is my "age"—since you seem to be an expert on the subject?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Exactly. But your logic doesn't apply to the whole festival—why? Because journalists don't make up the bulk of the audience at the main screenings. Not even close.

If you actually knew how to compare the number of "main" screenings against the side shows, you wouldn't be standing a chance.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Hardly. It's nearly impossible. Besides, I think you've got things mixed up.

You’re always "thinking" something. Try doing the bare minimum and checking some news archives.

ruggedmarlin15 said:It helps cover the budget, but it isn't profitable because the scale is too small compared to the overhead. I won't repeat myself...

It covers enough of the budget that ticket prices aren't just symbolic.

ruggedmarlin15 said:And proud of it..

It wasn't exactly obvious.

ruggedmarlin15 said:That is simply because you agreed to such a deal in the first place! Just because you did doesn't mean that money actually turned a profit for the festival.

ruggedmarlin15

Well, I agreed to the deal, and since I am paying for my ticket, I fully expect decent picture quality, clear sound, and working subtitles!

I have absolutely no intention of getting dragged into a debate about whether a movie is depressing or not, because I don't categorize films that way, and I honestly have no complaints regarding this year's Sundance Film Festival lineup.
(However, if I had attended a screening where the subtitles were missing entirely, wouldn't I be perfectly entitled to complain? After all, I paid for my seat, which makes me a customer, and isn't a customer always right?

It really shouldn't matter whether the ticket sales actually generated a profit for the festival or not!
The point is—if I shell out my own $8.25 for a ticket—I expect to receive an adequate technical presentation in return, rather than having to thank my lucky stars and the heavens just because the festival staff graciously allowed me to hand over my $8.25 to witness some "elevated" screening, regardless of how it actually looks or sounds!

I haven't been following your back-and-forth beyond your last reply, so I am not quite sure how your argument is evolving, but I simply wanted to point out that people who pay for tickets are customers, and they have every right to speak up if something goes wrong (and I am certainly not talking about the mood of the film, but rather whether the technical execution was acceptable)!

If I pay my 4 dollars and get a stale piece of bread, I am going to grumble! If I pay my $8.25 and get—heaven forbid!—a foreign film with the wrong subtitles, a thirty-minute delay in the start time, or audio that keeps cutting out, then surely I have the right to complain, regardless of whether the festival is operating in the red or the black!

Whether the festival is making money or losing money is none of my business, just as I would complain about stale bread whether that local bakery was turning a profit or not!

And please, ruggedmarlin15, do not take everything so personally, pleeeeease!

Geez, the girl was just saying she didn't enjoy the movie!
Who on earth are you trying to defend now? Whether someone likes a film or not is purely subjective, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the organization of the festival or anything else!

I have been to Napa Valley many times, and I have seen wonderful films, and I have also seen films that I thought were terrible!
And according to you, I wouldn't even have the right to say a film was bad for me?!?!?

We are talking about TASTE here! Hey, TASTE! There is no logical ARGUMENTATION available for me to provide to support such a claim!

So what if it didn't appeal to me, or if it felt too depressing for the girl in question?
What does that have to do with the festival organization in the first place? She merely offered a very benevolent and innocent suggestion that perhaps—just maybe (note the conditional!)—the programming could be curated so that two films screened at the same time aren't both relentlessly gloomy.
It doesn't matter what my opinion is, but she was simply making a kind suggestion, yet you attacked her as if she had personally insulted you by implying you hadn't done a good job working for the festival!

If I were to say that I didn't like the color of the seats in the theater, would you attack me too? Would you tell me I'm just whining or that I have no right to complain because the ticket prices aren't generating enough profit for the festival?!?!

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

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

ruggedmarlin15 said:If someone just wanders in off the street and starts trashing your hard work right in front of everyone, do you really just sit there in silence?

But then again, you weren't the one directing the film, were you? Or perhaps you were the one putting the whole program together? Or... are we pretending you're actually Steven Spielberg?😁

Look, she mentioned it was a drawback for the festival—maybe she phrased it a bit clumsily, or maybe she truly feels that way. So what? I don't believe such a casual remark warrants all this intense energy from you, as if you need to launch into a grand lecture about how absolutely unacceptable her comment was and how she simply dared to...
just let it go!

And regarding the criticism... when you take on a role in the public eye, shouldn't you be prepared to handle public scrutiny? People are always going to have something to say, regardless of what they think...

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

ruggedmarlin15 said:Listen—(drawing mode on)—I was just going to tell you that you’re using vocabulary you haven't quite mastered yet (drawing mode off).

I took a little time to study your system for dealing with people you disagree with—it's quite telling—and I’ve noticed a pattern.
Regarding "Anderson Cooper":

ruggedmarlin15 said:It’s honestly hilarious—these little girls who just can't stand the fact that other people actually know more than one language.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The crowd trying to cook up these half-baked arguments—they’re going to need a lot more experience before they even attempt to critique Millie.

On the subject of "video rental stores":

ruggedmarlin15 said:P.S. How old are you?

ruggedmarlin15 said:Little girl, you're being ridiculous.

ruggedmarlin15 said:I’ll say it again—grow up.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Grow up.

On the subject of "MTV":

ruggedmarlin15 said:Lord, you're right—but how exactly are we supposed to explain this to the little girls?

And so on. I can tell you're going through hell right now—honestly. My apologies if I was just another reason for your pain. I’ll do my best not to be—with a sincere hope that you finally make it big.

P.S. You’d come across as a lot more credible if you actually put a birth year in your profile—even if you have to make one up. Right now, you just look like some bitter fake.

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.

ruggedmarlin15 said:Interests and occupation are pretty telling indicators.

Sure—interests perfectly capture my attitude toward you, and my job suggests I’m not quite as clueless as you’d like to believe. Fine, I see you aren't responding; I guess I don't fit your little theory.

ruggedmarlin15 said:P.P.S. I'm still waiting on that source you mentioned regarding moving Napa Valley to San Francisco.

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 proposed exactly what I stated.

So, what's your move? Maybe you'll try answering those pointed questions I threw at you—questions you chose to ignore? Just a reminder: you had one chance on the Python thread, too, where you tried to act informed, only to end up talking to thin air.

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