*** ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER *** (Leonardo DiCaprio, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)

17,628 Views | 363 Replies | Last: 11 hrs ago by MonkeyKnifeFighter
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WestAustinAg • 10:55a, 10/1/25
WestAustinAg said:
TCTTS said:
Quote:
First
All I can say is I've read these boards for years and rarely post because I fear your reaction if you disagree. If you go read your responses in the past you tend to attack the person and not the message. I've seen enough instances of your use of extreme adjectives that led itself to being abusive language towards someone you don't agree with

like calling responding peoples' thoughts insane for example or you attack them in some way for a opposite belief this is meant to be a constructive criticism to your industry but you tend to respond aggressively so please read it that way and read this response this way too if I might ask


Except you're leaving out one key factor in all if this, which is that these people - the ones I disagree with, whom I "attack," use "extreme adjectives" and "abusive language" toward, etc - aren't just random people whom I go around bullying for sport. Rather, these people, 95% of the time, are the same 10-20 posters who live to HATE Hollywood/liberals on this board. Not just people for whom left-leaning media is starting to "take a toll," but rather people who express a seething, mocking hatred for Hollywood, and often for half of the country as well, in the exact same ways you claim Hollywood does for the right.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I simply don't do the things you listed with the people here who aren't aggressively/incessantly political, and I'm very conscious of that. Will Spilner and I get into it over the Star Wars prequels or whatever? Sure. Will I passionately argue for a movie I may have either liked more (or less) than others? Absolutely. But stuff like that is mostly all in good fun. Rather, most of the time I go out of my way to acknowledge and breed positivity here, whether it's responding supportively to great discussion/theories, or hyping as much content as I possibly can (in genuine fashion). If you can't see the positively I try to bring in those regards, which far outweighs my vitriol, I don't know what to tell you.

The truth is, there is a distinct F16 bleed-over on this board who HATES me, HATES my colleagues, and HATES my profession, who uses thread after thread here to constantly remind me of their hatred. And if it's not hatred, it's predominantly endless complaining about "woke" when, more often than not the amount of complaining far outweighs whatever "woke" transgression has occurred. Further, it finally dawned on me that for as much as these people incessantly complain, and ruin thread after thread with their complaints… deep down they enjoy it. They enjoy the venting, the rage, and the superiority complex it gives them, which only fuels the fire and makes this place more and more miserable/depressing at times. Which, in return, on fuels me to respond.

I mean, the very fact that you're not even acknowledging that very real phenomenon on this board, and not also lecturing the people in this thread opposite me for holding to their views just as stubbornly as I'm holding to mine, kind of proves my point. Have they been quite as vocal as me in this thread? No. But they're being just as one-sided, and in the past, in other threads, have been just as mocking, just as "abusive," and "attack" me all the damn time.

All of that to say, I've been working in this industry for over 22 years. I've put in my 10,000 hours and so much more. I know what I'm talking about, and I'm sorry, but I don't have to be humble about that simply because you want me to be.

Yes, art is subjective. But the science of screenwriting, story structure, theme, etc isn't nearly as subjective as many would like to think. It's a highly technical endeavor, with all kinds of "rules" and nuance and once you learn to "see the Matrix" in that regard, after reading dozens of screenwriting books, thousands of screenplays, giving endless amounts of notes in professional development settings, and of course seeing hundreds more movies on top of all of that, you become an expert on the subject. To that end, this is my profession and I'm very good at it.

Also, I literally work with the people who make a number of the movies/shows we discuss on this board. I'm around them constantly, on Zooms with them, on emails with them, etc. In other words, I know how these people think, how they work, and often what they're trying to say/accomplish through their work. I'm not just some angry slapdick on the internet. For instance, last week, literally the day One Battle After Another hit theaters, I was on a Zoom with the person who runs DiCaprio's production company, trying to crack a new direction for a character in a pilot we're all making together. And for what it's worth, the show we're working on takes place in Texas, doesn't paint Texans/the right as backwards or wrong in any way, features a scene in a positive light in which a Christian prays, etc, and this is something that DiCaprio's name is on. So this idea that everyone out here - especially the guy starring in the movie this thread is discussing - hates you and your politics and your religion is, as always, an exaggeration. Does Hollywood lean left? Absolutely. But this idea that all Hollywood does is **** all over half the country simply isn't true.

This is all to say that it can be maddening at times when these ultra-conservative, politically-obsessed types, thousands of miles away, insist, in the most bad faith ways possible, that they know better or that they know what the intent of any given filmmaker is and I don't. Can you not see how that's frustrating? And how, when their attacks on me are laced with just as much vitriol and mocking, I'm the only one who gets called out, for simply responding to them?

As to everything else you said, I'm sorry, but I just don't have the energy to go over all of that stuff again for the thousandth time. You used multiple sweeping generalizations, put words in my mouth, ignored much of what I've said in this thread (again, I just can't with the lack of nuance anymore), and are clearly on the right yourself, in a way that's of course going to bias you to many of the arguments I make and the ways in which I conduct myself toward the more aggressive right-wingers on this board.

As always, you can choose with your wallet not to endorse Hollywood's messaging - or - in this day and age, you can easily go make the content yourself that you so desire. YouTube has FAR more reach than Hollywood does now anyway. Hollywood isn't the gatekeeper it once was, nor does it hold the level of influence you're claiming. Twenty years ago? Sure. But not anymore.

All of that said, if it's any consolation, the things I, personally, am trying to make don't lean liberal in the ways you describe and, as I said above, I'm making an effort to paint the right/Texans in a positive light (we're working on multiple Texas-set stories). I'm trying to do things different in that regard, but whether I succeed is another matter. That said… the right isn't always right, and Christians aren't always good. So when I feel like either need to be called out, whether in a movie we discuss on this board, in my work, or on this board, I'm not going to refrain from doing so.

The bully is now the victim.


Right? He thinks people actually hate him and his colleagues. Does he see the false reality here? Or the delusion that showing a Texan praying is somehow bucking the system? Perhaps, as he has rightly pointed out, depart from the weakening grasp of Hollywood gatekeepers, create and put content out on YouTube that is free from outside influence and let the free market play. It worked for Curry Barker, can't wait to see his new horror film.
Reply Quote
5
johncAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 10/1/25
AG
It sounds like some people on this thread need to hop in a car, have a few small beers, and just enjoy the ride
Reply Quote
7
agdoc2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to johncAG • 4:08p, 10/1/25
AG
johncAG said:
It sounds like some people on this thread need to hop in a car, have a few small beers, and just enjoy the ride

AH, the classic Reddit "touch grass" rebuttal. Maybe if I phrase it slightly differently, no one will notice.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
Geriatric Punk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agdoc2001 • 4:24p, 10/1/25
AG
agdoc2001 said:
johncAG said:
It sounds like some people on this thread need to hop in a car, have a few small beers, and just enjoy the ride

AH, the classic Reddit "touch grass" rebuttal. Maybe if I phrase it slightly differently, no one will notice.

He was actually referencing the movie, which seems to be something this thread has stopped doing.
Life's an endless party, not a punch card.
Reply Quote
12
Lathspell
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Richleau12 • 5:01p, 10/1/25
AG
We're back to the "you will sit in the corner we give you and you will like it" argument, again.

We also all "hate" Hollywood. Let's forget the fact that most of us have spent our lives loving the movies we have grown up with and have affected us so much, over the years. We're going to forget that, before all this woke Hollywood BS, most of us were perfectly happy to just enjoy movies. Sure, some hard-line Christians would have issues with certain movies, based on the content, but that was a huge minority.

Then, Hollywood begins pushing an entire ideology that is completely antithetical to our worldviews. It is against everything that we stand for as Americans and human beings. So we comment on it. We are then accused of being politically obsessed.

Then we get over a decade of this hamfisted BS from Hollywood, and we are still told to stop making a big deal out of nothing. If we point any of it out, we are obviously just politically obsessed.

It comes down to one simple point. Our worldviews are nearly completely opposite. I literally just watched the clip from the Charlie Kirk show, today, with Tim Pool retelling the story of him confronting Jack Dorsey on Rogan. In that show, Dorsey was adamant that Twitter was not biased. To this point, Tim brought up the idea of misgendering being against their rules, which Dorsey didn't consider a biased rule. Tim then had to explain to him that when you have more than half the country who believes calling a man who thinks he's a woman "a woman" is misgendering, and the other side of the argument believes not calling that man "a woman" is misgendering, then obviously the rule is biased.

These are COMPLETELY opposite views on reality. Jack Dorsey believed his rules were not biased because he lived in that tech-world lefty bubble. The same can be said for these Hollywood types who think they are actually fair-minded or would be capable of recognizing "THE MESSAGE" in their art. They are completely incapable of seeing "wokism" in their art because they simply view it as the only moral worldview. It's not woke, it's the way everyone should see the world.
Reply Quote
10
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 5:32p, 10/1/25
Lathspell said:
We're back to the "you will sit in the corner we give you and you will like it" argument, again.

We also all "hate" Hollywood. Let's forget the fact that most of us have spent our lives loving the movies we have grown up with and have affected us so much, over the years. We're going to forget that, before all this woke Hollywood BS, most of us were perfectly happy to just enjoy movies. Sure, some hard-line Christians would have issues with certain movies, based on the content, but that was a huge minority.

Then, Hollywood begins pushing an entire ideology that is completely antithetical to our worldviews. It is against everything that we stand for as Americans and human beings. So we comment on it. We are then accused of being politically obsessed.

Then we get over a decade of this hamfisted BS from Hollywood, and we are still told to stop making a big deal out of nothing. If we point any of it out, we are obviously just politically obsessed.

It comes down to one simple point. Our worldviews are nearly completely opposite. I literally just watched the clip from the Charlie Kirk show, today, with Tim Pool retelling the story of him confronting Jack Dorsey on Rogan. In that show, Dorsey was adamant that Twitter was not biased. To this point, Tim brought up the idea of misgendering being against their rules, which Dorsey didn't consider a biased rule. Tim then had to explain to him that when you have more than half the country who believes calling a man who thinks he's a woman "a woman" is misgendering, and the other side of the argument believes not calling that man "a woman" is misgendering, then obviously the rule is biased.

These are COMPLETELY opposite views on reality. Jack Dorsey believed his rules were not biased because he lived in that tech-world lefty bubble. The same can be said for these Hollywood types who think they are actually fair-minded or would be capable of recognizing "THE MESSAGE" in their art. They are completely incapable of seeing "wokism" in their art because they simply view it as the only moral worldview. It's not woke, it's the way everyone should see the world.

Absolutely, which is why I referenced Goebbles. These films are simply propaganda. As you point out, the difference is stark when looking at older films of even 15-20 years ago. It is blatant. I'll never forget going to film school and the teacher told us how we should have gender and sexuality quotas in our films if we were to have our films garner financial support. Look at the quotas now required by the academy. It's a direct contradiction to the creative process.

But here we are.

It is a shame that the gatekeepers of Hollywood, the money, require these quotas and ideologies, so much so that it bleeds into what young filmmakers are taught.

That same professor exclaimed that the academy used to be racist because Spike Lee had never won a best directing award. I raised my hand and asked, "Were Kubrick and Hitchcock great directors?" He nodded and stated, "They are two of the finest directors of all time." I continued, "Well neither of them won a best director award so perhaps the academy isn't racist, perhaps they are just stupid."

My point is simply, it's clear the audience is hungry for films devoid of political stance with a focus on quality storytelling featuring characters that match reality. The filmmaker who chooses to honor these demands will reap the lion's share and with it a return to normalcy and sanity.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 5:39p, 10/1/25
AG
Lathspell said:
We're back to the "you will sit in the corner we give you and you will like it" argument, again.

We also all "hate" Hollywood. Let's forget the fact that most of us have spent our lives loving the movies we have grown up with and have affected us so much, over the years. We're going to forget that, before all this woke Hollywood BS, most of us were perfectly happy to just enjoy movies. Sure, some hard-line Christians would have issues with certain movies, based on the content, but that was a huge minority.

Then, Hollywood begins pushing an entire ideology that is completely antithetical to our worldviews. It is against everything that we stand for as Americans and human beings. So we comment on it. We are then accused of being politically obsessed.

Then we get over a decade of this hamfisted BS from Hollywood, and we are still told to stop making a big deal out of nothing. If we point any of it out, we are obviously just politically obsessed.

It comes down to one simple point. Our worldviews are nearly completely opposite. I literally just watched the clip from the Charlie Kirk show, today, with Tim Pool retelling the story of him confronting Jack Dorsey on Rogan. In that show, Dorsey was adamant that Twitter was not biased. To this point, Tim brought up the idea of misgendering being against their rules, which Dorsey didn't consider a biased rule. Tim then had to explain to him that when you have more than half the country who believes calling a man who thinks he's a woman "a woman" is misgendering, and the other side of the argument believes not calling that man "a woman" is misgendering, then obviously the rule is biased.

These are COMPLETELY opposite views on reality. Jack Dorsey believed his rules were not biased because he lived in that tech-world lefty bubble. The same can be said for these Hollywood types who think they are actually fair-minded or would be capable of recognizing "THE MESSAGE" in their art. They are completely incapable of seeing "wokism" in their art because they simply view it as the only moral worldview. It's not woke, it's the way everyone should see the world.


Except that I've said COUNTLESS times in this thread that this movie IS, indeed, woke. My caveat is that it's not endorsing VIOLENT woke-ism. There's a difference. I could not have made this distinction more clear over pages and pages of discourse.

I've also explained multiple times that it's not about me/people like me ignoring the woke elements in these movies. Of course there are woke elements in some of these movies. Rather, it's that the RESPONSE in these threads to the amount of wokeness is beyond overkill. For instance...

- HUNDREDS of posts by grown men RAGING about an all female Ghostbusters.

- HUNDREDS of posts by grown men RAGING about a black Little Mermaid.

- HUNDREDS of posts by grown men RAGING about a two-second same-sex kiss in Lightyear.

... among countless other examples, while posters like aTmAg and El Gallo Blanco and so many more actively try to turn the most innocuous threads into political screeds and crazed finger-waving.

Overall, there's just a certain foaming-at-the-mouth quality to the endless amount of complaining that DOMINATES seemingly every last thread. When, in truth, 90% of the content out there isn't woke at all. It's just not. Most blockbusters are not woke. Most dramas are not woke. Most comedies are not woke, etc, etc, etc. Are there woke blockbusters/dramas/comedies? YES. But based on the amount of *****ing and moaning on this board, one would think it was a never-ending firehose of woke content being spewed all over the pop culture landscape and that's simply not happening. Y'all just get SO ANGRY at what *is* out there, and make it sound like the world is ending or that Satan himself is in charge of every last release and it all just ultimately gets to be a little much - like the boy who cried wolf - never mind how annoying and derailing it is.

Now, I will absolutely cop to, for instance, Disney in particular going too far with the woke during the first Trump administration and beyond. Combined with #MeToo and Covid and George Floyd it all made for this perfect woke storm in response to Trump that reached a deranged fever pitch on both sides. But I think we can all agree now that the pendulum is OBVIOUSLY swinging back, that woke, indeed equals broke, etc. Disney and damn near everyone else has publicly vowed to dial it back... and they have. Are there still some echoes and stragglers in that regard? Yes. But good lord, can we just take it down a notch? The right clearly won the culture wars. Woke-ism, however, isn't just going to go away overnight. There's currently a death rattle, sure, but at least have some perspective here. This was a decade-long phase. Not a new normal.
Reply Quote
6 edits
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 5:46p, 10/1/25
First of all, you ok dude?

Second, the examples you cite are not present in a vacuum. Look at the content Netflix is pushing towards children for example. It most certainly isn't going away or phasing out. Look at the content Pixar is pushing. Look at this film. The question remains, why was this ideology pushed at all? Who funds this rhetoric? Why is it imperative to push the same narratives in countless films? Why is there a quota system at the academy? What spawned its existence in the first place and why does it have a lock-step backing by Hollywood? Why do 90% of actors, producers and directors adhere to the same ideology? The few that do decide to open their mouths are cast out like the black balled communists of the 50s. That's a drastic shift in culture wouldn't you say?

You seem to be in the know. Care to explain?
Reply Quote
4
3 edits
Lathspell
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 6:03p, 10/1/25
AG
I think you project more than most people on this forum.

Just look at your post. In an effort to make a point, you use the term "raging" to describe the response to those things. I've seen very little "raging" from anyone over most of those points. I called out all of those points, when they happened, because they were worth calling out. Why? Because they were so obvious and hamfisted. But "raging"? I have literally gone years without thinking about that black little mermaid. In 20 years, no one will be watching it anyway. Kids will still be watching the classic movie from the Disney Renaissance.

You resort IMMEDIATELY, in any argument, to hyperbole. This is what many posters have been calling you out on. It's not like you start off with good-faith discussions that devolve into shouting matches. The moment someone posts something you don't like, you increase your aggression level to 10 and go after them, with many ad hominem attacks.

But, all of that aside, I wish your side would understand one simple thing: Charlie Kirk was assassinated less than a month ago. You may have really not liked the guy; that's fine. I would never expect everyone to mourn him. But with that event, followed by the mocking and vile comments all over the place from regular people we used to think were reasonable liberals, you would thin your side could just take a step back and let the situation breathe while our side mourns. Instead, we are immediately forced to defend the idea that it's not okay to kill someone for differing beliefs. We are having to defend EVERY single word he ever said, whether it be as a joke or tongue in cheek comment.

So, forgive us for being sensitive to the type of rhetoric that led to a Godly man being gunned down in front of his family. Forgive those of us, like me, who love movies, many starring Leo, and would love to be entertained for 2-3 hours with a great story; however, we do not want to give our money to anything glorifying any rhetoric similar to what led to Charlie's death.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Richleau12 • 6:06p, 10/1/25
AG
Richleau12 said:
First of all, you ok dude?

Second, the examples you cite are not present in a vacuum. Look at the content Netflix is pushing towards children for example. It most certainly isn't going away or phasing out. Look at the content Pixar is pushing. Look at this film. The question remains, why was this ideology pushed at all? Who funds this rhetoric? Why is it imperative to push the same narratives in countless films? Why is there a quota system at the academy? What spawned its existence in the first place and why does it have a lock-step backing by Hollywood? Why do 90% of actors, producers and directors adhere to the same ideology? The few that do decide to open their mouths are cast out like the black balled communists of the 50s. That's a drastic shift in culture wouldn't you say?

You seem to be in the know. Care to explain?


You understand that these things take YEARS to make, right? Meaning that a number of these projects have been in development since before the pendulum started to swing back. Again, I LITERALLY just got done saying that there are still echoes/stragglers/death rattles. And then you IMMEDIATELY posted, in so many words, "What about all these echoes/stragglers/death rattles?!" Again...CHILL. You won. But victory isn't going to happen overnight.

As to your questions, I honestly think it's fairly simple. It's nothing more than ideological escalation. Between the first black president sewing needless racial division, followed by the right electing one of the most repugnant/controversial candidates in response, people on both sides dug in to the extreme, and Hollywood in particular took it too far as well, virtue signaling to the max via content and policies. Granted, we're probably going to disagree on what was actually warranted or not, but the fact remains that the Hollywood hot air balloon of bull**** has been punctured, and it's currently flailing back down to earth. Now, will "woke" go away completely? No. But it's just so clear to me, at least, that we're on our way back to a new equilibrium. Never mind that, again, it was simply never as bad as the copious amount of complaining here made (and continues to make) it out to be.
Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 6:42p, 10/1/25
AG
Lathspell said:
I think you project more than most people on this forum.

Just look at your post. In an effort to make a point, you use the term "raging" to describe the response to those things. I've seen very little "raging" from anyone over most of those points. I called out all of those points, when they happened, because they were worth calling out. Why? Because they were so obvious and hamfisted. But "raging"? I have literally gone years without thinking about that black little mermaid. In 20 years, no one will be watching it anyway. Kids will still be watching the classic movie from the Disney Renaissance.

You resort IMMEDIATELY, in any argument, to hyperbole. This is what many posters have been calling you out on. It's not like you start off with good-faith discussions that devolve into shouting matches. The moment someone posts something you don't like, you increase your aggression level to 10 and go after them, with many ad hominem attacks.

But, all of that aside, I wish your side would understand one simple thing: Charlie Kirk was assassinated less than a month ago. You may have really not liked the guy; that's fine. I would never expect everyone to mourn him. But with that event, followed by the mocking and vile comments all over the place from regular people we used to think were reasonable liberals, you would thin your side could just take a step back and let the situation breathe while our side mourns. Instead, we are immediately forced to defend the idea that it's not okay to kill someone for differing beliefs. We are having to defend EVERY single word he ever said, whether it be as a joke or tongue in cheek comment.

So, forgive us for being sensitive to the type of rhetoric that led to a Godly man being gunned down in front of his family. Forgive those of us, like me, who love movies, many starring Leo, and would love to be entertained for 2-3 hours with a great story; however, we do not want to give our money to anything glorifying any rhetoric similar to what led to Charlie's death.


One Battle After Another does NOT condone violent extremism.

It just simply doesn't, no matter how much y'all keep arguing to the contrary.

You yourself are admitting that you're in a heightened state of sensitivity right now, and it's just beyond obvious that in that state you're trying to stubbornly project/exaggerate things that aren't there.

This. Movie. Is. Against. Violent. Extremism. Full stop. It just is, and every last context clue points to that. For the 400th time, depiction is NOT endorsement, especially when the latter 2/3rds of the movie spends its time in the objective rot and fallout of that depiction. I'm sorry that DiCaprio's character didn't gather everyone around and literally preach the movie's message, but that would have been insane, and IMO, about the worst thing the movie could have done.

Regardless, what the hell was Warner Bros supposed to do? Delay the movie because a podcaster half the country either can't stand or had never heard of was assassinated? In WB's mind they're thinking A) this movie disavows violent extremism, and B) it would cost MILLIONS to delay/start-back-up the promotional machine weeks from now.

Not to mention, like it or not, Charlie Kirk was a highly controversial figure. Granted, I do admit that, in the wake of his death, I've seen with my own eyes just how much a lot of what he said was misconstrued/taken out of context by the left. But even then, outside of those things, he still said some objectively repugnant ****, still often misconstrued facts, and had a general, ****-starting demeanor about him. I absolutely appreciated his willingness to engage and debate - I loved that about him, in fact - but in the end, just because someone claims to be a Christian, and frequently quotes the bible, does not make them a "Godly" person deserving of the world bending to the event of their death. At times, yes, I saw Christ in him, but more often I absolutely did not. Does any of that in any way mean he "had it coming" or should have been killed? Of course not, and to that end I found it to be one of the most depressing days our country has seen in a while.

Still, two weeks after the matter, a Hollywood studio releasing a movie depicting - and then disavowing - violent extremism in no way keeps your "side" from "mourning" or "letting the situation breathe." Never mind that it only made just over $20M at the box office opening weekend, meaning not that many people even saw it to begin with.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This movie is a blip comparatively, but y'all are still SO MAD that it and the studio releasing it didn't bend to your will in both message and timing. In other words, you're using biased politics to blow the "woke" elements out of proportion, just like y'all always do on this board.
Reply Quote
3 edits
AJ02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:29p, 10/1/25
AG
I'm starting to hate this movie just based on this thread. I've read maybe 10 total posts and scrolled through the other 500.
Reply Quote
2
Lathspell
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 7:48p, 10/1/25
AG
I'm not talking about the release of the movie. I'm referring to your reaction to those of us not wanting to see that kind of rhetoric in a movie, right now, and genuinely came to this thread to discover if this is a movie I was willing to spend time to watch.

I also don't understand the point of your post that puts Charlie's salvation into question. My claim of him being a "Godly" man had absolutely NOTHING to do with him quoting Bible verses, and I'm not even going to start down that argument with you on what a "Christian" really is because, as I've already said, we have diametrically opposed worldviews. There is no agreement to be had, there.

Also, I'm not claiming the movie condones violent extremism. I posed the possibility it espouses "rhetoric" that led to Charlie's murder. That "rhetoric" to which I am referring is "othering" conservatives or Christians. If they are doing that, I want nothing to do with that movie. If there is none of that, then I'm open to watching it. But the LAST person who's opinion on that matter that I would listen to is yours, for reasons I've already posted. But I'm also not taking all the critiques in this thread as fact because I do know there are some posters who do overexaggerate critiques from the right side of the aisle.
Reply Quote
8
WestAustinAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30p, 10/1/25
AG
How many months before some studio puts out a film or series about a tall, lanky college campus debater who pretended to want to have open debates but who harbored hidden hatred and racist view? I can see it now- he secretly abused his wife and children but in the limelight he was good at the deception.

A plucky rebel from a good home who loved free speech but hated the grift saw through the charade and had a mind to put a stop to it. He grabbed his rifle and took a heroic stand. If not for a fascist government response this young man would have been the hero America needed.

The closing scene is the unveiling of the statue on the campus where he took his stand. A huge crowd of people representing every race and creed stood by. Then the camera pans to a House hearing where an investigative reporter from the San Francisco newspaper raises his right hand to begin his testimony that the campus debater was paid off by the billionaire brothers from Iowa. The house of cards was beginning to fall…

It's coming.
Reply Quote
1
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WestAustinAg • 9:49p, 10/1/25
They can't help themselves, always dragging people down to their level. Remember the Hitchcock biopic? They couldn't just make a film about a great director and his process, highlighting different behind the scenes looks from his top films, etc. No, they had to tear down his character, ridicule the once great man and drag out any possible weakness they could find. It's gross and you're right. It will happen. A Wicked version of a political assassin. I think we see one of Luigi before we get one of this guy, but you're right. Whomever is a saint to their cause will be immortalized on film, be damned the truth to the story.
Reply Quote
3
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 9:50p, 10/1/25
Why are you still posting on this thread if you got the validation you needed to not see it?

Because you want to make it a policial discussion? Awesome, take it to the politics board. Nothing you post on this thread has any merit because you're afraid to go see a movie and judge it yourself. Leave it to people who actually saw it. Let them keep talking for you and you can shower them with your blue stars.
Reply Quote
9
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:51p, 10/1/25
Remember when they pushed back films in light of Columbine? But this one? No, it's fine. Too much money invested or whatever? Had to sneak it in for the Oscars...prestige over decency.
Reply Quote
Lathspell
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 10:12p, 10/1/25
AG
I literally haven't posted in hours. But that's for the contribution.

And you know what? I will continue to post on a thread where others reply directly to me. Kind of like how you did because you couldn't stand to live in a world where you couldn't get your two cents in.
Reply Quote
Bunk Moreland
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Lathspell • 10:14p, 10/1/25
See? You just can't quit. You want this to be a policial board debate. Exactly as I called from the beginning that triggered you so much. It's too bad you're so afraid of forming your own opinion. You might actually have enjoyed the movie.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Lathspell
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 10:23p, 10/1/25
AG
Ahh, I see. So we will now go back and forth with your childish antics which will either just get the thread locked or the posts deleted. Kind of means anything you've said doesn't have merit... makes sense.
Reply Quote
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Richleau12 • 2:29a, 10/2/25
AG
Richleau12 said:
Remember when they pushed back films in light of Columbine? But this one? No, it's fine. Too much money invested or whatever? Had to sneak it in for the Oscars...prestige over decency.


Sneak it in? Warner Bros technically could have released it anytime between now and December 31 to qualify for the Oscars. They chose not to simply because One Battle After Another has NOTHING to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Not because they're the monsters you so desperately need them to be.

Speaking of "decency" and school shootings, though, I find it curious which shootings/murders you guys deem worthy of all this hemming, hawing, and grieving and which are seemingly totally fine by you in terms of pop culture not needing to bend the knee or get out of the way. Seeing as, since Columbine, there have obviously been countless other mass/school shootings and never has a single one of you thrown tantrums on this board whining about whatever soon-to-be released shoot-'em-up action movies needing to be delayed/reschedule. Never mind when, say, democrat Melissa Hortman was shot and killed via politically-motivated home invasion this past June. Should we not have taken From the World of John Wick: Ballerina out of the theaters then? I mean, they both involved guns, murder, and politics, right? If not, how dare you and your lack of "decency."

But then a far-right podcaster dies by the hands of someone on the left and suddenly y'all LEAP at the chance to turn him into a saint and a martyr, demanding everyone clear space for your grieving process. Look, it sucks that Kirk died. It was a horrible tragedy and the world be a better place had it not happened. But also, the world does not revolve around who you champion or what you deem to be just and appropriate. ESPECIALLY when, again, this movie has NOTHING to do with his death. You simply believe yourselves to be morally superior, that the world should thus bend to you, and anyone who doesn't is in the wrong/evil. When all you're really doing is actively attempting to make these ridiculous connections so that they can justify your endless crusade to assume the worst in people and continue hating the left with every fiber of your being.
Reply Quote
4
3 edits
Mega Lops
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:25a, 10/2/25
AG
"This" "thread" "needs" "more" "quotes" "and" "I'm" "here" "for" "it"
Reply Quote
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:31a, 10/2/25
Staff
AG
Back to the movie...

I want to see the shot of Leo falling off the roof again.

The editing made it look like one take and I was wondering how they did that. Probably just spliced it together really well, but I was impressed by that.
Reply Quote
2
FtWorthHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 9:35a, 10/2/25
TCTTS said:


The last tweet is especially on point, underlining how it's not really about "the revolution" for any of the French 75. For Perfidia, it's more about the adrenaline/sexual high she gets from it, for Jungle***** it's the showy, attention-***** performance of it all, etc. In other words, "violent extremism" is simply a means to quench each of their shallow/selfish kinks and desires. It's what THEY get from it, not what society gets from it.


One of the most important shots in the entire movie is during the bank heist. When the first gunshot goes off, Jungle***** is IMMEDIATELY shaken out of her performance. She is very clearly not there for violence and is terrified.

Plus they're all idiots the entire movie. If you didn't laugh when the guy on the phone told Bob to, effectively, "read theory" then I don't think you were picking up what the movie was putting down about the French 75.
Reply Quote
4
WestAustinAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bunk Moreland • 10:58a, 10/2/25
AG
Bunk Moreland said:
Why are you still posting on this thread if you got the validation you needed to not see it?

Because you want to make it a policial discussion? Awesome, take it to the politics board. Nothing you post on this thread has any merit because you're afraid to go see a movie and judge it yourself. Leave it to people who actually saw it. Let them keep talking for you and you can shower them with your blue stars.

Why are you posting about other people posting? This is a forum where anyone can give their opinion. Even you. This movie discussion zoomed straight to gaslighting by the lefties that this movie isn't the propaganda piece that the professional reviewers said it was (and the reason they loved it!).
Reply Quote
3
WestAustinAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 11:00a, 10/2/25
AG
TCTTS said:
Richleau12 said:
Remember when they pushed back films in light of Columbine? But this one? No, it's fine. Too much money invested or whatever? Had to sneak it in for the Oscars...prestige over decency.


Sneak it in? Warner Bros technically could have released it anytime between now and December 31 to qualify for the Oscars. They chose not to simply because One Battle After Another has NOTHING to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Not because they're the monsters you so desperately need them to be.

Speaking of "decency" and school shootings, though, I find it curious which shootings/murders you guys deem worthy of all this hemming, hawing, and grieving and which are seemingly totally fine by you in terms of pop culture not needing to bend the knee or get out of the way. Seeing as, since Columbine, there have obviously been countless other mass/school shootings and never has a single one of you thrown tantrums on this board whining about whatever soon-to-be released shoot-'em-up action movies needing to be delayed/reschedule. Never mind when, say, democrat Melissa Hortman was shot and killed via politically-motivated home invasion this past June. Should we not have taken From the World of John Wick: Ballerina out of the theaters then? I mean, they both involved guns, murder, and politics, right? If not, how dare you and your lack of "decency."

But then a far-right podcaster dies by the hands of someone on the left and suddenly y'all LEAP at the chance to turn him into a saint and a martyr, demanding everyone clear space for your grieving process. Look, it sucks that Kirk died. It was a horrible tragedy and the world be a better place had it not happened. But also, the world does not revolve around who you champion or what you deem to be just and appropriate. ESPECIALLY when, again, this movie has NOTHING to do with his death. You simply believe yourselves to be morally superior, that the world should thus bend to you, and anyone who doesn't is in the wrong/evil. When all you're really doing is actively attempting to make these ridiculous connections so that they can justify your endless crusade to assume the worst in people and continue hating the left with every fiber of your being.

School shootings were done for political reasons to assassinate a movement leader. They were done mostly by lone wolves who were fed crazy pills and years of emotional abuse by their parents.

Can't you see the difference? ANd thanks for your really honest take on Charlie Kirk. You couldnt give a ****. Got it.
Reply Quote
2
FancyKetchup14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FtWorthHorn • 11:05a, 10/2/25
AG
Great point. I noticed that too and how their whole facade crumbled immediately. When push came to shove they just weren't really about that life.
Reply Quote
5
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to WestAustinAg • 12:29p, 10/2/25
WestAustinAg said:
TCTTS said:
Richleau12 said:
Remember when they pushed back films in light of Columbine? But this one? No, it's fine. Too much money invested or whatever? Had to sneak it in for the Oscars...prestige over decency.


Sneak it in? Warner Bros technically could have released it anytime between now and December 31 to qualify for the Oscars. They chose not to simply because One Battle After Another has NOTHING to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Not because they're the monsters you so desperately need them to be.

Speaking of "decency" and school shootings, though, I find it curious which shootings/murders you guys deem worthy of all this hemming, hawing, and grieving and which are seemingly totally fine by you in terms of pop culture not needing to bend the knee or get out of the way. Seeing as, since Columbine, there have obviously been countless other mass/school shootings and never has a single one of you thrown tantrums on this board whining about whatever soon-to-be released shoot-'em-up action movies needing to be delayed/reschedule. Never mind when, say, democrat Melissa Hortman was shot and killed via politically-motivated home invasion this past June. Should we not have taken From the World of John Wick: Ballerina out of the theaters then? I mean, they both involved guns, murder, and politics, right? If not, how dare you and your lack of "decency."

But then a far-right podcaster dies by the hands of someone on the left and suddenly y'all LEAP at the chance to turn him into a saint and a martyr, demanding everyone clear space for your grieving process. Look, it sucks that Kirk died. It was a horrible tragedy and the world be a better place had it not happened. But also, the world does not revolve around who you champion or what you deem to be just and appropriate. ESPECIALLY when, again, this movie has NOTHING to do with his death. You simply believe yourselves to be morally superior, that the world should thus bend to you, and anyone who doesn't is in the wrong/evil. When all you're really doing is actively attempting to make these ridiculous connections so that they can justify your endless crusade to assume the worst in people and continue hating the left with every fiber of your being.

School shootings were done for political reasons to assassinate a movement leader. They were done mostly by lone wolves who were fed crazy pills and years of emotional abuse by their parents.

Can't you see the difference? ANd thanks for your really honest take on Charlie Kirk. You couldnt give a ****. Got it.


Yep, this guy thinks Charlie Kirk was far-right. You've got to be kidding me… and good to know they could have delayed the release but chose not to. Neat that Weinstein had more decency than the ghoulish makers of this commie crap when he pushed back Scream 3.

Tell me, have you ever seen a Charlie Kirk video in entirety?

You scream that you think folks hate you and your colleagues but now I see it as purely projection. There's so much anger packed in your thoughts. Do you see that?

It reminds me of a quote by Norm Macdonald, "you can't play someone and have contempt for them at the same time." In it, Norm was speaking to Alec Baldwin's failed comedic impression of Trump, but the sentiment rings true here as well. Hollywood can't create for the majority of Americans because deep down, they have contempt for them.
Reply Quote
8
4 edits
johncAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 2:57p, 10/2/25
AG
the entire portion before that of Leo and del Toro walking through his store/house felt like a long one shot, even though it wasnt. I was so enamored
Reply Quote
2
veryfuller
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:44p, 10/2/25
Staff
AG
I do think the budget for this movie is insane. I get that some of these actors demand big paychecks, but if I saw the movie before knowing the budget was $175 million, I would not believe you. Even the "reported" budget is $130 million. You just do not see that on the screen at all. Oppenheimer was $100 million, and it felt like all of that was on the screen. This movie looks like it could have been made for $80 million, tops. Can anyone explain why it was twice that?
Reply Quote
1
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 3:55p, 10/2/25
AG
$25M to Leo and then shooting in California is unfortunately super expensive as well (though the new tax cuts make it easier now, but those went into effect after this shot). Still, I definitely agree that it *looks* $80M tops. But damn near every scene also looked to be on-location (meaning hardly any cheaper interior stage work), there were surprisingly a lot of extras, etc. Somehow it added up. Though, yeah, seeing as Oppenheimer, Dune, Top Gun: Maverick, Furiosa, Wicked, etc all shot for either cheaper or around the same price, the whole thing is kind of baffling.
Reply Quote
1
Brian Earl Spilner
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to veryfuller • 3:56p, 10/2/25
AG
I'm sure it also had to do with shooting on location in California (which many movies avoid due to lack of tax breaks), shooting on film, and the entire car chase sequence.

Granted that still doesn't justify that budget but stuff like that adds up I imagine. Not to mention whatever Leo's salary was.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TCTTS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FtWorthHorn • 3:58p, 10/2/25
AG
FtWorthHorn said:
TCTTS said:


The last tweet is especially on point, underlining how it's not really about "the revolution" for any of the French 75. For Perfidia, it's more about the adrenaline/sexual high she gets from it, for Jungle***** it's the showy, attention-***** performance of it all, etc. In other words, "violent extremism" is simply a means to quench each of their shallow/selfish kinks and desires. It's what THEY get from it, not what society gets from it.


One of the most important shots in the entire movie is during the bank heist. When the first gunshot goes off, Jungle***** is IMMEDIATELY shaken out of her performance. She is very clearly not there for violence and is terrified.

Plus they're all idiots the entire movie. If you didn't laugh when the guy on the phone told Bob to, effectively, "read theory" then I don't think you were picking up what the movie was putting down about the French 75.


Be careful. You're making complete and total and sense, which is apparently not allowed in this thread.
Reply Quote
Richleau12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TCTTS • 4:11p, 10/2/25
TCTTS said:
$25M to Leo and then shooting in California is unfortunately super expensive as well (though the new tax cuts make it easier now, but those went into effect after this shot). Still, I definitely agree that it *looks* $80M tops. But damn near every scene also looked to be on-location (meaning hardly any cheaper interior stage work), there were surprisingly a lot of extras, etc. Somehow it added up. Though, yeah, seeing as Oppenheimer, Dune, Top Gun: Maverick, Furiosa, Wicked, etc all shot for either cheaper or around the same price, the whole thing is kind of baffling.

There's no way this film is going to break even at the theaters. They are banking on long term playability at best.
Reply Quote
PDEMDHC
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YNWA_AG • 4:17p, 10/2/25
AG
YNWA_AG said:


This movie will probably be decisive on texags and social media

Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.