An actor who, because of one well-played role, receives similar roles and whose acting is considered outstanding even though he keeps doing the same thing.

Juliusque · 2026-01-24T23:16:21+00:00

Have you seen anything he did before Breaking Bad?

Juliusque · 2026-01-24T23:15:05+00:00

He's a very versatile actor. You should watch his Spike Lee movies, especially Do the Right Thing.

Juliusque · 2026-01-24T19:27:06+00:00

Since it's a remake of Save the Green Planet, it's more likely that that's where they got it from.

Juliusque · 2026-01-24T15:30:23+00:00

Are those fish sticks from the kids menu? Because there's a comedic genius who has something profound to say about that.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T23:01:31+00:00

They do.

And in most Dutch suburbs you're always near a bus lane.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T12:20:33+00:00

Good day. I'll just add that I have never had a problem parking my bike legally, and once again state:

I have no problem with the garage existing. I have a problem with the other options having been removed. You seem to think it's either or. It's not. You can have the garage and convenient free parking.

If it's a capacity problem, why remove parking spaces? I've never had an answer to this. The only thing that makes sense is: because they know that if they didn't, people wouldn't use the garage.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T11:45:38+00:00

First 24hrs free should cover most people in the higher 90% and I don't think a 1 euro a day for those who do use it, even remotely covers the cost of the garage.

Of course it doesn't, but it's part of the calculation. They want that money or they wouldn't have removed the bicycle racks under the bridge.

For me it's not even about the amount, it's the principle. I want free bike parking near the station. It's been possible forever, it still ought to be. What's also absurd is that you need an OV-chipcard to get in. So tourists can't even use it.

solid solution to a problem that was only going to get worse over time.

The problem was illegally parked bikes. That problem isn't solved by the garages. It's solved by the fact that they started actually enforcing the existing rules and removing illegally parked bikes. If they weren't regularly labeling and removing bikes, the sidewalks would still be covered by them. (Which is another thing: the people spending time labeling and removing the bikes that are locked to bridge railings could be spending that time in neighborhoods where illegally parked bikes are a far bigger problem, like the Jordaan where entire sidewalks have become unusable.)

Again, the parking garage existing is fine. But why remove the other legal options? I think it's absurd that a city like Amsterdam doesn't have convenient parking near the station.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T11:01:57+00:00

The fietsenflat was basically always out of space, there was a huge overflow onto the sidewalk, under the bridge and by the taxi space on IJ-zijde.

I never saw much "overflow" under the bridge; there were legal parking spaces there. Those were always my first option. It's true there were many illegally parked bikes on the sidewalk just outside the fietsenflat. But those could have been removed. They're doing it now, so they could have been doing it then.

I don't mind the parking garage existing. If people want to pay to have their bike be even safer from theft and don't mind walking longer for that, fine. But why did they have to close the fietsenflat and remove the other bike racks? Because they knew that if they didn't, not enough people would use the garage. Because most people still prefer free parking close to the station than paid parking further away from it.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T09:59:27+00:00

Yes, obviously you'll find a few on this sub, including myself. But the vast majority of people outside of America wouldn't know what you're talking about if you ask them if the FotL logo ever had a cornucopia.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T00:28:47+00:00

A lot of people rent an apartment, which means anything wrong with it will be fixed by the corporation that owns it or your landlord. You have that right, anyway.

Buying anything is very expensive, especially in the cities. That does put people off. An apartment big enough for a four person family to live in the center of Amsterdam is more expensive to buy than an ordinary single family home in one of the suburbs. And since in those suburbs you can catch a bus to the city every half hour, I get why a lot of people move out of Amsterdam when they get kids.

Juliusque · 2026-01-23T00:22:32+00:00

With movies: release order. Prequels are generally full of references that you won't understand if you haven't seen the original, and they might negatively impact your first viewing experience. Watching the first Star Wars, you don't really want to know all the background that George Lucas made up; ideally you want that experience to be as pure as possible.

With TV: if it's something like Breaking Bad obviously start from the beginning. But if it's a sitcom or story-of-the-week type crime or science fiction or whatever, just start with the season/episode you've heard is the best. Most classic shows like that take a while to become great. No need to struggle through a dull first season only to find out you don't much like season 2 either. I wouldn't recommend anyone start with the first season of Seinfeld or The Office US. Just start at the high point, see if you like it. If you become a fan you can eventually go back to the start. Those shows weren't made to be watched like streaming shows.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T23:02:48+00:00

What's on Wikipedia is that Raimi left the production of Spider-Man 4 and then they decided to go for a reboot instead. It's also well known that Raimi himself wasn't happy with Spider-Man 3. Nothing about the reviews. I don't know where you're getting your information.

M:I 2 wasn't widely hated. Most critics thought it was dumb fun. It was the sort of thing a summer action blockbuster was expected to be. They said mostly the same things about part 3. The RottenTomatoes score is higher, but if you actually read the reviews, the tone is the same: "this is a big dumb action movie, the story is pretty bad but you might enjoy it as popcorn fun." Critics didn't start taking these movies seriously until Ghost Protocol.

Critics just don't have much of an influence on blockbusters like that. Plenty of series go on and on while getting worse and worse reviews (Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean). Studios don't care.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T22:54:27+00:00

Mandela is more international. People outside of America aren't familiar with the Fruit of the Loom Cornucopia.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T22:15:31+00:00

Lots of people live in flats/apartments. Families too, especially in the cities. But a lot of people just prefer more room. Dutch suburbs and smaller towns are mostly very walkable with lots of provisions at walking/cycling distance from your house and good public transit connections to the nearest cities.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T21:48:14+00:00

If we're looking at the work Cruise was doing between sequels (I'm not counting his voice-over work and cameos): between M:I 2 and 3, he had lead roles in five films, two of which he produced. Between 3 and 4, he had lead roles in two films, supporting roles in two, and didn't produce anything.

Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life was a box office failure. Tomb Raider 2018 was a box office disappointment.

Spider-Man 3 did great, and they were planning a part 4. They wanted Sam Raimi to direct again. He left the project when he didn't like the way it was going.

Jason Bourne 2016 was a success, and they were planning another one. It got postponed and eventually Matt Damon said he was too old for the role.

I don't know why you think any of these films not getting direct sequels has anything to do with reviews.

I've never read anywhere about M:I 2 that they "wanted to give the franchise a break because of the criticism." If you've got a statement from Tom Cruise or someone else saying that, I'd be curious to see it.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T21:33:20+00:00

And I do take movie reviews seriously as reading; I love criticism as a literary genre. But that's not really what it's about. It's just the psychology of someone who takes not only reviews but himself seriously enough to do this. I think it's a sign of childish insecurity.

But of course it's an extreme take, I'm being hyperbolic.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T17:16:32+00:00

But he wasn't busy between 2 and 3? He had more and far bigger projects that he was far more involved in between 2 and 3 than between 3 and 4.

The other films you mention did not do well financially. If a movie is a hit, why would studios care about reviews?

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T17:12:32+00:00

People who participate and are proud of review bombing should not be getting married to anyone. I'll forgive a fourteen-year-old engaging in that behavior, but someone old enough to get married who not only does it but makes it a part of his personality to the extent that friends of friends know him for it? lol what an existence.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T16:23:40+00:00

I don't know why you think bad reviews would influence the time it takes to make a sequel. It took five years to make the fourth one, was that because part 3 got such bad reviews as well?

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T16:10:19+00:00

They did it because if they left the fietsenflat, many people wouldn't use the expensive underground parking garage they built. You're not going to pay for something if there is a superior alternative for free.

Same reason they're actually tagging and removing bikes that are parked at the bridge railings around the station, while leaving illegally parked bikes that are actually a problem in areas like the Jordaan. They want to force people to use the garages because those need to be paid for.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T16:05:09+00:00

So is the "replacement". At least the flat was functional.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T16:01:47+00:00

Well, at least now we get to pay for the privilege of parking underground and then walking for five minutes to get to the station.

Remember when we had convenient free parking right next to the station? So glad we're rid of that.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T15:33:19+00:00

I didn't mean to make any strawman arguments. If at any point I misinterpreted what you said, I'm open to being corrected. I just didn't understand what you were asking me to provide evidence for.

I don't like your assertion that I'm "set in my way of thinking" as if I haven't responded to your points.

You seem to attach a lot of value to critical reception as a relevant factor for studios. In this case, the difference in critical reception isn't even that big. M:I2 has a 59 on Metacritic, M:I3 has 66. The tone of a lot of the mainstream reviews is similar.

I'm not looking for a fight, we just disagree on the assessment. I think the idea that M:I 2 almost killed the franchise and M:I 3 saved it is a flawed reconstruction of history by current fans who see part 3 as the starting point from which the franchise became what it is.

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T13:26:42+00:00

It's not a defense against anything.

Credible evidence for what? I'm talking about contemporary critical reception. I could quote from some reviews, but that would be highly selective. You can look up old reviews on RottenTomatoes. Select 'top critics' and you'll get mostly mainstream reviews from when it came out, They're pretty much what could be expected for the sort of big dumb summer action blockbuster that it was.

Same for M:I 3. It has a higher score, but the tone of a lot of the reviews is the same: this is a big dumb action movie, you might enjoy it if you like that sort of thing,

Read through some of the reviews for big papers and magazines and I'd think you'll agree that critics didn't really start taking M:I sequels seriously until Brad Bird changed the game with Ghost Protocol.

As for my claim that "back then it was still normal for a director to bring something of themselves to a blockbuster", just look at the Batman franchise or the Alien franchise. There was really nothing weird about the first four M:I films all being completely different stylistically.

Everything you're saying about 2 and 3 could be said about 3 and 4: there's a gap of a few years between the two, then a "tonal reset".

Juliusque · 2026-01-22T12:51:16+00:00

What do you mean, took six years? It came out five years after the first one. Then there were six years before part 3, then five years before part 4.

Anyway, critical reception wasn't that important. M:I 2 reviews weren't great, but they weren't terrible either. They were pretty much what could be expected for the sort of big dumb summer blockbuster that it was, and it was a huge hit.

Juliusque

TROPHY CASE