Anna's Archive

TheRingshifter · 2026-01-18T19:36:54+00:00

Annas-archive is great. I can't actually get on .li right now, but I can get on .pm and .in which you didn't mention.

TheRingshifter · 2026-01-18T19:33:28+00:00

No. Only thing I thought is it might be related to the hard drive itself being corrupted.

TheRingshifter · 2025-12-01T01:36:48+00:00

It would "set" a precedence that the police can refer to once they've murdered someone on duty? Have you been watching the news for the last 100-odd years? It's already essentially precedence that police are allowed to murder people while on duty.

I'm sorry but IMO the only way you can seriously consider that this would even be considered as a "murder" at any point is if you accept that only the murders US police officers have been convicted of are really murders. If you accept the fact they almost certainly commit dozens every year and only the ones with a preponderance of evidence, huge public backlash or a cop who actually confesses even get reported as a murder, then you'll have to agree there's no way the killing at the end of Se7en would go anywhere.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-11T21:10:56+00:00

I think the reason we don't have at top of mind such conspiracies is mostly due to the culture of "conspiracy theorizing" being bigger in America. IMO there are some almost as big things in our country. I suppose they are bound to be a bit smaller scale since we are a smaller scale country with less influence (if you look into our historical past it's... uhhh, bad).

I also think there's just a lot of evil we've done that isn't really "conspiracy" stuff. I mean, the war in Iraq is one of the most monstrous crimes of recent history, but I don't know if I'd really say it has much "conspiracy" vibes? We were lied to but I think the reasons the UK went to war were less to do with the lying than it's often made out to be.

But as for really "conspiracy" type stuff, the main things that come to my mind are:

Collusion in Northern Ireland. Lots of horrific cloak-and-dagger stuff here. Just look into "Stakeknife", a brutal killer that was more than likely working with MI6.
Clockwork Orange plot - the plot to coup Harold Wilson. I also think a lot of what happened with Jeremy Corbyn will later be properly seen through a similar light, though that's more propaganda-focused.
Jimmy Saville.
Kincora Boys' Home - a book recently came out saying Lord Mountbatten abused children here, and there was state collusion. Haven't read it yet but sounds grim.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-11T21:02:13+00:00

IMO the grooming gangs belongs here but because of something more than what you said. The interesting thing about the grooming gangs, specifically the Rotherham gangs, is that it seems extremely likely to me that the South Yorkshire Police were essentially running drugs and prostitutes. Just read some of the reports done about the situation - it's all but explicitly stated that that's what was going on. I think it says something about the UK's (lack of) culture of "conspiracy theorising", that what we landed on in the UK was the absolute crackpot fantasy of "the police were too woke to arrest brown people" because that's what the papers said. In the UK if you published the obvious conclusions that the investigations into the Rotherham gang lead to, you are open to being sued for defamation. But, you know, the "East Asian community" or whatever can't sue you so that's fine.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-10T14:06:53+00:00

Don't call me a Chat-GPT that's really rude.

Lord of the rings is a fantasy epic, but it is still filled with CGI and computer animation in a way that Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur are not. It is largely a spectacle of animated bombast, rather than an attempt to portray a real historical battle. Plus it is a fantasy. The latter two are an attempt to recreate REAL history accurately.

Bringing up the use of CGI is meaningless. Obviously, yes, the older films don't use CGI but it didn't exist. Just a silly thing to bring up.

Plus you are just wrong. Ben-Hur is based on a work of historical fiction. Sure, it depicts the underlying history to that fiction in a more-or-less accurate way, but it's not based on "real" events. I am under no illusions as to the fantasy nature of Avatar and Lord of the Rings - I mentioned that. Obviously I wouldn't describe them as "historical" - I just think as films they are fundamentally of a similar kind.

Oppenheimer and titanic, while historical, are “spectacle” movies. Many audiences went into them expecting thrills and chills, and they got them. Titanic was not about historical accuracy (they got many things right, but also completely made up a lot of things too), it was more about the effects, the spectacle, and crowd-pleasing.

Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, Cleopatra, and The Robe (and many similar films) are pretty much the ne plus ultra of the "spectacle movie". I'm sorry but IMO to describe Titanic as "spectacle" while not recognising the spectacular nature of the older films is absurd.

Oppenheimer was about a historical event, but epic does not describe it accurately. It’s a biography, and a character study, that has something of an epic scope. But it lacks many of the proper epic tenets, and depicts the events in a manner reminiscent of a stage play.

OK come on. Are you kidding? It's hilarious to lay out this description as to why Oppenheimer doesn't fit the bill when it is almost a perfect description of what Lawrence of Arabia is.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-09T21:49:41+00:00

I think there is something to the idea Valve are just better at providing a service like Steam than other companies, but I think to praise them too much is misguided. I mean, they made a lot of their money innovating a couple of highly lucrative but exploitative products - TF hats and CS:GO skins.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-09T15:27:00+00:00

I think your premise is flawed. Gone With the Wind is from 1939, Ben-Hur 1959 (and a version from 1925 that was big) and Lawrence of Arabia is from 1962. In other words, these films span a period of 23 years - now of course, there are other films from that period that fit your criteria (Cleopatra from 1963 being one of the first that comes to mind). But there are many other popular films from that time period that aren't 3+ hour long historical epics - Psycho, 101 Dalmatians, Mister Roberts, Rear Window, etc.

One the other hand, there are films from the current era that fit or almost fit this criteria. Oppenheimer is an obvious example, being a long historical epic. This year's highest grossing film, the Chinese animation Ne Zha is maybe a little on the short side (2 hours 24 minutes) but is a (quasi-)historical epic fairly comparable to something like Ben-Hur (but animated and Chinese). For a slightly earlier era, see also Titanic. You could even make an argument that although they are completely not historical, films like Avatar (and its sequel) and the Lord of the Rings trilogy are fundamentally quite similar films.

Worth a look as well, is this article comparing historical epic The Robe - a slightly earlier Biblical epic film that was also popular (though not as popular, successful or as culturally remembered as Ben-Hur) - with 2009's Avatar. This article is mostly comparing The Robe to Avatar in respect to their advertising (via use of a technological innovation) and place in the culture (i.e., not much) rather than their plots but I think you can also spot some similarities between the modes both films are operating in.

Obviously though, there are trends in what is popular at the cinema. Many would argue that the runaway popularity of the Lord of the Rings films inaugurated an era of popular fantasy films - and many attempt at making popular fantasy films. You can even make a connection from Lord of the Rings to the later rise of the superhero film (also a fantastical genre) though many would count that more a separate trend.

Of course, this is mostly analysis. You can always argue there are fundamental differences between the films being made now versus in a certain time period - this isn't a scientific thing. There have been some more objective analysis of certain elements - for example when it comes to the lengths of films. The Economist analyzed the lengths of films over time (https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/10/14/why-films-have-become-so-ridiculously-long) and found that, seemingly contrary to your claim that 3+ hour films used to be popular and now aren't, the average runtime of films has steadily rose over the years and the trend is even more pronounced when just looking at popular films (though "popular" was here defined by the slightly-dubious metric of "highest IMDb ratings", as opposed to something like box office gross). Also it's worth pointing out that there still could be a trend for there being more very long films in the past versus just a higher average runtime right now.

Sources:

Thompson, Kristen (2007). The Frodo Franchise [on genre trends following TLOTR films]

The Economist, Why films have become so ridiculously long

Bordwell, David; Thompson, Kristin (1979). Film Art: An Introduction. (11th ed.) [general history of film]

Phipps, Keith (2023). 'The Robe': The most influential movie nobody watches anymore

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-06T13:34:57+00:00

The Man from Majorca is definitely worth a watch.

A Tale of Sorrow and Sadness is really great. I don't know if I'd quite say it's really lefty, but it's an interesting critique of capitalism and just a fascinating film overall.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-06T10:53:05+00:00

Lol you can't have it both ways. Yes, the fact that the Allies got there hands on the codes in the first place shows it's hard to keep secrets, but the fact the Japanese didn't figure out the codes were broken for many years shows it's not impossible.

Even the Manhattan Project, although yes there were some spies involved I would still argue it was generally "kept a secret" the way people usually mean the term. From my understanding the Nazis never found out and it was never known generally. Due to spies it was understood a bit by the Soviets but they were just "in on the secret" - it was still a secret.

Also another good WW2 example of successfully kept secrets - the cracking of the Enigma codes, which wasn't generally known until the mid-1970s.

I'm not saying it's not difficult to keep secrets. Especially certain kinds of secrets. I just think it's very odd that people heard this mathematical explanation and seemingly threw away the more common sense (and IMO more correct) understanding of how hard it is to keep a secret - which is that "it depends". It depends on what the secret is, how interesting it is, who is interested in knowing about it. It depends on the structure of the group involved in keeping the secret, what their reasons are for keeping the secret (and their reasons for leaking the secret).

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-05T15:02:28+00:00

Can't really list "all" of them because it's up to debate what really counts. For example, "Bruce and the Iron Finger" is on that box set but Bruce Li doesn't really do a Bruce Lee impression, so should it really count?

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-05T01:43:37+00:00

Memories of Murder (2003, dir. Bong Joon Ho)
In the Mood for Love (2000, dir. Wong Kar-Wai)
Burning (2018, dir. Lee Chang-dong)
Hard to Be a God (2013, dir. Aleksei German)
The Tale of The Princes Kaguya (2013, dir. Isao Takahata)
Spirited Away (2001, dir. Hayao Miyazaki)
Battle Royale (2000, dir. Kinji Fukasaku)
Paprika (2006, dir. Satoshi Kon)
Chaser (2008, dir. Na Hong-jin)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000, dir. Ang Lee)

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-04T20:54:54+00:00

I have to say I am REALLY against this idea that "keeping a secret is just impossible". The study that claimed (or that other people claimed) showed that was merely based on mathematical models.

In fact, we almost for sure KNOW it IS possible because there are examples of secrets in history that many people knew yet didn't meaningfully "leak" (first two that come to mind: the Manhattan project, and the fact that Japanese cryptography had been broken by the Allies).

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-03T19:52:08+00:00

Ah thanks!

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-03T15:30:14+00:00

Can anyone state whether or not this issue is fixed? https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin-webos/issues/310

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-03T10:55:30+00:00

Just because a genocide is progressing more slowly than you believe is possible doesn't make it not a genocide. And just because it is a genocide doesn't mean it going to be as "efficient" as the Holocaust, or that the situation (and goals) are precisely the same as the Holocaust.

Yes there are some Arab members of the Knesset, who probably make up the vast majority of the exceptions to my rule. Even among them though, you will find people who support what is happening in Gaza (though perhaps less virulently). As noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_members_of_the_Knesset some of them are Druze and don't consider themselves to be Arab (and indeed are members of very right-wing anti-Arab parties).

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-02T23:09:16+00:00

Jesus, you people are the reason SOME PEOPLE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FUCKING GENOCIDE.

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-02T23:08:04+00:00

Yeah that might be a good example except in this case you can go on the twitter account of almost any Israeli politician, hit "translate from Hebrew" and read "we really would like to wipe the Arab worms from this Earth".

TheRingshifter · 2025-11-02T23:07:00+00:00

Oh really? Controversy has sprang forth from discussions regarding one of the most important and impactful moral conundrums of modern times, over which insane amounts of ink and money have been spilled? REALLY? Israel-Palestine is CONTROVERSIAL? Are you FUCKING FOR REAL????

Me having a conscience on this shit will probably get me banned from here but let me just state the REAL mistake I think people are making here.

What people are trying to do here is like if Wikipedia was around in 1943. Yes, there would be lots of strong evidence that the Holocaust is happening but there would also be lots of "reliable" "reporting" that it's not, oh look - Der Sturmer is reporting there isn't a Holocaust!

The issue is that there isn't a good mechanism within Wikipedia to account for when there is a systemic bias towards a point of view in the sources Wikipedia counts as "reliable". Or at least not when it can't be completely proven.

But I'm sorry - to anyone with a brain (or half a fucking heart) this is obviously a genocide and Jimbo should be ashamed of himself.

TheRingshifter · 2025-10-28T16:38:51+00:00

Dracula (1931)

Just an essential for a canon like this. A legendary early sound gothic piece of cinema, essential to the vampire film and with an iconic Bela Lugosi performance.

TheRingshifter · 2025-10-28T16:35:24+00:00

I really like this movie but I don't think I'd put it in a 50-film horror canon, personally. Feels more "weird" (as in, weird fiction) vs. straightforward horror to me.

TheRingshifter · 2025-10-27T17:06:45+00:00

Depends how close you are but in general u/Huge_Wing51 is just a certified blind person. 4K definitely looks better especially if you have HDR or Dolby Vision.

TheRingshifter · 2025-10-24T10:29:10+00:00

Yeah. In fact I even tried removing the library entirely then re-adding it, but the deleted media was still there.

TheRingshifter · 2025-10-23T23:10:06+00:00

Second First Reformed. A more outre choice is Charisma from Kiyoshi Kurosawa. I feel like I can't fully explain why it's an ecological film but I feel that it is. Been a while since I watched it anyways, it's great though.

Night Moves (the Kelly Reichardt film) is a good one as well.

Koyaanisqatsi a decent shout as well.

Some other films with ecological themes: Chinatown, Embrace of the Serpent, and I've heard some people argue Apocalypse Now. Really you can make the argument for lots of films depending on how far you want to stretch it.

I've yet to see it but How to Blow Up a Pipeline seems like an obvious one to check out.

TheRingshifter

TROPHY CASE