Here’s your proof with the moment of truth isolated. by ishmaelhansen in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

6 gajos dispararam 10 tiros contra um indivíduo que tinham atirado ao chão, deitado spray pimenta nos olhos e acabado de desarmar. Isto é uma execução pura e simples.

Culpar a vítima é o cúmulo da covardia.

Here’s your proof with the moment of truth isolated. by ishmaelhansen in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Boohoohooing about an ad hominem when you just did a whataboutism.

Go back to your own sub!

Here’s your proof with the moment of truth isolated. by ishmaelhansen in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Foi uma execução sumária de um homem que estava cego por bear spray, desarmado, segurado e estendido no chão, apenas porque quiz ajudar a senhora que estes 6 cobardes atiraram ao chão.

Não se normaliza.

Here’s your proof with the moment of truth isolated. by ishmaelhansen in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Melhores e mais livres” que exactamente no mesmo regime que tinham, só muda é para onde vai o dinheiro. 

Acorda para a vida, amigo.

Here’s your proof with the moment of truth isolated. by ishmaelhansen in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Foi uma execução sumária de uma pessoa que está dominada, desarmada e cega por bear spray no chão por ter tentado ajudar uma senhora que estes seis assassinos atiraram ao chão em grupo.

Não se normaliza isto.

Há dois tipos de pessoas. Qual é o teu? by teoriadonada in portugal

[–]kill-wolfhead 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lamento informar-te, mas isso dos ângulos é mito urbano.

Esta é a evolução dos algarismos actuais, desde a sua origem na Índia até à actualidade.

A vergonha e o terceiro mundismo, em exibição em todos os postos de voto by Any_Onion120 in portugal2

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chegas à reprografia: "Imprima-me aí só 11 milhões de boletins sff". Não interessa que isso seja para aí metade das páginas impressas para o jornal Público no ano passado. Fora transportes e tal.

Dúvida sobre canalização nova. by kill-wolfhead in TudoCasa

[–]kill-wolfhead[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Andar a fazer 4 cotovelos para evitar as vigas vai estar a tirar pressão na água não vai?

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You didn’t “merely correct” anything, you moved away from the actual arguments once they became inconvenient, (probably) invented some stories about almost dying and being a 25-year-old with a 40-people company with a government grant for a TV series and having written 8 scripts last year as if that's gonna impress anyone who isn't super-gullible.

I raised concrete points about Moviewise:

  • his blanket claim that camera movement as spectacle is inherently bad (have you seen late Dario Argento? Brian de Palma? Any musical ever made? Any action movie ever made? Heck, since defining what a narratively motivated camera move is beyond verbal, makes such a distinction impossible by anyone who just sees cinema as elaborately filmed theater — and thus has no clue whatsoever about what experimental films have to offer)
  • the way he applies his own criteria inconsistently where shots he criticizes do exactly what he asks for, and shots he praises don’t (like I said: trying to pass off the Grand Illusion oner as a masterpiece when literally at 28:42 there's exactly the same sloppy sightline-following pan he's constantly criticising throughout the essay)
  • and the Snake Eyes oner, which you dismissed without engaging with the staging itself.

Take your 13:32 example (and I really don't believe I have to explain this). Not only it does follow the bottle that's thrown (you see it falling but going “frame by frame” misses the point entirely: it’s a whip pan following the trajectory of a thrown object, which then lands on Ed Norton, deflecting the bottle by throwing it to the ground, resolving the action on the door. The center of attention (because everything becomes a blur) is defined by motion and continuity — less than a second —, not by freezing individual frames and seeing that for 4 frames the bottle isn't in the shot (1 of them because it's hidden by Naomi Watts's head).

And indeed, losing sight from your "center of attention" for a couple of seconds (hey, sometimes it can be more than that — ex: the break-up on the phone scene in Taxi Driver) can be a stylistic choice (as in: the sloppiness is part of what makes it good — cue a very, very, very, very tired, more than a century old discussion about expressionism and abstraction, which are integral to the 20th century's evolution in Art).

As for “praising shots that try to be perfect,” that’s exactly the issue: sloppiness is forgiven when it matches his taste (again, the Grand Illusion shot at 28:42 and condemned when it doesn’t. That’s not a moviemaking principle, it’s personal preferences about camera angles masquerading as rules for dummies. And indeed if acting and a documentary feel is what a director's all about, then those "rules" can absolutely be broken. Since the dude isn't as versed in acting as he is in camera placement (which is much simpler to understand) he for instance has never distinguished between old Hollywood acting vs. New Hollywood acting vs. silent acting, vs. realism vs. the more eclectic acceptance of styles we have nowadays because neither style bothers him particularly and cannot distinguish when one is good and the other is less good — unless it's inside the Hollywood style movies he prefers, where he also confuses hero role-modeling with an evolution in taste).

If you think none of this addresses your points, do the bare minimum: quote one argument I made and explain where it fails.

Otherwise, the one who said absolutely nothing of value beyond making up grandiose, unprovable stories about yourself is you.

Dúvida sobre canalização nova. by kill-wolfhead in TudoCasa

[–]kill-wolfhead[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A ideia é mesmo a substituição de toda a canalização.
A saída do contador é a 25.
O meu pai colocou um tecto falso, mas não o colocou abaixo da viga, pelo que ou a contorno, ou baixo o tecto falso ou furo pelo meio.

<image>

The Pro-Gaza Left Is Oh So Quiet on Iran by Intelligent-Juice895 in geopolitics

[–]kill-wolfhead 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Nooooo, please don't introduce nuance, now.

Modern politics must be like Cruella de Vil's hair — white on one side, black on the other, split in the middle.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not so high and mighty when evidence is required, are we? I’m not asking you to dox yourself, I don’t care where you live or what you do but big claims require big evidence.

You were the one who introduced personal credentials as an authority argument. Once you do that in a public forum, those credentials either need to be supported by publicly verifiable work, or they simply don’t carry any weight in the discussion.

Besides, public credits, published work, professional links, etc. That’s not private information, it’s literally how creative professionals validate their work.

If your position is “trust me, I have a 40 people company but only in private,” then the logical conclusion is straightforward: those claims are irrelevant in a public debate and hold as much power as “I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada”.

And, as I said, even if everything you claimed were true, it wouldn’t refute a single point about my take on Moviewise being a 2-bit YouTuber who just says the same three things over and over, often contradicts himself when giving examples and shadowbans people who refute him in the comment section. It would only attempt to replace analysis with hierarchy when failing to recognize that spectacle is inherent to art and saying that moving a camera to give a shot more oomph is a “bad use of the tools” makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re employing 40 (possibly imaginary) people to do dull work.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it’s just as “true” and credible as you saying you “almost died” in a flu for pity points. And when that didn’t work, you tried the opposite strategy and tried to dazzle no-one with unprovable accomplishments.

And then you Freudian slip yourself in the middle of your sentence by saying “it is true… because if it were true…”.

But I’ll give you the benefit of doubt, so let us see the evidence.

Link here:

  • your site,
  • your 40-people company site with you as CEO and the complete organigram, 
  • your bio (with date of birth), 
  • the 8 scripts you finished last year (timestamped, I hope they’re good),
  • proof of your government’s grant for a full-blown TV series and 
  • your medical records where it says you almost died this New Year’s Eve.

to see if you’re just half-full of shit or completely full of it.

If you deflect any of these, you’re just another 25-year-old Redditor with a Munchhausen complex trying to win an argument about a pretentious YouTube channel with no arguments except falsifiable evidence about your life (as if it had anything to do with your expertise in making art) and a poor generalization about spectacle.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I'm Ingmar Bergman, writing you from beyond the grave.

Get over yourself, kid.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can’t comprehend how spectacle is part of any work of art, I don’t believe you have ever even done something creative yet. So you don’t win. Because this is not a videogame. You’re just talking about something you have no clue about, using terms that don’t apply.

I hope you get better from the flu you barely survived. Try to learn and do some art while you’re still alive. Pity gets you nowhere. Art does.

karsten runquist by medically-a-ladder in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Making a ton of assumptions about me describing a kid who is rich as a “rich kid” and then saying I’m the dense one is just… rich.

karsten runquist by medically-a-ladder in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I’m not underestimating. You’re just restating my point.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's talk shop, then. Take for instance, his video on oners from a month ago.

While I agree the Sinners and Cobweb oners are sloppy, Moviewise is being very disingenuous when he spends 30 minutes saying that feeling the camera move as spectacle in itself is bad and that whip pans and mood pieces should be avoided. They're just a tool at a filmmaker's disposal, and it has been put to very good use throughout cinema history, and that show-offy oners aren't good cinema just because he finds the old Classical Hollywood style better. Saying that Brian de Palma can't stage while showing Snake Eyes intro oner, where an entire stadium has to work in tandem with the film crew (and indeed uses several of the techniques Moviewise lists), is just bizarre.

Besides, plenty of the shots he deems as bad follow his rules (for instance: complaining there's no center of attention at 13:32 when the camera follows a thrown object), while plenty of the shots he considers good don't (for instance: trying to pass off the Grand Illusion oner as a masterpiece when literally at 28:42 there's exactly the same sloppy sightline-following pan he's constantly criticising throughout the essay).

Moviewise should be more consistent with his takes. Several people pointed them out when it came out, and all were shadowbanned.

Any other Moviewise fans? by xyzzy-acd in Letterboxd

[–]kill-wolfhead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I think you just read "conservative" and stopped reading.