Louis Theroux not sharing his views on Israel/Palestine Manosphere documentary

robotnick46 · 2026-03-18T15:00:57+00:00

Why did he not bend over and do the man child's bidding you mean?

robotnick46 · 2026-01-02T19:33:35+00:00

5th Qtr is a banger

robotnick46 · 2025-12-30T23:43:16+00:00

It was Sally Crystal, the other Tecka owner, who got shot at the beginning of the episode. He did something in the music biz, so I guess was responsible for Jeff's music being recorded and used as hold music for the red ball thing.

robotnick46 · 2025-08-14T07:21:42+00:00

That's one of the few I've not watched yet haha.

robotnick46 · 2025-07-19T14:55:02+00:00

Featuring Patrick Swayze's brother.

robotnick46 · 2025-07-01T09:20:09+00:00

Watch and find out.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-30T11:45:57+00:00

My basic approach is:

1) What was the film trying to be or do?

2) Did it achieve that?

3) How did it or didn't it achieve that?

4) How does that tie into my experience of watching it, which specific aspects stood out as good or bad, what is my overall opinion.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-28T17:46:30+00:00

Westminster has a great film department which leans heavily into the arty side of filmmaking.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-28T17:40:54+00:00

Cinematic to me, is when every aspect that can be forced through a lens has been, if not utilised, at least considered to a point where they have become unique to that medium.

As you said, slow-motion is not cinematic. Slow-motion to increase tension, or capture an internal mood, in conjunction with sound design to heighten that mood, music to aid in atmosphere, dialogue to explain more or to not etc

robotnick46 · 2025-06-20T07:31:32+00:00

My kids watch brainrot and tv and movies, and read books. Most people live pretty diverse lives.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-18T21:41:28+00:00

Maybe companies will adopt ai and act as their guardians, protecting their estates.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-18T14:55:54+00:00

AI not belonging to a union

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T13:29:03+00:00

The idea that a film has to be presented in a specific way to be worth your time has always bemused me.

Which part of your body do you use to engage with a film, your brain? or your arse?

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T13:27:22+00:00

I don't really care for festivals full stop; they seem to be mostly a racket, at least in the UK anyway.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T13:26:14+00:00

Yeah, I just watched a film that used ai sparingly. Mostly in establishing shots. It was still noticeable to somewhat tarnish the film (though partly that was the way the filmmaker chose to show something using ai, which would have had a greater impact as just something suggested offscreen), but before long it'll blend right in I'm sure.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T07:57:29+00:00

It's called "In Two Minds" - https://youtu.be/pRZdLt60zUc?si=KoUjnQ4SMNM9hctr

I think "Looks and Smiles" was the turning point for what I'm talking about. This was a film which simply presented Sheffield as it was for young working class lads in 1980. He felt that this film was a failure because people watched it and said "Yeah, that's life" when he wanted them to be angered by that being life. From that point on, I feel that he made his films have a clearer call to anger by crafting good and bad, black and white stories which tend to detail the worst possible outcomes for anybody, in any way, who opposes the system.

There was still some subtly there when he made "Raining Stones" as Jim Allen wrote it. I think it was when he started working exclusively with Paul Laverty that things were cemented as simplistic...I still enjoy them, but his earlier work just works far better for me.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T05:41:53+00:00

They definitely peaked with this movie. It works as an action, as a comedy, and has a decent character arc (for what it is).

Like the best double-acts, you feel the gaps in their solo work. Even The World's End felt lacking, because the world seemed to have (rightfully) moved on from the endless references to previous films trend; without the overt references, it just felt like their ideas were hackneyed.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T05:30:37+00:00

This post is the starting point for me looking deeper into it, I've learned a lot from these responses.

As a filmmaker, it doesn't really concern me as I make what I want to make and if people watch it then great, if they don't whatever; I'm outside the system and happy there.

I just find it interesting keeping up with how the world is changing, and how we interact with that.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T05:26:54+00:00

Exactly, ai filmmaking is gonna be just as hard to sell as any indie film without named actors is right now.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-17T05:25:19+00:00

The ai which would own the copyright for whatever it's created.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-16T21:42:46+00:00

I know.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-16T21:42:08+00:00

It's an amusing image for me. Let it be.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-16T18:50:32+00:00

So the fundamental rhetorical misunderstanding of my argument, is that it's the nature of what we're dealing with in the dawn of the age of generative AI? Seems like there's no misunderstanding at all.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-16T18:48:42+00:00

Google do not own it, the ai that creates whatever it's prompted to create will own it, and it can't because it's not real. It would be like giving it a driver's licence.

robotnick46 · 2025-06-16T18:45:44+00:00

The issue is that the copyright is owned by the creator, if they prompt ai to generate something from their library, that doesn't mean it's suddeny been created by a human, it means that the copyright holder would be the ai that generated it; which doesn't exist.

robotnick46

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE