This is a moderated discussion board for a wide range of pop culture topics. We got our start as an 80s only board, but have branched out to discuss
other decades (past and present). Please read the site rules before posting.
I find there are quite a few people who push the idea that everything that's new in technology is automatically better than any old technology. And whenever someone expresses any liking for things like Vinyl or 35mm film, they disregard them as being "blinded by nostalgia". Personally, I don't agree with this mindset. Sure there are many ways that newer technology is an obvious improvement over older technology. But as a movie guy, I really disagree with the idea of completely abandoning 35mm cameras. At least not during the current state of digital cinema.
While digital cinema has advanced over the years, it's still hasn't quite captured that "film" look. When I see movies nowadays, many of them seem colorless and empty. To quote Christopher Nolan, it's like watching "television in public". I'm not against the use of digital film. In fact, that's what got me into studying film. However, I'm against the idea of completely abandoning something that still works, just because it's older. And let's be honest, digital cinema is still a developing art form. While it has been around for a long time, it's only been very recently, that many companies have decided to go full-on digital.
Perhaps a day will come where digital film will finally be able to truly capture that "film feel", and it will truly replace 35mm film. However, that does not seem to be the case in 2015 (and likely won't anytime soon). I feel like we should embrace both formats. We have to acknowledge the fact that technology is changing, digital film is really taking off now. And it seems to be a great starting point for filmmakers in training, since it has more accessibility and is cheaper. So it does have some advantages over 35mm film. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that 35mm film still has a few advantages over digital cinema, from an artistic perspective. Therefore, it still has a place in the world of movies. Right now, there's room for both digital cinema and film cinema.
Then there's the whole digital vs analog debate over music. Once again, I feel like there's room for both. Many people are getting into vinyl again, but digital sales are still on the rise. People shouldn't disregard other people's choices. They should acknowledge that each person has their preference and that both formats have their advantages and disadvantages.
Posted by: musicguy93 at December 05, 2015, 03:33:12 PM. There are 21 responses
Do you think for the past couple years we've been in a fourth wave of feminism? I've heard a lot about women's issues lately, particularly the concept of rape culture and cyberbullying. I think much of it has to do with women being harassed on the internet.
I had never even heard terms like "trigger warning" until 2012 or 2013. Anecdotally it seems like the teens and younger 20 somethings today are more likely to identify as feminists than women in their 30s. Before this decade started it seemed like people were weary of being thought of as feminist or politically correct while now it's increasingly seen as something to be proud of.
Actually come to think of it the whole Internet "Social justice warrior" thing was not even a big thing until maybe 3 years ago. i wonder if Occupy Wall Street is what brought it to the fore. The idea of white privilege was also not as widely known.
Posted by: winteriscoming at October 21, 2014, 12:35:19 PM. There are 116 responses
I think we all know about the controversial Russian anti-gay law, and I'm sure some of you have strong opinions (on either side).
Don't see anyone else touching the subject so far, so here goes...
In the Netherlands, there are those who strongly believe the Winter Olympics should have been banned because of said legislation. Others believe sports and politics are two different fields of play, and should be seen separately. This goes for both the average bystander as well as for our athletes. None of them have been given strict orders not to express their points of view on the subject, but most of them choose to ignore the matter (as much as possible) and focus on their own achievements. A lot can be said for that. After all, they are athletes and not politicians.
So...should politicians speak out / speak out more? Should they be the ones to make/take a stand?
"Our" politicians believe it is best to address the subject by not ignoring it but encourage a dialogue about it. Of course, it takes two to tango so if Russia isn't talking... Anyway, this is why our Prime Minister as well as our Secretary of Sports and our King and Queen will be visiting Sochi this month. Many in our country believe this is too much of a good thing.
As for me: I'm sure staying away will impress the Russians much....NOT! OTOH, sending four "big shots" feels like overkill to me. So I'm undecided.
Posted by: Henk at February 05, 2014, 06:00:56 AM. There are 19 responses
I just watched this video and I thought, since there's been a pretty serious discussion going on in the Just Plain Funny Pictures thread about this very thing, that I would post the video here.
Posted by: snozberries at June 20, 2013, 04:40:24 PM. There are 4 responses
Lets start with the NRA assertion that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Agreed, but its not about overthrowing the gov't either, in fact, attempting to do so is treason. The Preamble says "...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense..."
At the time it was written, and until after the Civil War, there was no standing army, so how was that to be done? The obvious answer was through state militias, and up to the mid 1830's in most states, every able bodies man between 16 and 60 was required to serve, provide his own weapon, and to drill on a regular basis. Note that most Civil war regiments were raised by the states, not the fed. gov't.
One of the reasons the constitution was written was because under the Articles of Confederation the central gov't had no power to "insure domestic tranquility" and several states face popular uprisings, the most famous of which was Shays Rebellion in Mass. (Danial Sheys and his followers were members of the Mass. Militia). And centralizing the power to intervene was shown to be effective when militias from Virginia were used to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Penn.
Claims to the effect that the purpose of the second amendment is to protect the populous from "tyranny" from the gov't are absurd. They suggest that those "rich and well born" gentlemen Hamilton referred to in the Federalist Papers and who wrote the document were providing the masses with a vehicle to overturn the system they had so carefully constructed to protect their own interests. That strikes me as pure fantasy.
So what is the contemporary purpose of the 2nd amendment? Beats me
Posted by: Don Carlos at May 12, 2013, 11:05:44 AM. There are 47 responses
We do not charge money to visit or post here, all you need is a valid email address. Membership is optional for posting to most topics.
If you create a free account, you will be allowed to post in more topics, send/receive private messages, modify and remove your own posts, access over 100 flash games, and access a real time chat system.
Email addresses can be kept private, and are only used for identifying members.
InThe00s.com will never send you newsletters or other junk via email.
In a normal day, we average 4.73 new members. The latest to sign up is, jeniferjq2
A big thanks goes out to Hairspray for the years of work she has done as the lead moderator of the forum.
Hairspray wrote the original rules for the forum, and helped enforce them.
3328590 Posts in 49229 Topics by 1971 Members. 374175 Messages were archived. There are 3702765 Messages in total.
Latest Post: "Re: 55 Years Ago Today" ( Today at 02:00:40 AM )
View the most recent posts on the forum.
3 Guests, 3 Users
Users active in past 5 minutes:
#Infinity, aja675, kerryk
Most Online Today: 12.
Most Online Ever: 292 (March 22, 2006, 01:22:20 AM)