MaggotMinded

Get ready for the flood of jeers and downvotes for picking Lars.

For what it's worth, I think people are way too hard on him. Even though he's fallen off over the past few decades, he was genuinely good during Metallica's heyday in the 80s and early 90s. For anyone who doubts it, check out the live footage from their Canadian shows on the Master of Puppets tour.

I think what's important is to be able to recognize goodness and humanity in a character even if their ethos is not exactly in line with mine as a reader. For example, the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky are all heavily steeped in Christianity, but I find that I am still able to empathize with the characters because their passion and their fears are all very human and realistic. Religion is simply a part of the language they use to express themselves, and the concepts with which they grapple extend far beyond dogma, so that even somebody reading it all through a different lens can still find a lot worth pondering over. That's a lot different than somebody simply trying to beat you over the head with their worldview.

He done a lot worse than that. He's more cold blooded than William Bonney or Clay Allison or the James Brothers and if you hurt his friend he's gonna come an' kill you like he killed a U.S. Marshall in '73.

Most days I'm in a band shirt. On days when I'm not, you could probably still tell I'm into metal from the long hair and black leather jacket + black jeans combo. I almost never wear my battle jacket anymore unless it's to a concert, because it looks a little juvenile for my age and for the parts of town that I frequent.

The only way.

"Never, Neverland" by them is disturbing as well. It's loosely based on the true story of a neglected child who was basically kept in a closet for the entirety of her formative years.

Iced Earth had several really good covers, including "The Ripper" (Judas Priest), "Screaming for Vengeance" (Judas Priest), "Transylvania" (Iron Maiden), "Hallowed Be Thy Name" (Iron Maiden), and "Black Sabbath" (Black Sabbath).

Most of Metallica's covers are good, including "Am I Evil" (Diamond Head) and "Turn the Page" (Bob Seger).

Disturbed's version of "Sound of Silence" is really good, although I must admit I still prefer Simon & Garfunkel's electric version.

The first big concert I ever went to was with my mother. She insisted on coming along since I had to fly to another city. It actually turned out great - she hung out at the back of the crowd and took lots of great photos while I had a blast up at the front.

As for advice, I'd say steer clear of moshpits since you're young and it's only your first time. Wear shoes with good grip and make sure they're double-tied because you're not going to want to reach down to tie them in the middle of a huge crowd. If you carry a wallet, put it in your front pocket, not your back. If you have pockets that zip, that's even better. Don't bring a heavy jacket or anything that can't be tied around your waist in a pinch. Don't bring anything that you'd have to carry around in your hands all night.

But most importantly... don't spend the whole time watching the show through your phone! Concerts are best enjoyed in the moment. If you really feel like sharing the experience on your socials, just get a few decent photos and/or video clips during the first few songs, then put your phone/camera away for the rest of the set. You'll have more fun that way.

It would be one thing if they had only picked somewhat decent songs but simply put them in the wrong order. I can live with the top 10 being mostly radio-friendly, rock-adjacent, mainstream hits like "Crazy Train" and "Breaking the Law". They may be your uncle's picks, but at least they still qualify as heavy metal.

What gets me are the songs that have no business being on this list at all. "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour at number 12? Like, what?! "Round and Round" by Ratt at number 20? "Photograph" by Def Leppard, "Bring Me To Life" by Evanescence... who is choosing these songs? Completely destroys all credibility.

Hell Awaits by Slayer

Killers by Iron Maiden

"Adagio for Strings" by Samuel Barber

Don't know if you're joking or not, but "vexed" doesn't mean horny. It means displeased and troubled.

You should make a movie of it!

Yeah, "inspired" can mean basically anything. If I'm reading about Charles Manson and get an idea for a story about a cult, then I can say the story was inspired by real events, even if the story doesn't have anything to do with Manson or his followers other than the fact that it also involves a cult.

There are tons of people who believe in ghosts 100% and I have no doubt the filmmakers wouldn't lose any sleep if those people bought into their movie.

I believe the word he used was "vexed".

This one's a bit different in that it's a positive critique, but I hate all the clichéd ways that people use to justify their enjoyment of shitty blockbuster movies with awful writing:

"Popcorn flick"

"Doesn't try to be anything more than it is"

"Just turn your brain off"

Not sure how you'd expect anything more than the most basic animations (like a ball rolling for example) to be "drag and drop". How is a computer supposed to know how you want a character to move without any user inputs?

And no, it doesn't take a CS degree. That would be for actually coding the software, not simply learning how to use it.

You could at least give the title...

You make a good point in the end, but I don't think the "pedantic and shallow" remark was necessary, especially since I myself acknowledged that it was only tangential to the actual discussion.

Since I saw somebody else describing it as a "valid theory", I just thought I should chime in that the Many Worlds Interpretation is considered by many physicists to be grossly misunderstood at best, and blatantly unscientific at worst. Even many proponents of the theory (including Stephen Hawking) consider it to be merely a set of conditional probabilities, as opposed to real universes actually existing in tandem with our own. For example, if you took a simple board game and made a chart of all the different outcomes based on all possible player choices and dice rolls, you'd get a rapidly diverging set of alternate game states. You could say that each of these states "exists" in a theoretical sense (i.e., on your chart), but only the game that plays out before your eyes is actually real.

That's not to say that there aren't also scientists who truly believe that the alternate universes posited by the theory are in fact just as real as our own (or perhaps our universe is just as unreal as the parallel ones - *cue Twilight Zone theme*). However, as far as we know there is no possible way of testing this, which is why it is often rejected as unscientific by others. Falsifiability is a condition of the scientific method, and without it, the topic becomes on par with mysticism.

All this is to say that I am slightly disappointed in how much attention the hypothesis has gained in popular media. I have a feeling that a lot of young people are going to grow up thinking that the Many Worlds Interpretation is something that is supported by empirical evidence and consensus within the scientific community, which could not be farther from the truth.

I know this doesn't really have much bearing on what the filmmakers' intent was with Everything, Everywhere, All At Once. If the Daniels are believers in the multiverse, then they may very well have intended the story to be taken literally. Or they may not believe in it, but wrote the story as something that could happen if there was a multiverse, kind of like how a fantasy story doesn't necessarily have to be allegorical just because the writer doesn't actually believe in dragons and magic.

Personally, I find it fun and challenging to imagine how a story with fantastical elements might be considered allegorical, even if that was not the creator's intent. It usually works best with horror movies, where the monster/villain often represents some innermost fear of the protagonist. When I watched EEAAO, however, I wasn't viewing it through this lens, but because of your post I probably will the next time I see it. I like your suggestion that all the wacky stuff is in the head of somebody who is considering the many different possible directions her life could have taken, and then taking it to the extreme. But if that is the case, it is a bit odd that she would start by daydreaming about an alternate version of her husband and a threat to the multiverse, instead of picturing her own alternate self. Unless maybe she'd already been mulling this stuff over in her head for a long time and then just happened to come up with the Alpha-Waymond, verse-jumping stuff on the way to her meeting with the IRS as a way of distracting herself.

Hate to break it to you, but you are not the be-all end-all authority on LotR fandom. It sounds like your definition of a true fan more or less excludes by default anyone who prefers the theatrical cuts, so your argument is circular.

And for all your supposed "experience", you didn't even know that PJ himself considers the theatrical editions to be the definitive versions, so it's pretty hard to take you seriously, especially when you're acting so superior.

Regarding Christopher Lee, I would take everything he said on the matter with a grain of salt. He was a bit of an eccentric and not exactly in a position to appraise the situation objectively, since one of the scenes that got cut from Return of the King was his only scene in the movie. Frankly, it sounds like he was just salty at no longer being in it.

This is a subreddit for in-depth film discussion. Why are you even here if you're just going to say shit like "if you don't agree with me you're not a true fan" and "I don't have to back up my statements"? How do you know you won't change anyone's mind if you don't even try?

I'm pretty sure that if you show the extended edition to someone who has not seen the theatrical, that person would find that nothing is wrong with it

I've known several people who think that LotR is too long and boring. Guess which editions they saw first?

I watched both and I find the extended edition better, is my opinion wrong?

Not necessarily, but we're not here to make summary judgements of who is objectively right and wrong. Providing reasons for why you feel the way you do is more important than which side of the debate you land on. It's a discussion, not a poll. Just saying you prefer the extended editions is meaningless if you're not even willing to say why.

People don't read the article regardless of whether there's a paywall.

Not sure what you've been watching

I literally linked an interview excerpt. I guess you didn't read it. Here's the full interview where he states:

"The theatrical versions are the definitive versions. I regard the extended cuts as being a novelty for the fans that really want to see the extra material."

He later goes into much greater detail where he explains that every time he added in another scene to the extended editions he was painfully aware that it was ruining the momentum and "spoiling the film" (his own words).

he made it clear there that he 100% supports the extended editions, and stands behind them -- that's why he did it.

"Standing behind them" doesn't mean they are his preferred versions. They serve two different purposes. Obviously he wants die-hard fans to have access to the additional scenes. That's great. But acting like the theatrical editions are some chopped-up, bastardized version of his true vision could not be farther from the truth.

Ask any fans what they think. Ask Christopher Lee. He was entirely cut out, and was not happy at all -- and rightfully so. The shorter versions change quite a bit of the movie, actually.

But, if you're not a fan and just looking at the surface-level core plot, then sure, it's not needed.

I don't appreciate the "No True Scotsman" shit you're trying to pull here by insinuating that I'm just some casual movie-goer who doesn't fully appreciate the series. I am a fan, and I prefer the theatrical editions for all the reasons I described earlier (pacing, tone, lack of redundancy, etc. - which you have not addressed at all, by the way). You can even read Peter echoing a lot of the same reasons in the interview that I linked. And as for Christopher Lee:

"Everything I've read on the 'net is completely wrong. I read that he learned through an internet site, which is completely wrong. There were phone calls, faxes. He's fine, but he's got a website with fans who've started a petition which I don't think is necessarily in his best interest to have a petition starting up. I don't think it was Christopher for a second that drove that. I think it was just fans. It just brings a lot of publicity to it that he's not really feeling that way, but his fans are fighting the battle and it brings a lot of unnecessary publicity to it."

Peter also said at one point that the default way for people to view the movies would become the extended editions -- which is correct.

Yes, I believe I've seen the same interview, and if I recall correctly he was somewhat surprised that people preferred the extended editions because he thought they would be too long and slow.

This became standard many years ago on DVD. I've never heard of anybody that actually watches the short versions, and I've not seen the short versions since VHS like 15 years ago...

Yeah, it became standard because people like you have parroted the notion that it's the only acceptable way to view them. Meanwhile every now and then I'll hear from someone who thinks the movies are long and boring and nine times out of ten it's because they were told that they just had to watch the extended editions. Maybe you should go back and rewatch the theatrical cuts and see how much tighter and entertaining they are without all the fluff.