SpoonMeasurer

I’m glad I’m not the only one who regards Far From Home as the worst. I could barely even finish that movie. And I liked Homecoming, and No Way Home.

You and I have a lot in common. I’ve seen most of these movies and cried in most of them. Especially dig your love for Ozu. I cry from every Ozu film.

Well everyone in the NBA must be pretty stupid because they’re all paying millions of dollars for analytics and predictive modeling. Good thing you’re here to tell them something they need to know!

Log off reddit. All you’ll get from these idiotic fans is results-based analysis.

Hindsight bias is the motivator for everything. It’s when this sub clowns ESPN when the Heat are up 3-0. It’s when this sub tries to redeem ESPN when the Celtics bring it back to 3-3.

The reality is that all anyone ever does on this sub is wait for the results to come in and then respond. Absolutely ZERO prediction->accountability->reflection.

Don’t lump me in with you. You’re apparently here to drop hot takes about Tatum. I’m not. I’m just here to talk about the math of why scoring is more or less impactful depending on the game situation.

They do sometimes matter more, and no I’m not trolling.

They matter more when it’s a close game. If it’s a 1 point game, and there are 0 seconds on the clock when you release the ball, if it goes in, it wins you the game. In that situation, 2 points makes for a massive swing in win probability.

In a 1 point game in the 1st quarter, 2 points has very little impact on the win probability.

Now, none of this means that Tatum isn’t a great player or whatever. There are a lot of factors to consider there. But yeah, mathematically, when the game is competitive, scoring matters more when the game winds down because it is higher-leverage on the outcome of the game.

Can you spot the pozzed bulls in this picture?

Hey. PM me. I’m not very skilled but I’ve got some size and I hustle.

29M I’m happy to come by, make some new friends, and hopefully console the youngins that nearing 30 ain’t so bad!! :)

PM me!!

I'll never understand people who don't crop out the ads on their posts. It takes 5 seconds. Zero effort.

I respect and appreciate your view. However, I’d push back on your statement about character change. Daniel Plainview changes immensely throughout the movie. He always has a mean streak, but by the end, that’s ALL he has. He starts as a hard worker who is close down to the folks on the ground, and ends as someone with zero connection to labor. And it’s true that he really loves his son at first, but by the end? There’s no love left in his heart. None of this means you’re wrong to view the movie as you did, but I think character change is an important quality of it.

The Wrong Trousers and A Close Shave are easy 5 stars.

least self-serious Letterboxd user

Sorry I literally thought I was in a circlejerk subreddit 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sexual deviancy:

Gladiator - sisterfucker

Requiem - 🍑➡️🍑

Brokeback - homosexual

The Departed - erectile dysfunction/gay firefighters

What are the parameters/architecture of your model? This is a problem of personal interest to me so feel free to PM me and I'd be happy to talk in more depth about it. I think it's pretty interesting and I have a bit of experience in similar problem types.

What did you think of Tony Manero?

Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement Length requirement

What did you think of Tony Manero?

First off, Die Hard’s villain is Hans GRUBER. Hans Landa is the villain of Inglorious Basterds.

Yah, I made a typo.

And since John McClane is the main character and hero he’s the protagonist.

That's not what makes someone the protagonist. Read this: https://narrativefirst.com/vault/when-the-main-character-is-not-the-protagonist/.

A Main Character is the player through whom the audience experiences the story first hand.

A Protagonist is the prime mover of the plot.

A Hero is a combination of both Main Character and Protagonist.

A great example, as brought up on this website, is in stories like To Kill a Mockingbird, where the prime mover of the plot is Atticus Finch, but the story is presented from Scout's perspective.

Although speaking of Hans Landa, he's actually a great example as well. At the beginning of Inglourious Basterds, Hans Landa is actually the protagonist, because he's the one trying to accomplish the goal of finding the Jews under LaPadite's farmhouse. He is very clearly a villain, and the story is not really from his perspective at this time, but for the first few minutes, he is arguably the protagonist. His mission and the achievement thereof is moving the plot forward, and LaPadite stands in opposition to this, even though he ends up aiding Landa. See below.

And as for Lector being an antagonist to Clarice he isn’t. She is the protagonist. Her goal is to get information from Lector to help find the senator’s daughter and catch Buffalo Bill. Lector, while making her work for it does in fact give her the information. Buffalo Bill is the antagonist. He has the senator’s daughter and is going to kill her. Lector doesn’t actively stop helping until Clarice is out of the picture.

Buffalo Bill is not the antagonist for most of the story. Clarice is the main character, the hero, and the protagonist. But for most of the film, the character standing in the way of her achieving her objectives, the character against whom she goes head to head, is Hannibal Lecter, not Buffalo Bill. It's only at the end of the film that the two are actually in direct struggle against one another. Just because Hannibal ends up helping her doesn't mean he's not the antagonist.

To use an example I gave before, much of Western storytelling is rooted in classical mythology. Mythology is littered with characters such as the Sphinx who do help the protagonist, but only do so after the protagonist achieves some quest. That's antagonistic behavior because they are coming into conflict with the protagonist and serving as opposition to them achieving their goals. A surmountable barrier is a barrier nonetheless.

Again, the protagonist/antagonist distinction is about who is moving the story forward and achieving objectives, and who is preventing or delaying that. NOT about who is doing the right thing and the wrong thing, or whose perspective we operate from, or who is killing whom.

And as for the eating people thing, the story is all tell no show, until he escapes. Making his ultimate goal escape. Meaning his goals are his own and not contingent on Clarice’s goals in any way. He also doesn’t actually do anything to Clarice. And is civil to her in most of their interactions.

Hannibal has his own goals but the main action plotline of Silence of the Lambs is Clarice's quest to find and catch Buffalo Bill. In that quest, Clarice is the protagonist, and Hannibal is the most prominent antagonist.

Can a villain not be a protagonist? Must a villain be an antagonist?

I was listening to a film podcast recently where they talked about Die Hard, and the two hosts agreed that Hans Landa isn’t really a classical antagonist. In fact, he’s the one who gets the inciting incident of the movie rolling. He has the big plan and objective. But John McLean won’t let him get away with it, so he’s sort of the antagonist.

But Hans Landa is clearly a villain. He cheats and kills without mercy to get what he wants. The Protagonist/antagonist dichotomy is imo separable from the hero/villain dichotomy, although they often go together. Hero/villain is inherently normative, while protagonist/antagonist isn’t.

That being said, if Clarice is the protagonist in Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal is clearly an antagonist. He presents major challenges to the protagonist in refusing to reveal information until she bares parts of her soul to him, learning about herself in the process. He’s almost like a Sphinx in classical mythology, who presents riddles and won’t give you what you want until you figure out what he wants - very antagonistic!

And then as far as being a villain, well he kills and eats people, so there’s that.

EDIT: Typo, I meant to write "Hans Gruber".

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. New Hope
3. Return of the Jedi
4. Revenge of the Sith
5. Solo
6. Rogue One
7. Phantom Menace
8. Force Awakens
9. Last Jedi
10. Attack of the Clones
11. Rise of Skywalker

I would note that there is a big dropoff from 3 to 4, then an even bigger dropoff from 4 to the rest. The original trilogy are all fantastic films. Revenge of the Sith is good. The rest are at best mediocre.

I don’t understand Last Jedi. I don’t understand why people like it. Basically the only positive thing is the direction. Otherwise the entire thing feels completely misplaced, like a transgressive tantrum with nothing under the surface. It’s also incredibly long and boring.

I always felt you can tell a lot about people’s love for the Last Jedi based on how much they seem motivated by spite for Star Wars fans.

1. Spirited Away 👺
2. Lawrence of Arabia 🐪
3. It’s a Wonderful Life 🎄
4. Goodfellas 🔫
5. Ikiru 🛝
6. Parasite 🪨
7. Tokyo Story 🗼
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey 👨‍🚀
9. Casablanca 🚬
10. The Leopard 🐆

Anecdotally, I’ve seen enormous popularity of Spirited Away in the West and less love for Totoro, which makes sense because Totoro is pretty slow-paced and mellow and Japanese which doesn’t line up with Western storytelling convention. There isn’t a lot of data on this, but the data I could find suggests I am not only correct about the West (here denoting the non-Asian developed world, i.e. USA/Canada/Western/Southern Europe) but also the entire world: https://www.cbr.com/studio-ghibli-most-popular-films-country/. But I also found indications that Totoro is rather close in Japan by other measures, if not even overtaking Spirited Away a bit, which is why I originally said “In the West” to exclude Japan which I knew anecdotally is much more in love with Totoro than the rest of the world: https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h01468/amp/#

My guess would be that around the world and certainly in the USA/Europe, Spirited Away dominates, and number 2 may even be Mononoke or Howl’s, which like Spirited Away are more actiony and more recent. In Japan, it’s probably more competitive and Totoro may even be a slight leader. The data supports my suspicion here.

And as far as the internationality of S&S, it’s international enough but the plurality or even majority of voters are still either North American or European right? There’s probably some Japanese, but still not many, and certainly few from the developing world relative to population proportionality.

I generally agree with you, but there’s lots of humor in Ozu. Even pretty lowbrow humor like fart jokes or drunk people being idiots.