Mastodawn

Do you watch "modern" cinema or older flicks?

Do you watch "modern" cinema or older flicks? - Lemmy.World

In terms of “older” cinema: mainly starting from 1950’s until 2010’s (consisted of Silent, Boomer or Gen X actors) while “modern” cinema is more on after 2015 (where all the woke agenda started appearing later on just to place who they deem their “modern” audience alongside excess use of CGI, make up, plastic surgery, green screen or AI) that it doesn’t even look believable. Movies from the past used miniatures, practical effects, constructing movie sets alongside being filmed on location (as this was prior to CGI and green screen) like that scene from the ten commandments (1956) on how they managed to pull off the “parting of the red sea” sequence without them using green screen or CGI (the movie came out in the 50’s before either existed). The acting from those vintage movies is different from today, as back then the majority are in black and white, only select movies are filmed entirely in technicolor. Back then, actors & actresses have to annunciate their voice as if they’re in a theater (even on film) since only black and white footage has it’s limitations. Technicolor movies have bright sets just to capture the hue on camera. Movies made today seem “trash” (again, not all) as there’s a trend on actors having to explain to the audience on what’s going on since writers are aware that people nowadays have a short attention span on watching the movie (due to doomscrolling on their phone), while that isn’t the case with older movies from the 1950, 60, 70, 80 or 90s since people were not distracted with TikTok shorts. Being a movie star in the past required talent and skill, basically grinding from being an extra until you become the main lead when you get the chance. Now, it seems like Hollywood is hiring social media influencers to become movie stars, but making a TikTok short & being famous from that overnight is not the same as professional filmmaking since those are not comparable at all.

LtDan 2d ago

Is justice void when the perpetrator is gone in this case?

https://lemmy.world/post/44533423

Is justice void when the perpetrator is gone in this case? - Lemmy.World

I’m talking about the one who killed themselves upon murdering others around them (as in the explosion kills both the perpetrator and victim) as the perpetrator is bound to explosives in which the destruction they caused murders others via falling debris or the fire it rages, hence the name suicide bomber (you can’t imprison a dead person in the first place, so there’s no trial). You know who the offender is, but he or she is already dead since they were killed upon them committing their own crime. Those who lost their relatives cannot sue the main perpetrator as they passed away (and his or her parents are deceased meaning they can’t be interrogated) but can they just find his or her aunt & uncle, siblings, cousins, nephews or nieces to interview? That is only applicable if they’re still alive (it’s a case to case basis: if the perpetrator’s direct familial heritage are all dead, then seek unrelated contacts who may know him or her such as their: neighbor, roommate, landlord, friends, coworkers, acquaintances) if investigators were to interrogate at least somebody who knew the perpetrator or what their profile is like. Although no “normal” justice can be served as the perpetrator died, can victims’ families consider a civil case (as a criminal trial is void when the defendant is gone) meaning they will sue based on the perpetrator’s last will & testament (estate) if they have one? That means they’ll would demand on behalf of their estate; the money shall be used to compensate those who’ve suffered. But if the perpetrator doesn’t have their own will: would they still find their dead parent’s last will & testament, inheritance or life insurance policy suing them based on that for compensation to not only pay for damages caused emotionally & physically towards victims, also to cover and repair structural damages from the bombing, the suicide bomber’s will is revoked from any beneficiary. However, even if there was a financial incentive: the souls of the dead still linger including the victims who were killed during the incident as their graves still remain. No amount of money can truly undo the terror inflicted by the suicide bomber or deaths incurred towards innocent people, so there is no victory at the end of the day even if they decided to pursue a civil lawsuit postmortem.

LtDan 2d ago

Is the $ (USD) considered "toilet paper"?

https://lemmy.world/post/44533186

Is the $ (USD) considered "toilet paper"? - Lemmy.World

Where did that saying originate? I’ve heard that type of response from some people: the US Dollar is considered such due to being “backed by nothing” & excessive printing (is it really losing any value as they have debt that’ll never be paid?) What is it backed by: military muscle? I know that for instance the Swiss Franc is backed by trust (as in people having faith in the currency). Do YOU consider the US Dollar a safe haven currency? If it were: it would’ve received the same status as the Swiss Franc. The reason why CHF is strong is due their trust & confidence alongside a stable economical & political system, put it in comparison: how many Americans have confidence in their own currency? Does the USA have a “truly” stable political system? The thing is: Switzerland is neutral, meaning they have no incentive whatsoever on becoming belligerents in foreign wars (something the USA can’t stay away from since they spend a LOT of money on the military). Their national debt is lower than it is in USA (140m CHF / ~$179m) while in comparison: America’s debt has ballooned to around $38,200,000,000,000 if I recall. It’s also tied to their monetary policy (which is highly trusted) hence why they managed to keep inflation relatively low but inflation in America as a joke (no need to say how bad it is). Their interest rate is 0% (can’t be said for US Federal Reserve: 3.75%) as Switzerland’s goal is to ensure price stability long term while the USA is more on promoting maximum employment.