this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
21 points (100.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
2077 readers
544 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
- Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
- Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is Madame Web worse than Morbius?
Undoubtedly.
One of the main characters has dubbed over his entire lines in post, so for the entire 2 hours of the movie, anytime he talks it sounds insane and fake.
Most actors deliver their lines with the energy of a faint sigh.
The "special effects" are live action Batman level. Like a generation behind the first X-Men movie back in 2001 or whatever that was?
The plot is absurd. There's no reason for any of what is happening to be happening, and the choices that the characters make over and over are not just horror movie don't go in that door, they're straight up nonsensical while not driving forward the plot at all.
Other than rubbernecking at the train crash this is, which is what I did, there is no redeeming quality to this film. I literally can't think of a single moment...except when I was sort of convinced that Sydney Sweeney was a young teenager instead of like 30, so that costuming was pretty impressive.
Oh she's only 26 though, okay.
Still, the insignificant trial of making a 26-year old look like someone's teenage daughter was the most impressive part of this movie, and it is more of a brief curio than an interest.
The dialogue and general screenwriting is unbelievable, as in not believable. I can't believe it exists.
Sony should not have released this movie.
I'm genuinely baffled as to why they did, unless they needed a couple million back on their investment and are willing to take such a huge critical and commercial loss for that couple million bucks that they can spend on future projects?
Baffled.