puntiniCAZpuntini

<< originality is subjective >> Really? It's Forrest who claims it's objective while always talking about "reality." I've been saying for 60 comments that neither originality nor derivation can be proven.

But if you don't write heavy stuff, fun discussions don't start. I'm selfish; if you didn't have fun, that's too bad, but I really laughed a lot. 90% of the time I come here to have a chat with the human case of the moment, "respect for human cases ®" has always been my favorite motto.

<< You might have PUNTINICAZPUNTINI found an original movie (for you) not knowing that it was taken from a Lithuanian novel? >> Maybe. But I've never written a review about it. If I had, and wanted to talk about originality, I would have checked where the director's inspiration came from. If I hadn't felt like doing some research, I would have simply avoided the topic, or sooner or later someone would have pointed out that it was taken from a Lithuanian novel (eventually, someone always does, maybe even after four years). I see comments as a "complement to the review," filling in any gaps (also for reasons of space and not out of ignorance), correcting any mistakes (release dates, titles, etc.), or providing a different opinion or perspective. Fifty identical comments saying "great review, I'll watch it" are nice chatter, but they don't serve any purpose for a site that, in the end, I see as aiming to provide information about works, not just "writing for the sake of writing." Of course, one could also take it as a container for free themes on artistic topics or as a social network; I see it as a repository of information.

It's not a matter of the terms used; it's a different discussion altogether because the terms change. I agree with your point, also because often I prefer a record, a book, or a movie that "innovates" something already done, making it "better." I more willingly listen to rock revivals than vintage rock, I prefer reading a noir from the day before yesterday (even better if set in the present) rather than those from the early '50s, and I prefer De Palma's Scarface over Howard Hughes'. However, I could never say that De Palma made an "original" film; at best, I would say "he added his own touch." But these mental gymnastics aren't as entertaining as Forrest.

Larrok, but I understood Muffin last week; I even wrote to him that we’re saying the same thing (even though from two opposing opinions, the theme is the same). If you read the series of repetitions, you’ll find at least ten posts where I say it. But you didn’t understand me; I’ve been laughing like crazy for a week because Forrest couldn’t wrap up in one post the thought you expressed. You have to extract it from the lines in 80 posts; you were clear in three lines. And you also “lost” another foundation of this series of repetitions: for the past three days, the point is no longer “but is this film original?”, but rather “can a judgment – in this case: whether it is original or not – be considered reality, while the other is merely a matter of perspectives?”. The Forrest here believes he can "prove a judgment"; those are things worth pondering. Also because, in the end, his (and your) point revolves around the production technique, which, as you say, can also be innovative... but to call it original seems exaggerated to me. The term "original" carries more weight than innovative. Many have innovated the light bulb, but the original light bulb is one and only one. Many can innovate the videos of the Wu-Tang Clan (because this film is an innovation of a Wu-Tang video), with lights, photography, editing, and so on, but the original Wu-Tang is one and only one. But we're digressing. The central question remains: can Forrest be convinced that he has the universally recognized judgment as correct? Can Forrest manage to condense a comprehensible thought into one post? Can Forrest use commas and periods? This and much more on Voyager, but first, the commercial.

Sciascia is undisputed; Coelum is top-notch. If you don't have others and you liked this one, you can safely go for all his works on the ghost cheese: one better than the other. ||| Blech, I just saw your comment. I have 19 books by Sciascia, but I didn't even know Atti relativi alla morte di Raymond Russel existed. Let us know what you think.

But do you know what it means to "prove"? You've given examples that, for you and many others, are original, and for me and many others, are derivative. It's really amusing to see how convinced you are that your opinions are "demonstrable reality." You say yes, I say no. There is no truth. The really hilarious thing is that you just don’t get it, Forrest.

Dispute? I stopped having a dispute on 14/11, from then on, I knew very well what would happen (comment 42). Debaser is like fonzies, if you don't let the human cases be written about, you only enjoy it halfway, and this is truly among the best I've ever seen. It doesn't have the arrogance of Vrensis, it's not someone with serious issues to address like Punisher, but it really is the dumbest of them all. This site has been held up for years, not certainly thanks to the music, but thanks to circus phenomena like these. I understand they may not be to everyone's taste, but they make me laugh.

"Wow, what a drag." And you haven't seen anything yet.

<< Do I have to explain again what I said 30 posts ago? >> Yes, yes, go ahead and explain it since you never did. << Actually, you said "How can you contradict me on an opinion?" >> And so? The question remains open, it seems to me.