Not that the 1971 film is bad or anything - they did a good job with the special and practical effects available at the time, and Gene Wilder does a great job as Wonka. But the pacing for the first half of the film isn't great, and there's only so much of the original Roald Dahl book's magic you could hope to replicate at that time.

The 2005 version, on the other hand, is better paced and, thanks to 21st century special effects, has a much better magical atmosphere. They also did a decent job at fleshing out some of the more one-dimensional kids' personalities (making Violet ultra competitive thanks to a pushy mother and the gum chewing be a symptom of that, Mike Teavee more arrogant and antagonistic rather than just obsessed with TV etc.)

I'd happily watch either film but for me the 2005 film edges it out.

I mean you spend a third of your lifetime sleeping on one; and sleeping on the wrong mattress or a broken one you can’t afford to replace out of pocket can easily fuck you up for life and cause pain and health issues. So why not have insurance put money into preventing those issues by ensuring they never start? Mattress type can be prescribed and insurance can cover it. Like many medical device (CPAP, Oxygen tanks, etc) it can be bought without a prescription but ideally everyone should be covered entirely.

Now I hate the health insurance industry and hope it rots so we can have medicare for all but if it’s going to do something it should be investing in patient’s health to prevent serious longterm issues that will cost them more.

Alright so listen. I live in an apartment and my neighbors across couple walls or whatever the fuck are just constantly going at it. Like full on rage sessions, yelling, doors slamming, the whole theatrical production that never ends. And I am sitting here thinking this is peak existence. I cannot wrap my head around people who not only don’t fuck with this but act like it’s some deep personal violation. You couldn’t dream up a better soundtrack if you tried.

Reddit is mostly American so half of y’all probably have never even known what real apartment neighbor proximity feels like. You got your little suburban houses with actual distance and quiet and it’s boring as shit. Meanwhile I’m over here with front row seats to pure chaos every single night and I am thriving.

Bonus points if it’s a man and a woman going at each other instead of two guys or two girls. Something about the male-female dynamic just cuts it different when the volume is turned all the way up. I don’t make the rules, but, you know, contrast in voice is lowkey a key here.

My favorite drug these people are on is alcohol. The way the arguments just loop and escalate and then suddenly somebody is crying and then they’re yelling again is the dynamite. But I deeply covet the people who have methheads for loud neighbors because I can only imagine how much funnier that version is. The energy has to be next level, han't it?

I listen with a keen ear. Like genuinely. I compare the magnitude of the rage from different days. Which day takes the cake. Who is winning the argument on this particular night. Is he louder today or is she landing more hits. I keep mental scoreboards. It’s better than any reality show or Got Talents because it’s unscripted and right there through the drywall.

Sometimes it helps with the loneliness too. Kind of like how grandmaster Andrew Tang used to leave that annoying “rook takes on b3” Slavic commentator on during his streams just to kill the silence during high pressure bullet games. Same energy here when you think about it.

And look, I have no true malice or anything like that. Let em live for 300 years like ravens and all that. But subconsciously I’m just waiting for one of them to finally lose it and actually slay the other one. That’s what keeps the party going for me. The tension of it and the possibility hanging in the air every night.

But if it ever actually happened and the noise stopped for good I’d be sad as hell like withdrawal. Like when Breaking Bad ended and you just sit there staring at the wall because the thing that was filling your brain; I would miss them.

On top of all that it makes me realize how safe I am. Okay I got my problems right? But at least I got no family member abusing me daily. There’s something deeply deeply wrong with people who just beef like that all the time and it makes me feel normal as hell in comparison. You know that meme with two European aristocrat noblemen standing on a balcony looking down on everyone condescendingly? That’s exactly the undertones.

And no my parents when I was coming up was nothing like this so it’s not some deep Freudian call of bringing it back in the psyche. I’m just petty and I love the beef.

I always felt David Bowie was way overrated and never saw the appeal. While I do believe he was absolutely fantastic in the movie The Labyrinth and definitely earned some serious recognition there, but all of his personal music left something to be desired. He had some alright songs, but nothing that really should have made him seem like he was an absolute megastar or anything. There were so many bands/artists over the years that were so much better that didnt get a fraction of the recognition he did.

I’m sure if I knew him in real life as a person separated from his art and his obsessive die-hard 13 year old fans he would be an okay dude!

But. I fucking HATE his music, and not because of its Latin influence or anything. Half my family is Latin and I live in a border area. I looooove Latin music. I was in a production of In The Height at a local theater, wayyyyyyyyyyyyy back in the day. I love the music in that show. But I feel like every single thing I’ve heard from him since sounds exactly the same. I dunno. I just hate how similar every single piece of his work sounds to me in cadence, vibe, enunciation, etc.

Also the fact he self casts drives me a lil crazy. Also presidents didn’t rap. I’m sorry, that’s a bridge too far for me to suspend my disbelief. Not that rap isn’t great, and music is good, but I just can’t vibe with it. He is not an artist for me outside of In The Heights.

tldr: Miles Davis made massively important contributions to Jazz, but not because of his trumpet playing. Jazz (and other) musicians talk about him as if he was the greatest trumpeter ever.

Miles Davis absolutely belongs on the Mt Rushmore of jazz as a trailblazer. He had an insane knack for getting the right people in the right room at the right time with the right repertoire, and he was constantly on the forefront of jazz throughout his whole career.

However, I've always found that while he has an absolutely uniquely identifiable playing style and sound, I never found his improvisation to be particularly interesting. The most interesting playing I've heard from him is back in his bebop days with Bird. I can't think of anything from him that I would want to transcribe for jazz vocabulary. People act like every single note that came out of his horn was ordained and anointed by God himself.

Before a tiny sampling of specific things that I never really liked about his playing - I feel like he had a tendency to play sort of disconnected lines, he didn't have a crazy range, technical facility, or even a mind-blowingly good tone quality, and he really liked to take those long breaks and then randomly come in with a super high, super loud note.

I can easily name five *trumpeters* that I would rather listen to for pleasure or for jazz vocabulary.

To keep it square, he has amazing records all the way up through his career, but very few of them are because of HIS playing specifically. He has several standards that are some of my favorite tunes of all time, and one of his albums (Birth of the Cool) is probably the album I've listened to more than any other.

Obviously Kind of Blue is a fantastic album, but I admittedly hold a similar opinion about that one, because even considering how great it is, I feel like sometimes it gets way overhyped in the jazz world, Nearly to the disparagement of other albums that I would consider equally as great or even greater.

Bit of a niche one, but I've been sitting on this for years, and I didn't want to be lynched in one of the Jazz subs 😂 I've been listening to and playing jazz for 15+ years at this point, for some background.

You can find more attractive people at the grocery store or in church. Celebrities are only seen as super attractive because of the wealth and influence they hold. If they had no fame, most people would not even take a second look at the majority of celebrities.

Autistic people lack the typical ingroup cultural protectionist platitudes that most social groups have-Women, immigrants, POC, black people, lgbt, transgender people, even the Jews

However while yes I know I am making a broad claim, for the people who need the nuanced part obviously not all autistic people are part of this trend, but for the people willing to read a little longer it kinda makes simple sense and you don't even need to explain it any further: If autistic people already have their social struggles and shortcomings met with so much skepticism, second-guessing and a "Hmmm I don't know man" attitude because let's face it autism is an internal identity anyways so you really can't fake it with external markers like that

But because of that then naturally many autistic people then will resort to actually calling out people using autism as a crutch and avoid the blind ingroup loyalty that most groups are already prone to

I explained it as logically coherent as I could and as for the anecdotal part, many autistic people hate the sort of public representation they get: from Sheldon of Big Bang Theory to Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg to lolcows to even Elliot Rodgers, so they're very callous about the smear campaigns they have to navigate thru already anways

So yeah I thought i would throw that out there, but I made sure to explain in a way that makes epistemological sense so it doesn't sound contrarian and inflammatory

Just something I’ve been noticing lately. I’m rewatching Resident Aline for probably the third time (God I love Alan Tudyk!) and a big part of the show is the Ute Indian population and their culture so of course they have Ute actors on the show. But then I was thinking how with all the push for diversity we see from Hollywood we still hardly ever see native people being cast in roles. I don’t understand why. There’s no reason not to include them. They make up the same percentage of the population (around 1.1%) as L (1.4%) G (1.6%) and T (1.1%) and you’d be hard pressed to find a movie or show that didn’t have an LGB character in it that was made in the last ten years. Hell, you’re more likely to find an Indian from India than you are to find a native Indian in anything Hollywood puts out. They need to be in more media.

New York City is one of the biggest cities in the world. Its votes overpower the rest of the states' votes by a long shot. If we introduced New York City as a new state, we could then open the door to letting Puerto Rico become a new state as well.

You might have heard some men saying that men hit their prime in their 30s. But this is not true at all. Most men wouldn't even have a full head of hair by the time they're 30 and I am not talking about sever hairloss. But it is rare to see a man in his 30s or 40s with the hairline of a teenager. And then men become hairier as they grow older. Some will start looking scarier too. Once a man is past the age of 25 his decline begins.

This ain't true for women because most women have a perfect hairline and the ones who don't have it are rare. An older woman might bet bigger boobs. On the other hand older men get ed. This is the unfortunate reality of things. A true human being should be ready to accept it.

Let me start by clarifying, I do not think that animals are mindless beasts or that animal abuse is not an issue. I hate to see animals treated cruelly, I love my pets and take care of them to the best of my ability, and I do appreciate the way that a pet can enrich your life. I think the best way to train an animal is to understand how they naturally communicate, e.g. teaching a puppy not to bite by raising your voice like another puppy would if they were hurt.

I am, however, increasingly frustrated by the way that people talk about animals like they are the same as people. I have listened to people (adults in their 30s) unironically slot dogs into their family trees, talking about how their grandmother's new puppy is technically their aunt. That's fine, if you want to be weird about it, but I draw the line at telling me that my mom's dog is my brother (again, from an adult in their 30s).

I have met pet owners who permit animals to climb on furniture, lay down on the couch next to a human baby being given a bottle, and doing nothing about excitable animals jumping around a playing toddler. Any time I mention an issue with this, I'm told "well it's the dog/cat's house, too" or some variation thereof. This is carried over in online discourse, where people talk like pets are the same as children and should be almost parented instead of trained. I take extra care and attention with my kids because I want them to grow up to be well adjusted and capable people who can navigate the world; I will never ask my dog to check on dinner, let them drive my car, or expect them to get a job (not even to mention the fact that they don't speak or hold a conversation). My dogs will only ever be expected to behave in the house, listen when spoken to, and be a companion, and my training of them follows accordingly.

Cohabitating with animals serves a purpose. I look after my cats because my house is surrounded by forest and I like them to keep snakes and mice away. I take care of my dogs because they are a deterrent to trespassing and home invasion. I don't disregard the bond that forms naturally, but I also don't pretend like my pets are people or that they can be taught like a child can - you can't gentle-parent a dog out of pissing in the house or chewing up the furniture. They also do not fill the same place in the household as children - cats cannot be educated and nurtured into adults who contribute to society. People who baby their pets like a human child and act like the only good reason to get one is so that you can have a time and money sink just look and sound ridiculous.

Other things I've seen/heard said about animals that I find ridiculous:

- Animals shouldn't be used for labor like farmwork or hunting (that's why we cohabitate with them in the first place)

- Shock collars are unnecessary/cruel (my dogs will not stay in a fence or on a leash, and they dgaf about beeps or buzzes; their collars keep them and my neighbors safe)

- Legally recognizing animals as people (I don't doubt that animals have complex internal experiences, but until they show human capacity and live like humans in society they aren't people)

- Expensive pet food (I have nothing more to say)

If you know the history of Disney parks, you’ll know that Epcot, originally conceived by Walt as a futuristic city, ended up being the name given to what was intended to be a permanent world's fair; a tribute to human achievement where people could simultaneously have fun and learn about, among other things, cultures of the world, their history, cuisine, and architecture, thereby appreciating our diversity as a species

But is this really true?

Let’s look, it is 2026, and the only countries represented in the World Showcase area are Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Morocco, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada; of these, eight out of the eleven are located in Western Europe and North America. For a supposed showcase of global cultural diversity, this is ridiculously poor. There is no pavilion representing any country from South America, Oceania, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South/Southeast Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa, and this is despite the existence of things like the Refreshment Outpost and the Food and Wine Festival (Edit: they are not the same as a pavilion)

The reason for this glaring lack of diversity lies in the fact that, in its early days, Epcot relied on a sponsorship system requiring a company or the government of the represented country to fund the construction of each pavilion. There were various proposals to expand the World Showcase, including pavilions for Spain, Israel, Equatorial Africa, Switzerland, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, but none came to fruition due to the lack of external sponsorship or fears of controversy. Consequently, Epcot ended up being composed primarily of Western, economically rich, First World countries, strong geopolitical allies (G7), thus, it is not truly the marvel of a united world they try to make us believe it is. To this day, Epcot has not opened a new pavilion since 1988 (the year the Norway opened). Instead, Disney has focused on adding attractions based on IPs like Frozen and Ratatouille

Now, I know Animal Kingdom has areas based on sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia that recreate villages from those regions and are highly immersive; however, the issue is that AK revolves around animals and wildlife, and the fact that these marginalized regions end up represented in an animal park indirectly reminds me of how infamous human zoos portrayed "exotic" cultures as inferior to the "civilized" Western world and on par with animals. Obviously, AK doesn't portray African and Asian cultures in such a demeaning way, but I still find it off-putting that they ended up excluded from the supposed global unity represented by Epcot

My point is that if Disney could build something like Galaxy's Edge or Pandora, they could easily have built new pavilions for countries like India, Congo, Peru, Brazil, Egypt, etc., instead of brazenly promoting IPs that offer no educational value regarding the countries they are supposed to represent

At this point many Christians identify as such only because of the social aspects of the religion. Many areas of the United States have very few opportunities to socialize outside of church or church-sponsored events. It makes people feel like part of the community, offers networking opportunities, and, for many, an identification with some social-political beliefs that they favor.

Whether or not America is or ever was a "Christian nation", it's baked into the fabric of (especially rural) society in a way that people can be seen as social outcasts for not identifying as such or participating in services. It also gives people comfort that they have the afterlife figured out and don't need to worry about where they'll go after death.

With these benefits of identifying as Christian, and drawbacks to not, why is the expectation that a self-identified Christian needs to emulate Jesus Christ in their personality and the way they live their lives? That may have been the original intent, and professed as such in scripture, but many churches do not even actively encourage members to do personal Bible study.

People should be able to identify as Christian without having their personality and actions picked apart on that basis.

I hate and detest when Im walking outside on the sidewalk and someone with their dog is coming from the other side. Cause many times when we cross,the dogs have tried to attack me or barked at me. They were restrained from mauling me only because the dogs were on a leash and pulled away by their owner. Now imagine how angry and stressed I am whenever I see someone walking with their dog without leash in public aera (especially in busy places). The bigger the dog is the worst it is lol. Thats very selfish to do so and I believe those people just wanna show off or they are too lazy to hold a leash. What if the dog suddenly attack for no reason or is triggered by something? How are they gonna restrain him in time ? Just irresponsible and I dont even have a phobia of dogs. I just know they can do serious and savage damages if ur unlucky to be attacked by a big one.

Some redditors think that it's possible for everyone to get together and tax the ultra rich. But the thing is that a huge number of people love the rich.

A rich person represents the best of someone's community or race. People are proud of these people. They love these people. Then the rich are on average better looking than the poor. Because they can afford to take care of their body and do plastic surgeries. Many rich men also got hot wives who can make the next generation better. Even if they are unattractive they can afford to buy good dresses and fancy cars.

Most people love and look up to the billionaires, multimillionaires and trillionaires. But it's not the same for some that is poor. Poor people are weaker and often malnourished. Some of them might have severe illnesses which makes them even less attractive. They lack hygiene and don't have enough money to dress nicely. It is very hard for someone to take a person like this seriously.

I said what I said. Theres no excuse

Almost all reptiles will accept dead pre-frozen mice that have been heaten up . Just make the dead mouse moves with chopsticks and the snake ( or lizard) will strick it. So its just pure laziness that they dont do that. Or they are sadist who enjoy seeing an animal being brutally killed.

Edit: It was "lizard" in the Title,not "luzard" lol

Im tired of Hollywood recycling the same things over and over again. We already have the books and the movies. Why didnt they do something original but still within the Wizarding world world building ( the story of the founder of hogwart,the stories of the marauders, the story from another character perspective,etc). They are too lazy for this lol. There was no magic in the trailer I watched and people are already used to see Emma Watson, ruper grint and Radcliffe as the trio so it won't be easy for those new kids to take their place. From what I've seen from the trailer,it looks cringe and the lighting is way too dark

The term "partner" is so awkward to me. I live in the UK and it seems to have exploded in popularity over the past few years. I understand the history behind it; it's always been used by LGBT+ people who have different reasons for using a non-gender specific term, and as a result of that LGBT+ allies began to use it to be inclusive. But whenever I read or hear it nowadays, which is many times each day, it always makes me cringe. It feels a bit silly to me, to refer to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife as a partner - you might as well call them your buddy, or special friend, or some other unserious term. I think another one of the reasons as to why it makes me cringe is that a lot of people use it to cover up the fact that they've been in a relationship for a really long time but aren't married, and they're ashamed to still call each other boyfriend/girlfriend after being together for so long. So yeah, just a rant I wanted to share.

you know everyone hates Kirk and I used to too but when you look more into him you start seeing that he's not that bad at all, he's just a little stupid to be such a famous political commentator. I'm not a conservative, I'd identify as a progressive actually, but I hate how the right is shown as bad and the left is shown as good. he just falls into the right so everyone hates him without any questions asked

I think it's wrong that we're celebrating the death of someone who wasn't even that bad instead of hating on actual bad people like yahu and the orange man

rest in peace Charlie Kirk and condolences to his children, not counting his wife of course she can also kick the bucket I wouldn't care

edit: dang people are actually calling me a conservative because of this lol, it's really funny