What are the differences between The Thing (2011) and the original movie?

 In many ways The Thing (2011) does what a good follow-up film should do. It expands on the world. It doesn't overdo it on the amount of references to events that happened in the previous film. It upped up the action, the rush, the adrenaline. Did it better, actually.

It's just…meaningless as a whole. All the good stuff's already been done.

The Thing (2011) is a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror.

In the 1982 one, a group of scientists run into...something from out this world.

The Thing came from another research camp, which was in ruins. All its inhabitants done for.

2011 goes back to see the events that transpired in that ruined camp.

Basing on 2011,

Dislikes:

The dialogue was too on the nose at times, especially compared to 1982's dialogue, which felt more natural.

I think Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a good actress otherwise but I did not like how her character, and the guy-in-charge's character, spoke at times. Very...um.."lecture-y"instead of a casual tone suited for conversations, which was what they were having.

1982 had a certain charm in the way they made supposedly one of the least smartest guys - the pilot in a team of mostly scientists - figure out a brilliant way to test if someone had The Thing. 2011 had...the smart science person do it. Who could have seen that coming?

The effects did nothing for me. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of CGI, but I did not care for the special effects here, especially since 1982 excelled in using practical effects.

The characters. Most of them felt like "copies," parallels of characters in the 1982 one. They look similar. Some acted similar. Whatever for? There was no need for this. They could have created entirely new characters.

Like:

I like how they zeroed in on how The-Thing-Can't-Replicate-Inorganic-Matter angle to save themselves.

The Thing, 2011. Whole movie felt unnecessary. It added very little to an already fully-told story. It used too much CGI, which was a low bar to clear because any CGI is too much when compared to how 1982 did it.

If there's one Thing you can gain from reading through this slop, use it as a reminder to consider rewatching 1982 this weekend.

Can you explain the difference between Krishna of Goloka and Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu in simpler terms?

 Disclaimer: this is an answer from the Vaishnava perspective.

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!

There is a subtle difference.

Lord Krishna in the eternal Goloka is Bhagavan Svayam and Avatari (the source of all avataras).

Whereas Lord Krishna, who was on Earth, is a purna avatara of Lord Vishnu, a guna avatara of the Avatari Lord Krishna.

However, both are the same Supreme Person.

Explanation:

In Vaishnavism, Bhagavan Svayam resides in the eternal abode – the Param Padam.

tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padaṃ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
divīva cakṣur ātatam

Translation:

“The wise ever contemplate that supreme station of Viṣṇu (the all-pervading one), as the eye ranges over the sky.” - Rig Veda 1.22.20

According to Panchratra philosophy, Bhagavan Svayam is ParaVasudeva (as recognised by Krishnavites) or Sriman Narayana (as recognised by Madhva and Sri Vaishnavas).

ParaVasudeva is recognised as Avatari because He is the source of all avataras, which includes the:

• Catur Vyuhas (Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha)
• Purusha avataras (Karanodakasayi/Maha Vishnu, Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, Kshirodakasayi Vishnu)
• Guna avataras (Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesha)
• Leela avataras (e.g. Rama, Krishna, Narasimha)
• Shaktyavesha avataras (e.g. Narada muni and Sanat-kumaras)
• Manvantara avataras (e.g. Hari and Yajna)
• Yuga avataras (i.e., incarnations of Satya, Treta, Dvarpara, and Kali yuga)

ete cāṁśa-kalāḥ puṁsaḥ
kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam
indrāri-vyākulaṁ lokaṁ
mṛḍayanti yuge yuge

Translation:

“All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28

ParaVasudeva is eternally residing in the Param Padam, He does not directly involve Himself with any work in the material realm whatsoever.

This is done by His expansions as the Purusha avatars, who are involved in the manifestation, maintenance, and dissolution of multiple universes simultaneously.

ādyo ’vatāraḥ puruṣaḥ parasya
kālaḥ svabhāvaḥ sad-asan-manaś ca
dravyaṁ vikāro guṇa indriyāṇi
virāṭ svarāṭ sthāsnu cariṣṇu bhūmnaḥ

Translation:

“Kāraṇārṇavaśāyī Viṣṇu is the first incarnation of the Supreme Lord, and He is the master of eternal time, space, cause and effects, mind, the elements, the material ego, the modes of nature, the senses, the universal form of the Lord, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and the sum total of all living beings, both moving and nonmoving.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.42

Relative to each universe, this act is carried out by the three guna avataras.

• Brahma (akara) - creates the universe as instructed to Him by the knowledge revealed to him by the Lord.
• Vishnu (ukara) - maintains the universe by residing in each atom of existence but also through incarnating in various leela-avataras.
• Mahesha (makara) - destroys the universe by His cosmic dance as Nataraja

“In order to handle creation, sustenance, and destruction the one and only Janaardhana takes the names of Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswara.” - Vishnu Purana 1.2.6.11

Of these three, Lord Vishnu is seen as a purna avatara (complete incarnation of Bhagavan Svayam), whereas Lords Brahma and Shiva are seen more as shaktyavesha avataras (empowered incarnations) in this sense (though Lord Shiva holds special positions in some Vaishnava traditions – e.g., Gaudiyas and Ramanandis).

Hence, Lord Vishnu is completely nondifferent from Him and recognised as the same Supreme Person.

sṛjāmi tan-niyukto 'haṁ
haro harati tad-vaśaḥ
viśvaṁ puruṣa-rūpeṇa
paripāti tri-śakti-dhṛk

Translation:

“By His will, I [Lord Brahma] create, Lord Śiva destroys, and He Himself, in His eternal form as the Personality of Godhead, maintains everything. He is the powerful controller of these three energies.” - Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.32

Lord Vishnu has many leela avataras, and of those, three are recognised as purna – Narasimha, Rama, and Krishna.

“Matsya, Kūrma, Varāha, Narasiṃha, Vāmana, Rāma, Paraśurāma, Kṛṣṇa, Buddha and Kalki are the ten Vibhavas (incarnations) of Brahman, the highest soul. The group of six qualities is said to exist in Nṛsiṃha, Rāma and Kṛṣṇa.” - Padma Purana, Uttara-Khanda 229.41–42

Lord Krishna here is the cowherd boy who descended to Earth and performed leelas to maintain dharma as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

This is the difference.

Lord Krishna of the Param Padam is eternal, existing in His original form, and does not leave this abode in any way.

He can simultaneously appear within the material universes without abandoning His transcendental abode.

Lord Krishna, who descended on Earth, remained on Earth temporarily in a form in this material realm and is also present in other different universes.

There are other Lord Krishnas as purna avataras of the various Lord Vishnus of the other universes.

But they are the same Purushottoma playing the leelas for our own benefit in different forms.

Hare Krishna

What are the differences between village life and city life?

 Okay, so one thing I absolutely love about village weddings is the way they handle THE SWEETS. The halwai (sweet maker) comes to the house and makes them right there. It feels like: Yes! Yaay! Something special is happening, festive vibes, celebration feels. The vibe kicks in the moment they arrive with their enormous vessels, long ladles and mountains of ingredients. They spend 2 to 3 days creating all the sweets from scratch, right there at the house of the celebration. It's truly a pretty sight.

Contrast to the city weddings, where the sweets and all the work are done by rushing to a sweet shop, buying kilos of pre-made sweets, getting them packed in those pretty boxes and then the packed items arrive at your home. That's it. Sure, there's a momentary thrill in seeing the beautifully decorated sweet boxes, but the thrill ends there. No thrill beyond it. In villages, there's a lot more—anticipation, aroma filling the air, kids (like me!) constantly running there to sneak tastes of warm, freshly made sweets! In the village, the sweet-making process is a celebration in itself. It's so much fun! I love that rustic, country vibe. It just feels so much more….celebratory.

These are KalaJamuns in the making. I know they look suspiciously like GulabJamuns. But they're not!

That's Kalakand. Village people love this one. There's literally a fight over them!

That's a village variation of Rajasthani Ladoos. They're made with bigger-sized boondis and are ghee-laden, a melt-in-your-mouth, yummy kind. One is enough to raise the insulin levels for a week.

Freshly cut Kaju Katlis are a different taste altogether. It's truly heaven for sweet lovers.

That's Khaja. A traditional Indian layered pastry!

Also, since I don't like sweet items much, I love how here they provide me with the flexibility of just licking and running away, unlike in the cities where I'm stuck with the entire big piece of sweet and I don't know what to even do about it!

Images Source: My gallery

What is the difference between Kali and Dakhina Kal?

 Kaala is time personified. Kaali is the shakti of Kaala, i.e. Kaali is the

animator of Time. It is She who causes the time to flow (or even to stop).

The concept of time and its flow are behind the entire delusion of duality. As

per Vedanta, there is nothing called past or future, here or there, I or you.

There is Brahman at all places and all times. The objectification of Brahman

into various objects is possible due to the play of Kaala and Kaali and the

creation of a concept of " time". One absorbed in non-dual Brahman without any

concept of time or objectification is immortal. Time, the great devourer,

catches up with anyone stuck in duality, sooner or later.

BTW, Kaala and Kaali are inseparable. Without the " flow of time", there is no

" time " itself. Similarly, without time, there cannot be a flow of time. Thus,

time and its flow exist together and cannot exist without each other.

* * *

Dakshina not only means the south, but it also means right. Tantra texts talk of

Dakshina Kaali and Vaama Kaali. Dakshina Kaali is propitiated using

dakshinaachaaraa (right-handed practice), while Vaama Kaali is propitiated using

vaamaachaara (left-handed practice). The former is worshipped in temples, while

the latter is worshipped in shmashaana (cemeteries). The latter is also known as

Shmashaana Kaali. Symbolically these two versions are depicted with the right foot

and left foot forward, respectively.

The right side is associated with Pingala nadi, Surya (Sun) and devatas (gods). It

is also linked to the left brain and structured thinking. The left side is

associated with Ida nadi, Chandra (Moon) and pitris (manes). It is also linked

to the right brain and emotional and intuitive thinking.

Dakshinaachaara attempts to reach the supreme using a structured approach. One

does not try to destroy layers of deep conditioning of the mind in one shot and

takes an orderly and structured approach. It is appropriate for temples (places

of public spiritual practice) and for the general public too. Vaamaachaara

(left-handed path), on the other hand, attempts to nuke the layers of deep

conditioning of the mind by throwing the mind into dark alleys that force the

mind to realize the non-distinction between light and darkness. Of course, there

is a chance one will fall and settle down in the darkness.

The tools and imagery used by dakshinaachaara followers worshipping Dakshina

Kaali and those used by vaamaachaara followers worshipping Shmashaana Kaali may

be different, but they are searching for the same primordial energy that results

in the flow of time.

Thus, Dakshina Kaali and Shmashaana Kaali are not really different and merely

represent different paths to obtain the same realization. Different forms of

Kaali represents different paths to arrive at the same realization.

* * *

Bhadra means auspicious. While one aspect of Time is that Time devours all and

brings the end of every object in the field of duality, the flow of Time does

more. The flow of time brings the fruits of various karmas, brings maturity and

transformation in various objects of the field of duality and brings them closer

to liberation. When one ponders the primordial energy that results in the flow

of time, from these angles, this path is represented by Bhadra Kaali. She is

also worshipped in temples like Dakshina Kaali.

* * *

Mahaa Kaali, Maha Lakshmi and Maha Saraswati are three parts of the very

initial root primordial energy that is referred to as the golden-hued " Mahaa

Lakshmi " in Saptashati rahasya. This very initial root primordial energy Mahaa

Lakshmi divides Herself into 3 parts - Mahaa Kaali, Mahaa Lakshmi and Mahaa

Saraswati, 3 distinct aspects of primordial energy. These 3 energies create

3 couples - Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and their consorts. We may see this very

initial root primordial energy " Mahaa Lakshmi " as the expression of the supreme

cosmic being, as the energy that makes the supreme cosmic being be, want, think

and know.

Chandi represents fierce energy that makes one battle and overcomes various

weaknesses and conditioning of the mind and reach this very initial root

primordial energy.

What is the difference in the direction of Raj Kumar Hirani, Yash Chopra, and Karan Johar as a director? Who is better?

 Rajkumar Hirani movies-

Mix message with entertainment

Bring a new concept or word that becomes a catchphrase (Jaddu ki Jhappi in Munna bhai MBBS, Gandhigiri in Lage Raho Munnabhai, All is Well in 3 Idiots, Wrong number in PK)

Lots of comedy and lots of emotional scenes

Doesn't focus much on music- generally have average music albums (except Dunki and 3 Idiots)

Not a single flop film delievered till now as a director

Creative decline of sorts since he separated from Vidhu Vinod Chopra (Dunki was not upto the mark). Even Sanju was no great shakes.

Yash Chopra-

Is known for making romantic films but some of his best films are action or intense drama films (Deewar, Trishul, Waqt, Ittefaq, Darr etc).

Along with Gulzar he makes poetry on celluloid

Exotic locations of Switzerland with heroine in chiffon sarees in ice clad mountains

Grand sets, big star cast, brilliant music

Made films till the end of his life (Jab tak hai Jaan- not an ideal film to end career)

Karan Johar-

Feel good escapist cinema which ages really bad over the years and becomes meme template after some time (KKHH, K3G)

Made a really good film (MNIK) and then back to making mushy romantic films

Nepo kid launcher through his production house, also SRK close buddy

Shoots all his films overseas - caters to overseas market for NRI so his films earn huge in overseas particularly the ones starring SRK

Very good taste in music, very grand sets, trendy costumes and brilliant production design. And then forgets to write an engaging story (though he writes good dialogues)

Many people still thinks that he is the director of Kal ho na Ho (sorry Nikhil Advani)

Produced one of the rare remakes of a cult classic which was equal and at times better than the original film (Agneepath)

Forced homosexual humour

100% track record as a director still has directed only 7 films in 27 years.

As a director I would say Yash Chopra>Rajkumar Hirani>Karan Johar

As a producer Yash Chopra>Karan Johar>Rajkumar Hirani

Most number of National and Filmfare Awards Yash Chopra>Rajkumar Hirani>Karan Johar (7 National and 10 filmfares for Yash Chopra, 4 National and 11 filmfares for Rajkumar Hirani and 4 National and 10 Filmfares for Karan Johar)