/fa/ - Fashion

>>10052464

Because he knows himself.

>>10052464
This type of outfit should be relatively easy to pull off honestly.

>>10052464
That doesn't looks good, it looks normal to cringe.

>>10052799
What does look good, please post your menswear inspo so we can get a sense of what you think is good looking if this is "cringe".

>inb4 you post something like this bullshit

>>10052464
he looks like a healthy chris chan

>>10052815
this

>>10052464
He doesn't look good in any way.

>>10052815
No one here would like fucking halftones you daft cunt.

>>10052905
A sweatshirt and black pants. You should just fucking kill yourself if this is the epitome of menswear to you

>>10052905
>black pants
>black boots
>gray sweater
>iphone

so individual
much angst
wow

>>10052921

Looks like a waffle knit and not a terry/fleece to me.

>>10052913
requesting your sense of style newfriend

:^)

>samfag loves some fuckfaces chris chan core fit
>no one with any sense would want to look like chris chan
>OH YEAH WELL LETS SEE UR GUY'S TASTE I BET IT'S NOT AS GOOD
>is literally pacing in front of his keyboard waiting for someone to respond so he can shit on whatever it is to feel better about wanting to look like chris chan

>>10052942
What difference does it make. They perform the same function.
>>10052958
Acid Cowboy / 90s sports movie bad guy

>>10052973
>taking the time to write this out
kek

u sure ur not the one pacing in front of their keyboard waiting to respond, lol.

>>10052997
Keyboards are like 15" across. I don't think you know what pacing means. Same reason you probs have shit taste in movies.

>>10052921
>Not looking for tatt, not asking for haircut/hairface
Try hard please.

>>10053002
>you probs have shit taste in movies.
I could name five movies right now that are better than anything you've seen in your life.

>>10053004
Tattoos are for poor trash. That's even worse.

>>10053009
I doubt it, nerd. I can quote 5 memorable lines and name the year of most any good movie.

>>10053014
>tat and cigs are poor shit with no class
>muh vapor, muh expensive pen, muh wine.
Found the neckbeard.

>>10053038
I don't vape or drink wine, uggo. Tattoos are just shit 100% of the time. I don't feel the need to attempt to draw a personality on myself since I have one.

>>10053045
Thats why you ask for fashion tips over an anonymous forum.
Calm down m8, is just an opinion, take it or leave it.

>>10053020
Not sure what your taste is but here, faggot. Didn't throw any foreign movies in because you might be illiterate.

1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BDbIzovuos

2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_LJ5ICMbP4

3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smGRxwjYgLk

4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGgsJ26dao

5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ_CN7ECekQ

>>10053077
I don't ask for fashion tips. I come here because of how salty the board is. I already know how to dress for any occasion. In fact I don't care to the point that I wear bolo ties, denim shirts, with yellow tinted aviators on. People should strive to impress me, not the other way around.

>>10053078
Kinda rekt. These all look pretty good.

>>10052985
it makes a huge difference

>>10052985

Different textures, different weights, different drape.

>>10053078
Haha, nigga please. Forcing yourself through shit doesn't make it good.

>>10053131
>>10053143
They're both grey cotton shirts for 50-70F weather you tryhard cunts. No one would notice you in either of them because they're both so basic that the gap thinks they're boring.

>>10053078
opening night before a woman under the influence fam? u and me are gonna have words

>>10053161
they would notice, because like >>10053143 said, different textures
it's different
people want to feel the hand of the fabric
>tryhard cunts
we're not at fault for you being stupid and knowing nothing about different fabrics

>>10053161

Who cares if someone else notices? Don't you pick clothes based on what you notice about them? How they feel? How they hang? How they layer under other clothes you own? I don't understand why someone else's observations entered into this.

>>10053146
>attention span of goldfish confirmed

>>10053164
A Woman Under the Influence may be a bit too much for the unseasoned Cassavetes viewer. I think Opening Night is more accessible.

>>10053180
It's as though you think the thumbnail was worth clicking. I obviously meant no one would notice you because you're in clothes more boring than catholic mass. Not that no one would see you're wearing a long underwear top vs a gym sweatshirt. It's trash regardless.

>>10053185
No, I pick clothes based on how they embody my personality at first sight. That's why I said acid cowboy / 90s sports movie villain.

>>10053192
it's not innovative at all
it's also not bad

>>10053187
The 70s is the worst decade there ever was for movie pacing. Everyone knows that.

>>10053219
>The 70s is the worst decade there ever was for movie pacing

>>10053213
It's so forgetable it should never have even been posted. Taking the safe way out is worse than making a mistake. Being forgetable is worse than not being liked.

>>10053225
It's the truth. The 80s had better pacing but worse music. The 60s had better pacing but worse production.

>>10053230
>generalizing entire decades and dismissing all movie in those decades based on those generalizations.

>>10053240
Nice meme text, hombre. I don't, but when someone posts two movies from the worst decade of pacing of all time in responce to a joke, I'm going to be a little trepedacious. I'd rather watch the Universal Mummy than pretty much any 70s movie.

>>10053269
>I'd rather watch the Universal Mummy than pretty much any 70s movie.
This is such a weird way to generalize. Why? Do you just dislike good movies?

I understand that the Mummy is fun but it's also a middling Indiana Jones knock off. The 70s were a golden era where new interesting ideas were allowed to have larger budgets because there was no real home video market. It was essentially the only period when US Hollywood films were on par with international art house films.

I mean, fuck, you're going to ignore all that because it doesn't adhere to the mind numbing pacing conventions of late 90s schlock?

>>10053293
The Universial Mummy was made in the 30s, champ. It was a blockbuster then and has better pacing than any of the 70s classics I've seen.

>>10053306
You mean, "The Mummy" from 1932?

Maybe if you gave a year instead of a studio I would know what the fuck you're talking about seeing as both The Mummy (1932) and The Mummy (1999) were distributed by Universal.

>>10053229
the opinion of others is very important to you isnt it
it's important to have a good uniform

>>10053321
I didn't think it needed year clarification. If I thought the Brennan Frasier version were that good I wouldn't have to dicriminate from the Hammer one, would I?

>>10053328
Yeah that's why I wear a suede native fringe jacket. That's why I wear velcro sandals. It's more of the disproval of others than the approval I enjoy.

>>10053345
>thinking that the much more recent, much more popular film with the same name would not be what is associated with "the mummy" to any reader
>dicriminate
Who the fuck are you? What are you? Can I study you? Are you Karl Pilkington?

>>10053361
I kind of assume that the type that would list a summer movie like that as their go to wouldn't be aware of the hammer version. I suppose I'm projecting but I think I would have just said The Mummy if that were my intention. I do enjoy summer movies thiugh. I have more fun watching The Fast and the Furious than Kramer vs Kramer although if only because I see the Fast and the Furious as a comedy like Gentlemen Broncos and think the dialogue is amazingly hilarious.

>>10053383
>I think I would have just said The Mummy if that were my intention
But you understand that "the universal mummy" tells me nothing. That's not the title of the 1932 movie and both of them were made by Universal. You could have said the year, or mentioned Boris Karloff but instead you mentioned the studio if you wanted to differentiate the two more effectively.

>The Fast and the Furious
You are referring to the Paul Walker Vin Diesel movie, not the original from 1955, right?

Anyway, back from that diversion. I think the Boris Karloff movie is fine for 30s hollywood but not particularly compelling to me. It may be easy to watch but I like movies with slightly more subtext than most of 30s hollywood was willing to give. Love Sternberg though, I just don't understand the impulse to dismiss out of hand the 1970s because you dislike slower paced films. Pacing isn't he sole measure by which a film's worth is determined and your argumentation seems to at least partially assume that.

>>10053431
I have a problem with patience. I can't wait in lines. Like if there is a line I leave and go somewhere else. You can have my money but you can't have my time. I think I might have adhd.

Paul Walker makes Vin Diesel look like he deserves academy awards in those movies. The dialogue is so fucking hilarious in every film of the series. Fast 4 was the comedy of the year to me.

I really like the tone of the old Universials. The production is no where near modern or even 60s movies but the tone and mood of them is so good that they're worth watching every October. I also like the acting of thag era because everyone hams it up. All the 70s movies I like still feel like a chore. But I do have something wrong with me when it comes to patience.

>>10053453
Sadly I can't even watch Vertigo or any Hirchcock film because of my problem with patience. I like most 3-4 star movies from the late 70s on though.

>>10053453
>I do have something wrong with me when it comes to patience.
Okay, That explains it. No harm meant, just enjoy the movies you enjoy but just don't shit on ones that are beloved based on a measure that is tertiary to their intent. Not every movie is trying to be paced quickly.

>>10053465
I just like argueing. When someone is as eliquent as I am I am happy to admit my shortcomings. I just like a verbal challenge. Cheers, man.

>>10053476
In fact I'm going to bookmark your recs for days where I am in the mood for slower movies

>>10052905
w2c boots pls