Movie with 3 popular directors

What's the name of that movie that's made up of three segments directed by Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Woody Allen?

New York Stories (1989)

New York Stories?

Not that we mind helping, but it would have been much faster to Google that.

Just sayin'.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Remember those fun discussions you had down the pub where no one quite new whether they were right or wrong? Then some idiot would get his phone out, look up the answer, and ruin all discussion. They were fun times before that idiot arrived.

Maybe it's just me, but the prospect of a number of people devoting conversational time and energy to debating whether or not a genuinely objective fact is true or not sounds like it could be put to better use. By looking that fact up, that "idiot" allowed the group to move on to a much more fruitful topic of conversation instead of wasting time arguing about how many days are in a week or whatever.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

haha, I love it. It is called downtime. I doubt such vitriol would be aimed towards an old woman watching a soap, or a young man playing football against jumper posts. Funny how we pick and choose our targets?

Those are bad examples that don't support your argument. Your examples both involve one person engaging in a purely recreational activity by themselves, as opposed to the hypothetical pub chat that involves multiple people wasting their collective time on something that can be determined with a single Google search.

You never watched a soap communally, never discussed plot points or character motivation? Or played football as a team? It is a team game?

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.

Now you're just shifting the goalposts. Discussing plot points or character motivation would count as a subjective exchange of ideas and cannot be accurately compared to arguing over an objective fact that could be easily Googled on a phone. I'm not entirely sure what playing a game of football with teams has to do with anything.

Well no. It was about the ability of technology to accelerate a conversation and whether this was preferable. It still is. You are the one shifting goalposts, mine are right here, but you have scored no goals.

Look, if you think that technology assists you in clarifying your obscure point, then you need a medal, because it does not. Perhaps you can find some better technology and come back?

How exactly am I the one shifting the goalposts? You were originally arguing that people using their phones to solve questions instead of having lengthy discussions about objective facts were "idiotic" for doing so. I countered by saying that those discussions, entertaining though they may be, are fundamentally pointless and that solving the problem with a phone would open up other avenues of communication. You challenged me by bringing up examples of similar situations, which I responded to by pointing out how they did nothing to support your argument. Rather than come up with better examples, you doubled down on your existing examples without providing an apparent argument (especially since the reference to team games was vague enough for me to ask for clarification, which you have not provided). That is how you are shifting the goalposts - rather than provide a solid and coherent counter-argument, you keep resorting to strawmen and other logical fallacies.

This is not only condescending, but confusing. What does a medal have to do with anything?