I flatly refuse to watch anything with Will Ferrell. He's either not funny at all or downright offensive with his lame shtick. I pretty much put him in the same group as Adam Sandler.
Celebrity Jeopardy disagrees.
While funny, those SNL bits are fifty seven years old
Shakespeare is hundreds of years old and still entertaining so I don't know what this means.
One of the problems I had with the movie was that it felt like more of a vehicle for jokes and the narrative flow was super disjointed.
Scenes like Murray's character dying was just weird and cut have been cut entirely. He worked as a cute cameo on the news program but it was weird to have him come back to have no greatest purpose but to die.
Note that this would have been forgiven if he had come back later during the climax as a ghost all pissed off at them.
I dunno, it plays into the subplot Erin wants people to believe in ghosts.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
I dunno, it plays into the subplot Erin wants people to believe in ghosts.
The problem is it doesn't actually pay into the character arc, IMO.
Like, the dude dies, it gets swept under the rug by the government, but then the government replaces Murray as the obstacle to their validation. If you cut Murray out of the film, you still have the same character progression.
0
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Will Ferrell is the same way and he's one of the most beloved comedic actors around right now.
Stranger than Fiction is one of my favorite movies, and Will Farrell actually acts, and it makes it hard to watch his other stuff because I know how good he can be. (there are a few other dramatic movies he's in as well, and they are great as well).
Stranger Than Fiction is definitely a great flick, I always watch it when I see it on TV. I loved Old School as a kid when it came out. I loved Talladega Nights but its already not aged well.
Honestly, I usually enjoy Will. I tend to just avoid some of his movies though (Anchorman 2, Zoolander 2 but that's more because I didn't want to pay movie theater price to see it)
Not an original thought, and I'm gonna politicize a bit here, but I enjoy Stranger than Fiction less and less the more I consider its implications in terms of the stereotype of the successful woman, and particularly the successful woman writer. It's another example of how male writers, fictional or real, are lionized for their quirks, however deranged (looking at you, Bukowski) and the female writer is consistently enfeebled by her career choice. Like... the more I watch it the more upsetting it becomes that she is supposedly accomplished and acknowledged in her field and is "living the life of an eccentric, ill-kempt, chain-smoking hermit," to quote the writer whose article brought this to my attention initially. Real-life hot mess male authors get characterized as charmingly roguish, while women are routinely - even when their writing is lauded and lives long past their deaths - written off as emotional disasters to pity.
...
Woof, guess I have some opinions about that!
I hella loved the new Ghostbusters though. I'm toying with the idea of going as Holtzmann for Halloween.
I never thought about that, and I can definitely see it. I always thought it just a bit of comic relief. I mean, the person they get to keep her on track and get her across the finish line is also a woman. But I guess all that says is "it could've been worse, they could've sent a man to make her focus" or something awful like that. Also, I thought they did a great job with Maggie Gyllenhaal's character, as well. How many movies do you see a woman as both an entrepreneur and charitable person and sorta anti-authoritative figure (even if it's just for her own self) where she doesn't just get made into the most horrible witch possible. I guess I feel they get more right than they do wrong, but I'm not speaking from a position to be making those sorts of judgments.
Lost Salientblink twiceif you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered Userregular
Hmm I know what you're saying about her character, but to counter: Ana's personality may be vaguely anti-authoritarian, but essentially her role is one considered within the acceptable range of employments for women. She's a baker. And her method of rebelling happily doubles as something fitting the female stereotype of having 'no head for business.' In a lot of ways she's cute and charming and a fun character, and I like her! But I don't feel that she ultimately provides much other than an impetus for Harold to change. I'm not saying that she necessarily has to be or do more than that (she is a secondary character, after all), but I don't think she's a great representative of well-rounded female characters or a good depiction of women in media.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
0
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Amusingly enough, almost all the laughs in the theater came for Kevin and stuff from the trailers. The joke regarding Ed Begley's character also hit.
See that's why trailers are a no-win pox upon cinema. Either they're good and ruin what should be great moments in the movie, or they're terrible and fail to sell the movie.
It's very rare that someone makes a trailer that positively sells the movie without diminishing the movie itself, or better yet, a trailer that actually enhances the movie.
I think the Godzilla 2014 trailer was pretty great.
I dunno, it plays into the subplot Erin wants people to believe in ghosts.
The problem is it doesn't actually pay into the character arc, IMO.
Like, the dude dies, it gets swept under the rug by the government, but then the government replaces Murray as the obstacle to their validation. If you cut Murray out of the film, you still have the same character progression.
Well, it was always going to be written that way since you never know if Bill Murray is going to show up or not.
Even his 'death' is not shown, with the chalk line removed from the film to keep the possibility open he survived for the sequel
But for a throwaway scene, it did manage to play in a theme and remind us Erin has a past where she is bullied by non believers.
Wanna try my Mario Maker levels?
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09 P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359 Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I know it doesn't erase the optics but worth noting that Patty was originally supposed to be played by one of the other Lady's with Lesie playing one of the scientists. From what I've heard the change was her decision.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Amusingly enough, almost all the laughs in the theater came for Kevin and stuff from the trailers. The joke regarding Ed Begley's character also hit.
See that's why trailers are a no-win pox upon cinema. Either they're good and ruin what should be great moments in the movie, or they're terrible and fail to sell the movie.
It's very rare that someone makes a trailer that positively sells the movie without diminishing the movie itself, or better yet, a trailer that actually enhances the movie.
I think the Godzilla 2014 trailer was pretty great.
the one with the Oppenheimer voice-over? it's one of my favorite trailers.
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I thought Patty's explanation of the historical sites and their hauntings was pretty important for the plot myself. Plus she's the one who identified Rowan and suggested the way to reverse the portal. She was very integral to the plot, at least as much as the other main characters.
Then again, I've heard people making arguments as to why a Winston's iconic "maybe the reason we've been so busy lately is that the dead have been rising from the grave!" line should have been said by Janine and Winston's part cut entirely. I disagree strongly with that as well, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I thought everyone's original skills but Holtzmann's went unused throughout the whole film.
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I know it doesn't erase the optics but worth noting that Patty was originally supposed to be played by one of the other Lady's with Lesie playing one of the scientists. From what I've heard the change was her decision.
That is good in that those optics weren't intentional and it means there's a chance they do something in the sequel to try and make it better.
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I thought everyone's original skills but Holtzmann's went unused throughout the whole movie
Now that you point it out
Erin and Abby basically never use their scientific skills for anything really?
I enjoyed this movie, but I'm becoming more unsatisfied with Leslie Jones' role the more I think about it
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
I thought everyone's original skills but Holtzmann's went unused throughout the whole movie
Now that you point it out
Erin and Abby basically never use their scientific skills for anything really?
I guess it's assumed their studies were instrumental in what Holtzman was doing. A lot of what they did concerned the interaction of particle physics on ectoplasmic entities.
I flatly refuse to watch anything with Will Ferrell. He's either not funny at all or downright offensive with his lame shtick. I pretty much put him in the same group as Adam Sandler.
Celebrity Jeopardy disagrees.
While funny, those SNL bits are fifty seven years old
Shakespeare is hundreds of years old and still entertaining so I don't know what this means.
I flatly refuse to watch anything with Will Ferrell. He's either not funny at all or downright offensive with his lame shtick. I pretty much put him in the same group as Adam Sandler.
Celebrity Jeopardy disagrees.
While funny, those SNL bits are fifty seven years old
Shakespeare is hundreds of years old and still entertaining so I don't know what this means.
Shakespeare is boring.
Oh, my goodness, no, not at all.
He meant "boning". "Shakespeare is boning". Because of all the sexual content, you see.
I flatly refuse to watch anything with Will Ferrell. He's either not funny at all or downright offensive with his lame shtick. I pretty much put him in the same group as Adam Sandler.
Celebrity Jeopardy disagrees.
While funny, those SNL bits are fifty seven years old
Shakespeare is hundreds of years old and still entertaining so I don't know what this means.
Shakespeare is boring.
Oh, my goodness, no, not at all.
He meant "boning". "Shakespeare is boning". Because of all the sexual content, you see.
that's the sequel to "Shakespeare in Love", right?
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
Shakespeare is very relatable and that why it has remained relevant and enjoyable for 500 years.
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
Shakespeare is very relatable and that why it has remained relevant and enjoyable for 500 years.
Yes, relevant and enjoyable to a very small amount of people. The reason the plays keep getting done isn't quality of prose, it's because they put asses in seats and there's no fee to do them.
It puts asses in seats because the "small amount of people" thing is straight up incorrect.
+4
Options
Lost Salientblink twiceif you'd like me to mercy kill youRegistered Userregular
Wow I... I don't think that's true at all.
First of all are you actually saying Shakespeare lacks quality of prose?
Second of all, if you strip away the prose, there's a reason that modernized-language versions of the stories Shakespeare told keep cropping up in adaptations, and it's not that they're free content - it's because they share common human themes of love, loss, aging, jealousy, etc.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
Shakespeare is very relatable and that why it has remained relevant and enjoyable for 500 years.
Yes, relevant and enjoyable to a very small amount of people. The reason the plays keep getting done isn't quality of prose, it's because they put asses in seats and there's no fee to do them.
You realize that your first sentence contradicts your second quite spectacularly here, yeah? If the amount was very small there wouldn't be enough asses in the seat to keep people wanting to do them.
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
Shakespeare is very relatable and that why it has remained relevant and enjoyable for 500 years.
Yes, relevant and enjoyable to a very small amount of people. The reason the plays keep getting done isn't quality of prose, it's because they put asses in seats and there's no fee to do them.
You realize that your first sentence contradicts your second quite spectacularly here, yeah? If the amount was very small there wouldn't be enough asses in the seat to keep people wanting to do them.
No, I meant boring. It's tired as hell and swiftly becoming way too unapproachable. Modern stuff does just what Shakespeare did and better to boot because it's relatable.
Look, you can rework the language and it's still Shakespeare, and so many modern stories are just reworkings of Shakespeare stories. Good stories literally don't go bad with age, which is why we're still retelling some of the most ancient remembered stories. I threw Shakespeare out as an example, but Homer's Odyssey would be a great example as well, of a story which has not really aged in literal Millennia. The Bible, while cliche, is another example of a (collection of) stor(ies) that remains relevant and effective after long time.
The idea that comedy being super old makes it bad is ridiculous. It can if it's topical humor, and I'll grant that some of the celebrity impersonation stuff gets less effective with age, but a lot of those impressions are intentionally shitty and the actual humor of them has nothing to do with who they're parodying. The best jokes are about how phenomenally stupid the contestants are and how frustrated and insane they drive Trebek and those jokes haven't aged a lick.
It puts asses in seats because the "small amount of people" thing is straight up incorrect.
It may be but not in my experience. We never had full houses nor have I seen a full house except for the big theaters around here. It's just that more of the ticket sales are profit.
And whenever we asked people how they liked it, 7 times out of 10 the answer was always some variation on "I couldn't understand a thing you said but you were all really good". People don't go to see Shakespeare because it's good.
First of all are you actually saying Shakespeare lacks quality of prose?
Second of all, if you strip away the prose, there's a reason that modernized-language versions of the stories Shakespeare told keep cropping up in adaptations, and it's not that they're free content - it's because they share common human themes of love, loss, aging, jealousy, etc.
Nope. The language is beautiful.
I'm not talking about the modernized version; and almost every movie or story out there shares common human themes, Shakespeare didn't invent or perfect those.
Anyone is free to adore Shakepseare as much as they want but it's not the pemultimate result of theatrical art.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Posts
i teach four shakespeare plays every year
they only get better
Note that this would have been forgiven if he had come back later during the climax as a ghost all pissed off at them.
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
The problem is it doesn't actually pay into the character arc, IMO.
I never thought about that, and I can definitely see it. I always thought it just a bit of comic relief. I mean, the person they get to keep her on track and get her across the finish line is also a woman. But I guess all that says is "it could've been worse, they could've sent a man to make her focus" or something awful like that. Also, I thought they did a great job with Maggie Gyllenhaal's character, as well. How many movies do you see a woman as both an entrepreneur and charitable person and sorta anti-authoritative figure (even if it's just for her own self) where she doesn't just get made into the most horrible witch possible. I guess I feel they get more right than they do wrong, but I'm not speaking from a position to be making those sorts of judgments.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
I think the Godzilla 2014 trailer was pretty great.
give me more trailers
Well, it was always going to be written that way since you never know if Bill Murray is going to show up or not.
Shoot m to BITS (hold Y) [hard] C109-0000-014D-4E09
P-POWER Switch Palace 3838-0000-0122-9359
Raiding the Serpents Tomb 1A04-0000-0098-C11E
I like to move it, move it FCE2-0000-00D7-9048
See my profile here!
She did a great job! But Patty was othered in a few ways that are REALLY hard to ignore. Plus her role as a city historian felt mostly extraneous to the plot... unlike the scientific skills of the other characters.
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I know it doesn't erase the optics but worth noting that Patty was originally supposed to be played by one of the other Lady's with Lesie playing one of the scientists. From what I've heard the change was her decision.
the one with the Oppenheimer voice-over? it's one of my favorite trailers.
I thought Patty's explanation of the historical sites and their hauntings was pretty important for the plot myself. Plus she's the one who identified Rowan and suggested the way to reverse the portal. She was very integral to the plot, at least as much as the other main characters.
Then again, I've heard people making arguments as to why a Winston's iconic "maybe the reason we've been so busy lately is that the dead have been rising from the grave!" line should have been said by Janine and Winston's part cut entirely. I disagree strongly with that as well, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion.
I thought everyone's original skills but Holtzmann's went unused throughout the whole film.
That is good in that those optics weren't intentional and it means there's a chance they do something in the sequel to try and make it better.
Now that you point it out
Erin and Abby basically never use their scientific skills for anything really?
I guess it's assumed their studies were instrumental in what Holtzman was doing. A lot of what they did concerned the interaction of particle physics on ectoplasmic entities.
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/ghostbusters-paul-feig-shares-13-secrets/
I thought Melissa McArthy said that.
He meant "boning". "Shakespeare is boning". Because of all the sexual content, you see.
that's the sequel to "Shakespeare in Love", right?
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Shakespeare is very relatable and that why it has remained relevant and enjoyable for 500 years.
What about Romeo + Juliet?
Yes, relevant and enjoyable to a very small amount of people. The reason the plays keep getting done isn't quality of prose, it's because they put asses in seats and there's no fee to do them.
First of all are you actually saying Shakespeare lacks quality of prose?
Second of all, if you strip away the prose, there's a reason that modernized-language versions of the stories Shakespeare told keep cropping up in adaptations, and it's not that they're free content - it's because they share common human themes of love, loss, aging, jealousy, etc.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
You realize that your first sentence contradicts your second quite spectacularly here, yeah? If the amount was very small there wouldn't be enough asses in the seat to keep people wanting to do them.
EDIT: Verily, thou hast ghosted me.
Get ye ghosted, wastrel!
Look, you can rework the language and it's still Shakespeare, and so many modern stories are just reworkings of Shakespeare stories. Good stories literally don't go bad with age, which is why we're still retelling some of the most ancient remembered stories. I threw Shakespeare out as an example, but Homer's Odyssey would be a great example as well, of a story which has not really aged in literal Millennia. The Bible, while cliche, is another example of a (collection of) stor(ies) that remains relevant and effective after long time.
The idea that comedy being super old makes it bad is ridiculous. It can if it's topical humor, and I'll grant that some of the celebrity impersonation stuff gets less effective with age, but a lot of those impressions are intentionally shitty and the actual humor of them has nothing to do with who they're parodying. The best jokes are about how phenomenally stupid the contestants are and how frustrated and insane they drive Trebek and those jokes haven't aged a lick.
It may be but not in my experience. We never had full houses nor have I seen a full house except for the big theaters around here. It's just that more of the ticket sales are profit.
And whenever we asked people how they liked it, 7 times out of 10 the answer was always some variation on "I couldn't understand a thing you said but you were all really good". People don't go to see Shakespeare because it's good.
Try harder then.
Shakespeare shows are guaranteed to get an audience with a larger profit percentage because there's no rights to pay for. Just not a big one.
I feel like this would be easier if you weren't just wrong.
Have you considering being less wrong?
Nope. The language is beautiful.
I'm not talking about the modernized version; and almost every movie or story out there shares common human themes, Shakespeare didn't invent or perfect those.
Anyone is free to adore Shakepseare as much as they want but it's not the pemultimate result of theatrical art.
what does this mean
We're saying that the stories told by Shakespeare, contrary to your stated opinion, are:
A. Relatable
B. Relevant
C. Enjoyable to the masses
D. Not boring
E. Not tired.
"Sandra has a good solid anti-murderer vibe. My skin felt very secure and sufficiently attached to my body when I met her. Also my organs." HAIL SATAN