slothian

Technically, I think the proper word is "hatred", but I will answer your question as best I can from my own POV. Phil Collins is, musically, before my time. Genesis and his solo career saw him at his peak between 1975 and the end of 80s so his key demographic would be people born between 1955-1970, and people who appreciate classic rock/pop. And when I say "rock", I have to use quotation marks because it is on the softest end of the scale (down there with Cliff Richard, the Phil Collins of the 50s/60s). So he has an instant square aged musician aspect automatically in-built for late Gen X-ers/Millennials. Now, it is unfair to say that the man is not a good drummer nor that he has had good songs - In The Air Tonight and Against All Odds are fucking classics. The Tarzan soundtrack do not have such good songs, and whilst it has been an AGE since I've watched Tarzan, I think it's fair to make the comparison of Elton John scoring The Lion King and composing actual classics compared to Collins' work on Tarzan, Oscar notwithstanding. Yes, there's butthurt South Park fans re: the movie missing out on the award, and it was spoofed on the show, but that was hardly the beginning of the backlash. If you look at his wikipedia page, he's not well-liked by the musician community at large, in part because he was everywhere at his pomp (he was at both Live Aid gigs either side of the Atlantic due to Concorde) - as well as being a Tory voter and tax exile, who purportedly faxed divorce papers to one of his 3 ex-wives. Again, all that's before my time, but he was also fooled on the 2001 Brass Eye special to endorse a spoof anti-paedophile charity called "Nonce-sense", and took legal advice as to pulling the programme when he realised he'd been duped. (In fairness, my hometown hero Gary Lineker was similarly duped on that same show, but didn't react the same way). So that's my take.

Hook is less offensive, even with Phil Collins acting in it.

She isn't even on the longlist at present!

I forget who it was at the time, but one podcaster I was following at the time shat all over Sucker Punch when it came out (which was pretty much the majority opinion). I haven't seen it myself.

I will say that I appreciate @Donomark confirming that my breakdown was even-handed, given what I had to break down, and it would be all so easy for me to go "ah, he's a Python - give him a break!" which would not be conducive to an actual discussion as to Gilliam's views. All too often, discourse gets drowned out with "Person A said ___ which must mean that they believe ____". Usually there's a lot more nuance to the argument, which naturally gets lost on platforms like Twitter. Naturally, I don't think Christian listed those examples in bad faith or to state that they are reasons to "cancel" Gilliam - I know Christian well enough through podcasting to know that, and he added that caveat at the end of his post that it was a heads up of what was out there. And there's no way you can discuss Disney's Peter Pan WITHOUT bringing race into it, because hot damn....

All topics that are probably more for Donovan's QWDHA cast, but none of those would scream "Nope, definitely not!" if Gibson is the bar for HAA. In brief: There's a weird amount of celebrities who have either been fine with working with Polanski since 1977, or even vocal supporters of him. I don't agree with them, but it's hardly just the wrong'uns of Weinstein and Allen. Of course.... ....characterising #MeToo as a witch hunt is obviously less than ideal. The context of the interview is him being tired of being blamed for things as an elderly white straight man - to which the response "OK Boomer" exists, and which I also apply to John Cleese (even though the Pythons are technically the generation before). Dunno about the Ellen Barkin comment. Not reading too much into the MCU/Black Panther comments. Again, it isn't a film with him as a target audience member, as a film-maker he's irritated by the success of blockbusters, and he's espoused less-than-researched comments about a film he doesn't like. I'm not sure the comments were set out to be espousing racist views. I'm aware of the Chappelle special without having seen it, and therefore don't feel able to comment on it without the context of whatever comments he made. Unless it's a call to arms against the trans community, then elderly comedian endorses a comedy special isn't significantly newsworthy. And I don't want the above to come across as a blithe dismissal of any criticisim that can be levelled against Gilliam. That Christian is able to compile such a list shows that Gilliam is no Michael Palin (then again, who is?) but the fact I was completely unaware of them means that the controversy attached to him is relatively low-level, even though if proven, said controversy would amount to rape-apologism, anti-feminism, potential sexual assault (unproven), cultural xenophobia/racism and being opposed to trans rights. Which, when typed out, is pretty bad. At the same time, he doesn't have any actual scandals to his name and does a lot for charity (says Wikipedia). So, he's not blacklisted from the Flickchart Forum, to answer your question.

Yes - insofar as I don't consider Gilliam to be problematic/unlikable unless I'm forgetting something major.

Re: masculinity, each Bond reflected their era. There was stuff Craig's Bond could not have done in the 60s in the same way Connery's Bond would have been wholly out of place in the 21st century. There's always a familiar formula/set of tropes and it would be hard to call any of them feminist (misogynist would be better viewed from someone who isn't a straight white British man such as myself). But I imagine if there was a casting description of the character, then "masculine" would be in the word cloud.

Trainspotting

He's on holiday, in fairness.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Space Jam Haven't seen OE

No-one else could have pulled off the hotel manager role in Dunston Checks In quite the way Jason Alexander did. And I say that only quasi tongue-in-cheek.

RIP. I know dick all about Star Trek apart from having listened to this podcast, but no-one's telling me Nicholls isn't one of the most important women in sci-fic, be it women of colour or women period.

Speaking as a faux-lawyer, my answer is: yes.

Haven't seen either package film. The Dark Knight vs The Shining

My great aunt's favourite Bernard Cribbins contribution to culture. For my international friends, I should warn you that it's a *tad* British, to the point of being mildly incomprehensible....

RIP Monty - thanks for that cracker of a theme!

Is she prominent in that? I'm thinking that's the more likely stumbling block.

Without having watched Thor 4 yet, and glossing over any potential spoilers, I feel both smug and vindicated*! Now go back and watch Ragnarok, and tell me if it is reappraised in your minds.... *I should add this isn't based off of Donovan's post alone but other posts I have seen on places like The Oratory. No-one's calling Love And Thunder an out & out success.

Duly noted, although it won't be this year.

Yes, you can help influence not only the film Pandy & I use as the joint review, but the homework we assign each other to plot the range of their career. As announced in Episode 90, our subject will be Natalie Portman. Pandy & I will take an executive decision on what makes the joint review by 22 July 2022 so get your ideas in before then! NB) We will not be covering V for Vendetta or her MCU appearances.

Late to this, but when I was at Pandy's house the other weekend, we put Episode 3 on and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. The lack of laugh-track and improved cinematography really stands it apart from the original seasons.

Hopefully not until the actual lyric was reached!

Due to popular demand, please respond to the poll!