slothian
-
Posts
5,891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by slothian
-
-
5 minutes ago, You Know Who said:
Incidentally, I'd love for someone to explain to me the hatedom of Phil Collins -- and by extension Tarzan -- before I get to that film on POYW. I'm ambivalent about him at the moment, but is the hate mainly the product of bitter South Park fans or is there more to it than that (like dating back to his band and solo career in the 80s and 90s)?
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.
-
9 hours ago, You Know Who said:
Peter Pan (1953) vs Hook
Hook is less offensive, even with Phil Collins acting in it.
-
2 hours ago, Donomark said:
Suggested pick for the day HAA! does a Jenna Malone month.
She isn't even on the longlist at present!
-
10 hours ago, Donomark said:
300 and Sucker Punch: Directed by Zack Snyder
Re-watched 300 and watched Sucker Punch for the first time for this week's episode of Questions: We Don't Have Answers. We get way into them for about an hour each, but I've got no compunction saying that Sucker Punch was stunningly bad, and the worst movie I've seen all year. Holy crap, gotdamn.
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....
-
12 hours ago, You Know Who said:
He's not Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Mel Gibson, or Kevin Spacey, but he's problematic for at least the following reasons:
-Along with Weinstein, Allen, and others, he signed a petition in 2009 demanding the release of Roman Polanski after his arrest in Zurich that year.
-He called the #MeToo movement a witch hunt and Ellen Barkin accused him of doing something to her in an elevator.
-He blasted Black Panther not just for reasons similar to Coppola and Scorsese, but also for some pretty racist-sounding comments about Africa.
-He publicly endorsed Dave Chappelle's recent Netflix special.
I'd still love to join you for or even just listen to a Gilliam-themed episode, but I thought you should know beforehand.
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.
-
20 hours ago, You Know Who said:
Would Terry Gilliam's filmography (not including Holy Grail) be eligible or is he too problematic/unlikable?
Yes - insofar as I don't consider Gilliam to be problematic/unlikable unless I'm forgetting something major.
-
5 hours ago, Davedevil said:
I'm not the most knowledgeable of Bond, but as far as I know the Roger Moore films went into a sillier direction, like him going to space, and this was their attempt to bring it back to a grittier tone. A man being blown up, getting his blood on Bond, who then lands on a woman's boat and proceeds to have sex with her feels like it's setting a tone. I could be wrong though.
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
-
15 hours ago, You Know Who said:
Since Pandy didn’t bite, I will: Pauly Shore-ly not.
He's on holiday, in fairness.
-
On 8/17/2022 at 10:26 PM, Dread said:
Bio-Dome: it was Stacy's turn to pick for movie night and because she couldn't find Encino Man she chose this. So, needless to say, the engagement is over.
- Features: 71
- Shorts: 7
- Documentaries: 9
- Rewatches: 1
I'm sorry for your loss.
-
Space Jam
Haven't seen OE
-
1 hour ago, dc20willsave said:
Honestly, Jason and Julia are the best actors of the bunch. It's why Julia got as much work as she did post-Seinfeld. Jason has kept working since. Just true professionals!
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.
-
On 6/29/2022 at 5:05 PM, You Know Who said:
I’ll not throwing my hat either in just yet, but if neither Donovan, Mike, nor someone else isn’t chomping at the bit to be the third host, then I’d happy to join you, Ian and Will, as long as it’s after the Spider-Man one (one rewatch at a time).
The X-Men were my gateway to the Marvel universe (via the 90s cartoon) and have been listening to a lot of CEREBRO episodes lately. While I have mixed feelings about the films as a whole, I am due for a rewatch with most of them and still haven’t seen three of them.
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.
-
On 6/1/2022 at 5:22 PM, Dread said:
Three episodes in to the new Kids In the Hall and it's some of their best work. Having all of their shit in my head since childhood and coming off binging five seasons of Key & Peele, I was virtually guaranteed to find the new KITH underwhelming. But no. It's fucking great. Episode 3 has "best single episode of a comedy show of all time" appeal.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Donomark said:
I was actually guessing the end song would be Stylo from Gorillaz, since Willis himself is in the music video. It took me a second to figure out why the Lonely Isle classic was picked.
Hopefully not until the actual lyric was reached!
Random wrestling thoughts
in Sports
Posted
Right, two sixty-something men, one of whom has Parkinsons.
It isn't a work, but it has highlighted a major weakness of Khan's authority. The blame has to rest mainly on Punk's shoulders, who reportedly always intended to launch into that diatribe ahead of time without any prompting, which is massively unprofessional, damaging and whatever other words you want to use. And weirdly, Punk/Page haven't always had a bad relationship - there's footage of them singing with the crowd or something in the weeks after Full Gear and swapping fun tweets earlier this year but April/May time something changed, and Punk decided to go into business for himself against him both onscreen and in that presser.
Kenny & the Bucks? It's very unclear what influence they have as EVPs since Khan took full creative control of storylines away from them over Christmas 2019. But Cody said post-AEW that he didn't like the role and preferred just being a wrestler. One thing I would say about the altercation is they brought the AEW Head of Legal before the confrontation, so clearly it was a bit more than simply spoiling for a fight, but it would have been better just not to have happened that night in the first place. Punk was injured, thus would only have had a cameo on the following Dynamite, but what's to say the altercation doesn't happen 3 days later? You'd hope cooller heads would prevail, but the atmosphere would have been toxic as fuck.
Weirdly, the AEW product has actually pivoted for the better because/in spite of the drama as the last 4 Dynamites have all been over 1m in viewers, which hasn't been the case since August last year. Death Triangle get to be Trios champions and the tournament to crown the next AEW champ has led to some outstanding matches. Props to Moxley for doing this when he was meant to be having time off.
Bottom line: AEW's roster being as deep as it is means it can withstand the immediate loss of CM Punk, Omega, the Young Bucks, and all the people they have out injured, but with the caveat of Moxley being on hand. BUT it's been a bitter learning experience for Khan which he will need to learn from in that AEW still isn't 4 years old yet.