Well, they were trying to stay loyal to the comic, but I can understand that. But I definitely about other movies copying, its cheap and annoying. Oh, and spy kids was actually good.
We only LOOK Thin For anyone that needs inspiration to start eating better as part of a path to a more healthy lifestyle. They’ve helped keep me on track after having lost 80 lbs. www.weonlylookthin.com
Quick Question with Daniel and Soren Two ex-Cracked.com writers shoot the breeze on random questions. www.youtube.com/ (There’s an audio version out there too)
How Did This Get Made Three mostly comedic actors rip apart famously bad movies. Funnier than it has any right to be. Paul also has another podcast called Unspooled where they break down critically acclaimed movies as well. Both are great listens. hdtgm.com/index/#podcast
Tech news and analysis, but they cover many different things.
Freakonomics Radio
Freakonomics things. Really well done.
99% invisible
The hidden side of everything. Gosh darn if it the title may seem boring but he covers it extremely well and I’ve never regretted listening to an episode.
Everyone has different DNA and nobody refutes that, but the lines at which race are defined are completly arbitrary. Are you considered black if you have 50% sub Saharan African DNA? Most would say yes. Are you black at 25%? How about at 5 or 10%? The slew of different answers is a clue that race is just a social construct borne of perception rather than hard fact.
Similarly, a lot of groups that are considered “white” today would not have been in the slightest if you were to go back 100+ years. The Irish, Italians, Greeks, among others were not considered white until more recently than you might believe.
Thats the crux of it, race is only truly defined by these arbitrary lines in the sand that people draw, and these lines are different for different groups and individuals. Race is only real because people perceive it to be. We could divide up society based on hair color or if your ear lobes hang or are directly connected to your head and it would make just as much sense, which is to say not much.
Edit: I might add that there’s more genetic diversity in sub Saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world but they all get lumped together as black because “skin dark”. It’s stupid when you examine it.
I’ve heard it said that the average Englishman and the average Indian are more genetically similar than two random Englishmen, too.
In other words, if that’s true, there are some general trends in genetic differences between “races”, those trends are, overall, far smaller and less significant than the random differences that pop up by chance within a single race.
My go-to examples are Melanesians and Indigenous Australians. They sometimes have darker skin than people we in the West call black, and if we saw one of them walking down the street in a Western country, we would think they were black. But they are quite genetically distant from Sub-Saharan Africans. They just also have very dark skin pigmentation.
So are they both the same race? If not, what are we calling race here? Because I’ve only ever heard it described in terms of skin color.
I could be wrong, but I believe that I’ve heard there’s more genetic diversity in sub-saharan Africa than pretty much anywhere else. Which kinda makes sense when you think about how that’s where Homo sapiens first evolved.
Ah, so it’s the race, like what you would put on a government form that they’re disputing, not the fact that we all have ethnicities which make up our person. I guess that makes sense, although it seems like splitting hairs to me. Nationality and ethnicity are already two different concepts. I suppose “race” in this context would be like you said, saying someone is “white” as opposed to saying they’re of English ethnicity. Is that right?
CRT focuses on how this arbitrary idea of race shapes how people are treated, especially on a societal scale. We divide people by wealth, by where they’re born, what gender they are, etc. All of these things affect how people are treated. I find most of the pushback is because some white people feel attacked when someone points to the fact that whiteness is a status.
I’ve seen push back by people of various backgrounds, not just “white” people, which we shouldn’t actually say, since it’s a construct in direct contradiction with the assertions of CRT. Right? To be clear, my post isn’t meant to be a criticism of the CRT statement. I asked so that I could more clearly understand, which I do now, thanks to you and some other people here. Thank you.
One of my favorite fourth wall breaks is in Trailer Park Boys when Bubbles randomly ends up on Jimmy Kimmel and then Snoop and Tom Arnold show up, and Tom Arnold’s a fan of the show and his mind is blown that he’s actually there.
Maybe a better way to put it is that of all the 4th wall breaks I’ve seen, it sucks the least. I generally hate 4th wall breaks, but this one was kinda fun.
The season did suck though, and definitely as a result of that exact thing. No disagreement there.
One of my favourites is the episode of Supernatural where they cross some barrier and end up in “our world” where they’re just actors on a tv show, magic isn’t real, and Castiel is actually a needy beta who keeps wanting to hang out.
They knew that, by that stage of the show it was just shlock so they leaned into it.
Most books, including the ten book series, are by Steven Erickson. There are several other books by Ian C. Esselmont. Read them in publication order regardless of author.
Nobody actually enjoys watching Citizen Kane. It’s the Wuthering Heights of the movie world: you get to feel pretentious and cultured for having checked it off your bucket list, but the actual experience was a total slog and you’re probably never going to re-watch/read it ever again.
Truth. Mostly its the first movie shown to media students because there is simple concepts and camera tricks there, and its always best to start with the basics.
I'm going to watch it twice now just to be that much better than most. Also I can say things like, "I personally enjoyed my second viewing much more than my first."
This is probably true of Citizen Kane. However, this isn't true of all the arty farty, black and white, older, or foreign stuff.
Some of those aren't just 'good for their time', highly rated because they were/are innovative/interesting, or because people want to be pretentious. They're still fucking good.
Eg. I watched Tokyo Story (1953) when I was in my early twenties. Tops critics lists. Seems like it's just another pretentious movie. Black and white, boring, pondorous, gave up on it. Watched it a few years later when I had a bit more life experience. Hit me like a truck. Openly wept in the movie theatre.
Sometimes if you push through, you will be rewarded.
I completely understand why people who watch Citizen Kane would find it boring. Compared to movies made in this day and age it is very boring. However, this movie was made in 1941 and was groundbreaking in many ways.
The cinematographer Greg Toland was a master who could have worked on any film he wanted. He chose to work with 25 year old first time director Orson Welles. He was tired of the Hollywood movie studio BS and saw that this kid wanted to do something revolutionary. Over 50% of the movie contains special effects most of which had never been done before. If you watch this movie next to any other movie of that era it is amazing how much different the style, camera angles, shots, etc are comparatively.
All of the American movies at the time (and this pretty much holds true even today) had someone who started with nothing and became successful or won against all odds etc. Citizen Kane flips this and takes one of the richest men in the world who starts out as the hero and turns him into the villain who ends up sad, bitter and alone. Again this is much different than other films of this era. I would argue that it is still much different to the vast majority of films today.
Charles Foster Kane is clearly supposed to be William Randolph Hearst who was the media mogul of the time. They made a movie about one of the most powerful people of that era and make him look like a sad douchey a–hole. The writer Mankiiewicz was someone who regularly attended the parties at Hearst Castle and many details in the movie are spot on about Hearst’s real life. Rosebud (Kane’s final word and the plot device for the film) is supposedly Hearst’s nickname for his wife’s private area. Hearst did everything he could to stop this movie from playing in the theaters and was pretty successful in ensuring it lost money at the box office. It wasn’t until about 10 years later when people in Europe started watching and appreciating the film that they decide to re-release it in the US. By this time Hearst was dead and there is no campaign against the movie. This is when it really gets wide recognition as a great film.
So basically a 25 year old upstart took on the most powerful media mogul of the day with a movie that had groundbreaking special effects, style, and story line. I can’t think of any film to this day that can compare to these accomplishments. Many of the worlds greatest film makers were inspired by this movie. It is for all these reasons why it is looked at as one of the best movies ever made and shown to all film students.
This is true for most “important films”. They were the first to do something well enough that the entire industry latched onto it, but their stories and presentation don’t stand well against the test of time. 2001 and Casablanca also fall into this.
I did not like Donnie Darko until I rewatched the movie with the directors commentary. It felt like reading the Clif Notes after struggling to understand an obtuse old book in English class. I don’t think it’s a good thing per se that the movie’s plot struggles to stand on its own, but my appreciation for what was attempted really went up a lot after getting the supplemental material.
Tbh the actual cast and direction of the The Hobbit movies wasn’t that bad, but intentionally drawing out a single book that could’ve been done in 3-4 hours into 3 whole movies in a vain attempt at recapturing the LoTR trilogy’s fame is what made it weaker.
Rings of Power, however, throws out a lot of the stuff that happened in The Second Age and straight-up ignores Tolkien’s works at times. Granted, Amazon didn’t have legal rights to the Silmarillion and the LoTR appendices, but it’s still a shame we basically got a gutted version of what could have been a great show. Galadriel was also pretty boring as your generic “Marvel strong stoic action woman” kind of character.
What’s mad is they could have done a millennium long epic of Sauron’s domination Númenor. Could have made the whole thing as long or as short as they want and build from there.
They could have had political intrigue. conspiracies, betrayal, double-crossing and all sorts.
Who's claiming The Fifth Element is deep? The style and design are excellent, but it's a bog standard action flick until Chris Tucker shows up and steals the movie
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.