The Random Thoughts Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:07 pm

Look, you little weiners, all of those old movies still exist! They ain't going anywhere. Damage has already been done. Chill out, things are changing whether you like them or not, no one is depraving you of shit
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:15 pm

It's like you think I'm going to go back and retroactively "fix" older films, which is, haha, probably what they are going to end up doing now that movie production is all but over. But even then it wouldn't mean that the original was lost. Dun dun dun THE INTERNET. I bet that "uncut" DVD copy of Breakfast at Tiffany's will fetch, I dunno, 20 bottlecaps in the post-apocalypse!
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:46 pm

I have absolutley zero concerns that all of these films are suddenly going to be 'disappeared' by the morality police. Accessibility is not a fear of mine. I just find the attitude that it's better to pretend these films don't exist, or that the only thing that can be talked about regarding them is that they should be thrown in a pit and yelled at. or that those who do get something else out of them are doing nothing but perpetuating and/or passively endorsing the bad behavior they might contain, to be profoundly shallow and pointless.
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 5116
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by MrCarmady » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:57 pm

Like, yeah, I would deprave Ben Kingsly of 100 roles if it meant seeing a menu of 100 new talents.
But that's not how it works, though, does it? Naturally we want new talent to emerge and for there to be diversity of both opportunity and outcome, but that doesn't mean that actors should only be playing characters of their own ethnicity, it's a non-sequitur. Address the systemic problems in the industry, don't drag idpol and fan service into it the way some people do.
As I mentioned a while ago in another thread, and I'd be keen to hear your take on this, Nameless, ScarJo was attacked for agreeing to play a trans man and now that film is just in limbo, probably won't get made. So who profits from that? Did a new trans talent suddenly emerge and get butts in seats? No, the execs just decided it wasn't worth it and that story isn't being told.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:20 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:03 pm
Like, yeah, I would deprave Ben Kingsly of 100 roles if it meant seeing a menu of 100 new talents.
Assuming that those 100 have the same degree of talent that Kingsley has, sure, but if the proposition is to elevate one's political identity over one's talent, then it's just another form of tokenism. Sorry, but I do subscribe to a certain meritocracy, in that I care about things like talent and dedication. Surely there are dozens of straight white actors and other performers who are only successful due to their entitlement as such (ie, in modern music you have Ed Sheeran, Shawn Mendes, Taylor Swift, bottomless etc.), that it seems strange to call out the De Niros and Pacinos as if they were nothing more than white faces. That's the factor that I take issue with. There are many minority actors who are incredibly talented and who deserve more roles than as representatives of their skin color or sexuality, and I long for the day when a Ken Watanabe can win a leading role over an Affleck or Damon. I want to see the best actors available, full stop, and to suggest that this meritocracy is bullshit is to suggest that minority talent can't compete without the intervention of suckhead executives doling favors for their pool party buddies. We need not only more meritocracy but real meritocracy.


The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:03 pm
I feel like you are too much a man of your times.
Weird. I was under the impression that I was still alive in these times.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:42 pm

MrCarmady wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:57 pm
But that's not how it works, though, does it? Naturally we want new talent to emerge and for there to be diversity of both opportunity and outcome, but that doesn't mean that actors should only be playing characters of their own ethnicity, it's a non-sequitur. Address the systemic problems in the industry, don't drag idpol and fan service into it the way some people do.
But... it doesn't simply just "work" the way you all want it to. Like, Simpsons should cast accordingly for the likes of Apu, Carl, and Dr. Hibbert... I think people are worth being bothered by that, and even more so with any particular sitcom's reliance on blackface. There is a lot of laziness or outright negligence when it comes to casting, surely the majority of us cannot even name the white guy responsible for voicing Dr. Hibbert but here we are, wondering what could be done better... next time. Simpsons isn't going anywhere
As I mentioned a while ago in another thread, and I'd be keen to hear your take on this, Nameless, ScarJo was attacked for agreeing to play a trans man and now that film is just in limbo, probably won't get made. So who profits from that? Did a new trans talent suddenly emerge and get butts in seats? No, the execs just decided it wasn't worth it and that story isn't being told.
Yeah, this project should've been handled more delicately. I blame the marketing more than anything, surely Hollywood can sell new actors and new stories, so this is a project doomed by it's inherent laziness. I mean, name one prominent trans actor. How many trans stories are there? Given the extent of the spectrum, a great deal. I'm 29 and my particular identity hasn't been explored in film, and I'm pretty basic (pre-m2f). I'm perfectly capable of telling my particular story, and I promise it's interesting, so why do we need to offer the role to someone who, truly, does not know better? What's ScarJo's "method" regarding getting into character? I don't think there is one. It's beyond her capability as an actress and she has put on some of my favourite performances, there isn't much about her which screams "trans identity" , especially when said identity is the next step towards Hollywood's embrace of diversity. Like, YARN up there just wants a bunch of white people playing pretend... maybe film could use some authenticity?
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:44 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:20 pm
Assuming that those 100 have the same degree of talent that Kingsley has, sure, but if the proposition is to elevate one's political identity over one's talent, then it's just another form of tokenism. Sorry, but I do subscribe to a certain meritocracy, in that I care about things like talent and dedication. Surely there are dozens of straight white actors and other performers who are only successful due to their entitlement as such (ie, in modern music you have Ed Sheeran, Shawn Mendes, Taylor Swift, bottomless etc.), that it seems strange to call out the De Niros and Pacinos as if they were nothing more than white faces. That's the factor that I take issue with. There are many minority actors who are incredibly talented and who deserve more roles than as representatives of their skin color or sexuality, and I long for the day when a Ken Watanabe can win a leading role over an Affleck or Damon. I want to see the best actors available, full stop, and to suggest that this meritocracy is bullshit is to suggest that minority talent can't compete without the intervention of suckhead executives doling favors for their pool party buddies. We need not only more meritocracy but real meritocracy.
I think I jive with this. *nod*
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:48 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
Commando is boss though.
If you mean "stupid fun," then yes. If you mean that it is actually a good movie, you're off your nut and arguing from nostalgia and cultural memory. The film is horrible. We need to stop lying to ourselves about how great Commando was.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
There is a directness to the depiction of violence and action that is startling.
No, it really isn't. It's a dumb action film. Arnie shoots a machine gun from the hip and hits all the baddies. It's fantasy bullshit.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
Also somewhat problematic,


"Problematic" is just code for "politically incorrect." This is a hollow piety that just amounts to saying "Uh, you're not allowed to do that."
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
but you can always discuss what you find problematic about a piece of art without needing it to align with you either politically or morally. As I've said a billion times before, no one should be looking to art for a moral compass. If that's what people are actually doing, we're fucked as a society, and it has very little to do with the art and more to do with the human brain not being equipped to manufacture its own human decency.


And a great start would be stop using thought-terminating cliches, glimmering generalities, and the quasi-scientific jargon of the cool-kids waggling their fingers.

Don't use the word problematic unless...

a. What your are talking about is actually fraught with problems in terms of initialization, participation, maintenance, or completion. If it is just 'bad' use another word.

b. The "problematic" something asserted would shock the conscience of a reasonable person of goodwill (and not just your lobby) and does not just amount morally shaming interlocutors as a "gotcha!"

c. The "problematic" something asserted is not only clearly identified, but is uniquely freighted with problems relative to its category and context of usage (Commando does not pass this criterion, as it is not a unique member of its genre).
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
2) None of that is to say I have never found a film objectionable because of its content. I have. A bunch of times. But I have no interest in limiting others from participating in that artwork because, hey, here's a concept, maybe they'll get something out of it that I didn't. And just because I find it problematic, hey, another bulletin, maybe they have reasons for seeing it otherwise. And maybe I could listen to them. And maybe they could listen to me. Whoopsey, it looks like we've created dialogue. What a shame that thing that offended me so much is out there for other people to form opinions on.


Preach.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
3) I get attempting to cast actors who generally are underseen in media when a part arises that reflects their identity. It seems like a ideal opportunity to open the gates for those communities. But I'm also not very interested in mandating this, or it being some kind of unforgivable moral action to cast against this type. There must be some kind of middle ground between these two points, but I'm not actually sure what it would look like.
Sounds wisely measured to me.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
Surely, creating more opportuniites for minority voices to be put in the position of power, more producers, directors and screenwriters, would be a start. The one thing that should be seen as an absolute truth in this debate though is that the glut of films from white, male, straight perspectives has become a bit redundant at this point. Even I am sick to death of seeing myself depicted on screen, and I'm a narcissist.


Give audiences what they want. If a largely white society wants to see white heroes, that actually makes sense. Where is the equity outrage committee for Bollywood movies or Chinese films? Why is it so obvious in these contexts that Indians want to see Indian actors and Chinese people like seeing Chinese actors?

If anything, the changing demography of America indicates that we should have more female and Hispanic representation and not more trans, black, gay, etc. representation. If we're really looking for demographic representation, then we should consider the actual demography of the audience.

Whites still make up 61% of the population and the total white population (including "White Hispanics") is 77% according Wikipedia, so we should still be seeing a white person as a lead actor in 61 to 77% of roles and a male in a lead role in about half of those slots. Thus, white meat is still on the menu.

More than this, however, films should make money. If the market, in general, wants to see Keanu, then by all means, keep casting Keanu. It's a business, not a religion.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:43 pm
4) Any argument that cites Jordan Peterson is generally garbage, even if he's saying something I don't find entirely objectionable. The guy is an idiot and is the most embarrassing case of a basic academic rising to the status of public intellectual. He's out of his depths constantly and I have never seen a long form interview with him where he doesn't eventually come off like a disingenuous, opportunistic, sputtering doofus.
This is horse shit. Genetic fallacy from hell right here. You may not like Peterson and it might even be the case that one can weakly reason by sign, that an argument that cites him is likely to be weak. At most, however, this is a caution flag and not grounds for outright dismissal. That you refuse to engage in a line of reason that even mentions him is bad form. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you refuse to engage in reasoning because you are triggered by a name you don't like, then you're the bigger problem.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:52 pm

Meritocracies kinda get my goat given I was born in a family rampant with it given my father's previous position as a high school principal and all of the pressures that entailed. Elitism is not my favorite thing, I think that people in any degree of study or skill, given the opportunity, will shine. How many careers did Roger Corman launch? Surely merit was not in play in favor of being "scrappy". I want more scrappy, dammit, more seeds to sow! Surely starting from the foot of Hollywood production is a true test of one's ability, the ability to elevate some 5 mil production to 100 mil heights. I'm just trying to be economical here, the cinema industry could use a new "indie" revolution... true indie, not aesthetically indie. I want some dust pit cinema
replican
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by replican » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:54 pm

nameless throwing out words without knowing their meaning
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:59 pm

replican wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:54 pm
nameless throwing out words without knowing their meaning
Aren't you cancelled? Maybe instead of being a revolting troll you can cite some examples because, surely, I know what my words mean?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:00 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:52 pm
Meritocracies kinda get my goat given I was born in a family rampant with it given my father's previous position as a high school principal and all of the pressures that entailed. Elitism is not my favorite thing, I think that people in any degree of study or skill, given the opportunity, will shine. How many careers did Roger Corman launch? Surely merit was not in play in favor of being "scrappy". I want more scrappy, dammit, more seeds to sow! Surely starting from the foot of Hollywood production is a true test of one's ability, the ability to elevate some 5 mil production to 100 mil heights. I'm just trying to be economical here, the cinema industry could use a new "indie" revolution... true indie, not aesthetically indie. I want some dust pit cinema
COVID is creating opportunities as you type these words. Anyone with a decent cell phone can make a film in 2020.

The problem is getting a platform and distribution. MKS keeps getting stuck in these little contests where they rip off the "winner's" IP and the selection process is dubious.

Netflix appears to create movies by algorithms and is pumping out shit like "The Old Guard" because of overlapping circles of interest. YouTube is screwing creators out of monetization. Cable is dying and trying to turn the internet into streaming cable channels.

I think there are enough MKS-types out there, but what they need better springboards and shelves for their work.

I think that there is probably more good music being made right now than at any other time in history, but that there is so much content being created that it has never been harder to sort through the rubble of Soundcloud rappers.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3208
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Torgo » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:02 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:52 pm
I want some dust pit cinema
Here you go:

Image
Last Great Movie Seen
Razorback (Mulcahy, 1984)
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:10 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:00 pm
COVID is creating opportunities as you type these words. Anyone with a decent cell phone can make a film in 2020.

The problem is getting a platform and distribution. MKS keeps getting stuck in these little contests where they rip off the "winner's" IP and the selection process is dubious.

Netflix appears to create movies by algorithms and is pumping out shit like "The Old Guard" because of overlapping circles of interest. YouTube is screwing creators out of monetization. Cable is dying and trying to turn the internet into streaming cable channels.

I think there are enough MKS-types out there, but what they need better springboards and shelves for their work.

I think that there is probably more good music being made right now than at any other time in history, but that there is so much content being created that it has never been harder to sort through the rubble of Soundcloud rappers.
I agree with all of this, hence why we need this whole indie revolution. I feel like online theaters have a lot of revenue potential but haven't been capitalized. If I made my own thing and hosted it purely on my website and it gains traction, bob's my uncle. That being said, I could use the exposure generated by youtube and whatnot, how exactly do I convince people to watch a $5-10 screening of one of my productions? We need to work on valuing our content, like, RZA simply provided a live commentary track over Shogun Assassin and it was an awesome experience - that generated around $30k for a single screening... that's absurdly cost effective relative to maintaining an actual theater. Surely merit plays a role here as RZA is no small name, but it was humble nonetheless. He's a brilliant host

People need to wake up to the tools available to them. Have any of you used Wix? It's incredible for building simple websites - I've been practicing it's craft because I feel like the future will be less adapting these mainstream platforms and more creating your own with your own price
User avatar
topherH
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by topherH » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:21 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:48 pm
We need to stop lying to ourselves about how great Commando was.
I wasn't lying
--Whether you think you can or can't, you're probably right--
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:24 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:52 pm
Meritocracies kinda get my goat given I was born in a family rampant with it given my father's previous position as a high school principal and all of the pressures that entailed. Elitism is not my favorite thing, I think that people in any degree of study or skill, given the opportunity, will shine. How many careers did Roger Corman launch? Surely merit was not in play in favor of being "scrappy". I want more scrappy, dammit, more seeds to sow! Surely starting from the foot of Hollywood production is a true test of one's ability, the ability to elevate some 5 mil production to 100 mil heights. I'm just trying to be economical here, the cinema industry could use a new "indie" revolution... true indie, not aesthetically indie. I want some dust pit cinema
Meritocracy is the opposite of elitism. Rather than depending on elite gatekeepers, artists can succeed on the sheer merit of their sweat. Corman is all about merit, where because of the budget limitations, those innovative filmmakers (Bogdanovich, Coppola, Nicholson, Hellman, Hill, Scorsese, Bartel, Demme, etc etc) who couldn't get hired by the studios were allowed to live or die by their skills and build track records based on these raw merits. Elitism is the advantaging of the less talented based on connections and access to resources more than the merits of their skills and talent.

I hate to quote a bug like replican, but it looks like you don't understand what meritocracy means.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:38 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:10 pm
I agree with all of this, hence why we need this whole indie revolution. I feel like online theaters have a lot of revenue potential but haven't been capitalized. If I made my own thing and hosted it purely on my website and it gains traction, bob's my uncle. That being said, I could use the exposure generated by youtube and whatnot, how exactly do I convince people to watch a $5-10 screening of one of my productions? We need to work on valuing our content, like, RZA simply provided a live commentary track over Shogun Assassin and it was an awesome experience - that generated around $30k for a single screening... that's absurdly cost effective relative to maintaining an actual theater. Surely merit plays a role here as RZA is no small name, but it was humble nonetheless. He's a brilliant host

People need to wake up to the tools available to them. Have any of you used Wix? It's incredible for building simple websites - I've been practicing it's craft because I feel like the future will be less adapting these mainstream platforms and more creating your own with your own price
The traditional theater has the advantage of getting people together in the same space, funnelling interest into seats. There is something value-enhanced about seeing a film with an audience. When they laugh, you laugh. When the crowd jumps at a jump scare, you jump. It's a communal experience. The internet doesn't stack interest in quite the same way. People watch when the want. Start and stop randomly and even view at different rates (e.g., YouTube at 1.5 speed saves a lot of videos). I think a work-around is to do live-events. "Live" carries a sense of electricity and value. It reconnects us with the communal aspect of theater. But you still need an angle and promotion.

I think pirate cinema is pretty cool. Showing a film Fight Club style by projecting it against a building wall getting people together. But this takes a lot of legwork.

YouTube still has value in being a place to store video which can be embedded elsewhere (e.g., Janson's YouTube Cinema thread is pretty cool). The trick perhaps is to find a way to aggregate and curate what is already there.

Someone getting their hustle on will probably figure out new models.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:41 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:24 pm
Meritocracy is the opposite of elitism. Rather than depending on elite gatekeepers, artists can succeed on the sheer merit of their sweat. Corman is all about merit, where because of the budget limitations, those innovative filmmakers (Bogdanovich, Coppola, Nicholson, Hellman, Hill, Scorsese, Bartel, Demme, etc etc) who couldn't get hired by the studios were allowed to live or die by their skills and build track records based on these raw merits. Elitism is the advantaging of the less talented based on connections and access to resources more than the merits of their skills and talent.

I hate to quote a bug like replican, but it looks like you don't understand what meritocracy means.
It's not the hardest word to understand *shrugs*, I tend to use words as literally as possible - but don't doubt my genius level vocabulary for a second, I know a lot of words apparently, maybe my accuracy can be put to question but I would argue I use my words perfectly in my intended form of argument which lends itself to meaty responses

The meat of this is more interesting. I set myself up to fail, so to speak - I'm open for education if it doesn't dissolve into republican style arrogance. So, how do we find a neat balance here? Surely there are budding talents who are worth bringing forward into the spotlight, I'm not asking for uneducated people wanting to be "director" all of a sudden, this shit takes a lot of work to establish! Hard work pays off, I'm not looking for slouches but genuine talent. So, how do we diversify? How can one provide a platform? What exactly are we looking for? So we favor merit over elite, good we got that established, now, how do we round out merit?
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:45 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:48 pm
If you mean "stupid fun," then yes. If you mean that it is actually a good movie, you're off your nut and arguing from nostalgia and cultural memory. The film is horrible. We need to stop lying to ourselves about how great Commando was.



No, it really isn't. It's a dumb action film. Arnie shoots a machine gun from the hip and hits all the baddies. It's fantasy bullshit.



"Problematic" is just code for "politically incorrect." This is a hollow piety that just amounts to saying "Uh, you're not allowed to do that."



And a great start would be stop using thought-terminating cliches, glimmering generalities, and the quasi-scientific jargon of the cool-kids waggling their fingers.

Don't use the word problematic unless...

a. What your are talking about is actually fraught with problems in terms of initialization, participation, maintenance, or completion. If it is just 'bad' use another word.

b. The "problematic" something asserted would shock the conscience of a reasonable person of goodwill (and not just your lobby) and does not just amount morally shaming interlocutors as a "gotcha!"

c. The "problematic" something asserted is not only clearly identified, but is uniquely freighted with problems relative to its category and context of usage (Commando does not pass this criterion, as it is not a unique member of its genre).



Preach.



Sounds wisely measured to me.



Give audiences what they want. If a largely white society wants to see white heroes, that actually makes sense. Where is the equity outrage committee for Bollywood movies or Chinese films? Why is it so obvious in these contexts that Indians want to see Indian actors and Chinese people like seeing Chinese actors?

If anything, the changing demography of America indicates that we should have more female and Hispanic representation and not more trans, black, gay, etc. representation. If we're really looking for demographic representation, then we should consider the actual demography of the audience.

Whites still make up 61% of the population and the total white population (including "White Hispanics") is 77% according Wikipedia, so we should still be seeing a white person as a lead actor in 61 to 77% of roles and a male in a lead role in about half of those slots. Thus, white meat is still on the menu.

More than this, however, films should make money. If the market, in general, wants to see Keanu, then by all means, keep casting Keanu. It's a business, not a religion.



This is horse shit. Genetic fallacy from hell right here. You may not like Peterson and it might even be the case that one can weakly reason by sign, that an argument that cites him is likely to be weak. At most, however, this is a caution flag and not grounds for outright dismissal. That you refuse to engage in a line of reason that even mentions him is bad form. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you refuse to engage in reasoning because you are triggered by a name you don't like, then you're the bigger problem.
You really need to start making arguments that aren't based on assumptions of personal details you know absolutely nothing about, or that you prefer to imagine were said. I know it's easier to construct an argument that way, but if you want to get into actually debating points, you force a lot of pointless clean up from all of your misreadings, misconceptions and imaginations.

1) I did not see Commando until I was well into my 30's. Think what you will of where that puts my standards of taste, but I've seen your arguments towards what you think merits good filmmaking, and I'm fine with disagreement there.

2) Before you tell me whether or not I can use the word problematic, you should try and decide what I am criticizing. I didn't say. Nor did I suggest that Commando is a 'unique member of its genre'. It's simply problematic, even if it isn't 'uniquely so'.

3) I don't think Peterson is some boogeyman. I think he is frequently misread and certainly no danger to society. So stick that triggered shit up your ass. I've known about him from long before he became some kind of beacon for doofus', since he worked down the street from me and I had to keep reading about him in our local paper. I've simply never found anything about him interesting or remotely impressive. His interpretations of the arguments of others are frequently confused and reduced to banality, and he has the charm of a garden hose. It's possible to think someone is not worth listening to regardless of their politics. I dislike all sorts of left wing, centrist and right wing thinkers. I couldn't even imagine why you'd get so triggered when someone says they think this particular guy is a bore. You can keep your broken clock. I'm not interested in listening to him prattle on, waiting for him to occassionally say something interesting by default.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:50 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:38 pm
The traditional theater has the advantage of getting people together in the same space, funnelling interest into seats. There is something value-enhanced about seeing a film with an audience. When they laugh, you laugh. When the crowd jumps at a jump scare, you jump. It's a communal experience. The internet doesn't stack interest in quite the same way. People watch when the want. Start and stop randomly and even view at different rates (e.g., YouTube at 1.5 speed saves a lot of videos). I think a work-around is to do live-events. "Live" carries a sense of electricity and value. It reconnects us with the communal aspect of theater. But you still need an angle and promotion.
I watch a lot of Twitch so "Twitch chat" produces a unique theater style experience. Ultimately, the advantage is sheer numbers. You can't shove 3000 people in a theater, so making 30k off a single viewing is impressive numbers. I feel like a great deal of those "emotions" can be accomplished in a Twitch chat. Some of my favorite Twitch experiences are watching MST3K and having everyone in chat riff on the film, it really expands the potential humor and instead of laughing we are participating, attractive stuff. "Live" is the key here, we want to be in the same room at the same time so it's about scheduling events and working from there. If I had a wellspring of content I could stream legally on Twitch I could make a damn good theater. We'll see where this is all headed but in the meantime I have some research to do, I'm in the potential business of providing a comfortable experience in one's home - to me the majority of these experiences are better online, but that's sheer opinion. I think people have room to adapt to a new model
Someone getting their hustle on will probably figure out new models.
*nods* I'm trying to hustle here, I think community driven business models are here to stick in favor of physical capacity based business. Disney is kinda opening things up by charging 30+ for a screening of Mulan. That's some serious change, so I'm happy that value is being reintroduced into streaming platforms.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:04 pm

Like, what if I had a "podcast" with a movie playing in the background and I can get free reign movie recommendations and bring on guests who are able to educate on the proceedings? If that's too difficult, the likes of RLM and Rifftrax make commentary tracks for big movies and let you pair it up yourself, that's an attractive business model. I'd happily sell my thoughts/jokes for a buck or two and that dodges legal boundaries. There is a lot, if not all, of work which can be done remotely. The only reason I hold Justice League in any good light is because I watched it with RLM commentary, that's a movie which lends itself to being talked over
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:30 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:45 pm
1) I did not see Commando until I was well into my 30's. Think what you will of where that puts my standards of taste, but I've seen your arguments towards what you think merits good filmmaking, and I'm fine with disagreement there.
Commando lack continuity, plausibility, and consistency. It's a string of limp one-liners punctuated by explosions. If you like it, great. Enjoy your trough.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:45 pm
3) I don't think Peterson is some boogeyman. I think he is frequently misread and certainly no danger to society. So stick that triggered shit up your ass.
You refused to deal with a line of argument merely because you saw his name. That's fucking weak.
User avatar
The Nameless Two
Posts: 17501
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by The Nameless Two » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:32 pm

Surely we have now found the balance between productive and unproductive conversation/argument. Surely Commando is not the most pressing issue, it's... okay, I guess
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Charles » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:35 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:30 pm
Commando lack continuity, plausibility, and consistency. It's a string of limp one-liners punctuated by explosions. If you like it, great. Enjoy your trough.
It has sort of a thematic continuity of overly macho violence and manliness being useless, famously with the scene where they just shoot everything at nothing in the jungle, and it sort of works as an allegory for Vietnam.

Edit: Nvm, I was thinking of Predator. Yeah, Commando is pretty stupid.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:49 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:30 pm
Commando lack continuity, plausibility, and consistency. It's a string of limp one-liners punctuated by explosions. If you like it, great. Enjoy your trough.



You refused to deal with a line of argument merely because you saw his name. That's fucking weak.
You and my grandmother have a similar approach to talking about genre filmmaking. I'll set you up on a date.

I'll listen to any line of argument but I'm tired of entertaining the notion that namedropping Peterson in the middle of a conversation has any kind of gravitas whatsoever. And people name drop him in particular all the time on the internet. It's like they all just got their Jordan Peterson starter kit in the mail, and I have to listen to his fucking basic arguments all over again. I've sat and listened to him speak for god knows how many hours. If I didn't like what he said when he was saying it, just how tolerant do I have to be seeing him reduced even further when others start paraphrasing him? Do you have to watch all the Commando sequels to know you don't like the original (and for the record, I know there were no Commando sequels, so please refrain from building some argument out of this)
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:56 pm

Charles wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:35 pm
It has sort of a thematic continuity of overly macho violence and manliness being useless, famously with the scene where they just shoot everything at nothing in the jungle, and it sort of works as an allegory for Vietnam.

Edit: Nvm, I was thinking of Predator. Yeah, Commando is pretty stupid.
Right, there is a clear difference between the two films. Commando is whimsical stupidity. I don't begrudge liking it, I feed from my own cinematic troughs.

Predator plays with genre and uses dramatic irony to create considerable tension. It's not brilliant, but it is competent filmmaking and good fun in addition to much better writing.

One conceit that I love about Predator is where Dutch objects to being treated as a mercenary team. It's a rescue squad! A rescue squad with Bowie knives and mini-guns, apparently. There is a line just like this in the abominable The Old Guard on Netflix, the now cliche scene where our protag protests that s/he is running a rescue-murder squad and NOT a murder-rescue squad. Our heroes must be reluctant and Dutch and his band of bad-asses cannot (apparently) be shown to be what they are (swollen macho men armed to the teeth, fixing problems with a hail of lead).
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:56 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:32 pm
Surely we have now found the balance between productive and unproductive conversation/argument. Surely Commando is not the most pressing issue, it's... okay, I guess
It is the hill I am willing to be blown up by a bazooka on.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:58 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:49 pm
You and my grandmother have a similar approach to talking about genre filmmaking. I'll set you up on a date.
Please do. We'll make you cookies and send you on your way.
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:49 pm
I'll listen to any line of argument


No you won't. You just announced that you need not be detained by an argument that even names the guy. You went past the mark.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:58 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:56 pm
It is the hill I am willing to be blown up by a bazooka on.
This I respect.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:31 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:58 pm
Please do. We'll make you cookies and send you on your way.



No you won't. You just announced that you need not be detained by an argument that even names the guy. You went past the mark.
I said "any argument that cites Jordan Peterson is generally garbage". Sounds entirely reasonable to me since that has been my exclusive experience. I've already listened to his arguments, ad nauseum, and I've suffered through endless people referencing them, poorly. Exactly how baited should my breath be in waiting for some kind of illumination here? Or am I triggered simply because I don't think I've ever heard him say anything that gave me even the remotest pause. If he ever does, I'll take note. I've had a lot of people I dislike an awful lot more than Peterson that I've on occassion given credit to.

I also think Richard Dawkins is an insufferable dope (at least in regards to his cause celebre). He is the closest comparison I can come up with to Peterson who I don't think deserves the stage he has been given and, for a time, was mentioned with an equal amount of irritating frequency. Are you a fan of Dawkins? Do those who quote him in an argument about religion do themselves any favors in endearing their point to you?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:37 pm

The Nameless Two wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:41 pm
It's not the hardest word to understand *shrugs*, I tend to use words as literally as possible - but don't doubt my genius level vocabulary for a second, I know a lot of words apparently, maybe my accuracy can be put to question but I would argue I use my words perfectly in my intended form of argument which lends itself to meaty responses

The meat of this is more interesting. I set myself up to fail, so to speak - I'm open for education if it doesn't dissolve into republican style arrogance. So, how do we find a neat balance here? Surely there are budding talents who are worth bringing forward into the spotlight, I'm not asking for uneducated people wanting to be "director" all of a sudden, this shit takes a lot of work to establish! Hard work pays off, I'm not looking for slouches but genuine talent. So, how do we diversify? How can one provide a platform? What exactly are we looking for? So we favor merit over elite, good we got that established, now, how do we round out merit?
You may be thinking of the Republican talking point of misusing "meritocracy" as a contrast to affirmative action, rendering it as a bootstrap synonym, which is a Republican way of ignoring the practical impediments of 'have-nots' while exalting 'haves' as a self-inherent virtue. This dogma presents America as a default meritocracy rather than a country with a meritocratic ideal that occasionally works out for the fortunate (and luck is also the opposite of a merit).

Conversely, merits are literally things which are earned, involving hard work, determination and immaterial resources like disciplined skills an developed vision. There is no merit in being born into certain families, into certain wealth, into social networks and other purely material resources. Ethically, merit is equal to "works", and is based on accomplishment rather than entitlement. Very little in any of the show business industries are purely meritocratic, and those who can break through on their own tend to require additional non-creative skills in business, marketing and persuasion, which is a steep hill for already devoted talent. Most of the major decisions in arts and entertainment are made by decidedly non-creative people who control the paper. Lawyers in music publishing have made far more money than any number of songwriters. It's a parasitic business by design.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3580
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:44 pm

I think the worst thing about Jordan Peterson is how quickly he gets mentioned in association with any subject concerning Carl Jung, as if Peterson has ever said anything remotely authoritative or insightful about Jungian psychology. This effect is two-fold - by mentioning Jung, I have either attracted the interest of Peterson-pundits or through his indirect association have been written off as a Peterson pundit.

The second worst thing about Peterson is that while I was looking for David Lynch interpretations a couple of months ago, I came across Peterson's evaluation of Mulholland Dr, a spectacularly dumb take where he called Lynch too obscure and claimed that "a real artist" intends to simplify rather than mystify his subject. Fucking rocknoggin bore.
User avatar
Apex Predator
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:03 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Apex Predator » Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:11 pm

I am not here for this dismissal of Commando.

Not with spunky Alyssa Milano, that buff villain that looks a bit like Freddie Mercury had he hit the gym for a year and that scene with Rae Dawn Chong and learning how to shoot a bazooka on the fly. Oh and some good Arnold one-liners.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3208
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Torgo » Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:56 pm

There's also Vernon Wells' turn as likely the only gay villain in a Schwarzenegger movie. Quite a breakthrough.
Last Great Movie Seen
Razorback (Mulcahy, 1984)
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 539
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Ergill » Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:58 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:45 pm
You really need to start making arguments that aren't based on assumptions of personal details you know absolutely nothing about, or that you prefer to imagine were said. I know it's easier to construct an argument that way, but if you want to get into actually debating points, you force a lot of pointless clean up from all of your misreadings, misconceptions and imaginations.
*throws crumbs a beer*
crumbsroom wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:45 pm
3) I don't think Peterson is some boogeyman. I think he is frequently misread and certainly no danger to society. So stick that triggered shit up your ass. I've known about him from long before he became some kind of beacon for doofus', since he worked down the street from me and I had to keep reading about him in our local paper. I've simply never found anything about him interesting or remotely impressive. His interpretations of the arguments of others are frequently confused and reduced to banality, and he has the charm of a garden hose. It's possible to think someone is not worth listening to regardless of their politics. I dislike all sorts of left wing, centrist and right wing thinkers. I couldn't even imagine why you'd get so triggered when someone says they think this particular guy is a bore. You can keep your broken clock. I'm not interested in listening to him prattle on, waiting for him to occassionally say something interesting by default.
Haha.

Well, he has Corona in Siberia, so...
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:17 am

Villains are a curious presence. Actors often claim they like playing the villain more and audiences often like them more. Anton Chigurh, Hannibal Lector, Hans Landa. Sometimes it seems like the baddies are more interesting, cooler, or just having more fun.

A generic villain is a bore. A villain without proper motivation is a common complaint. However, give that villain too compelling a motivation and people start to side with the hero. Thus, many people left Infinity War arguing that Thanos had a point with all that Malthusian bullshit, not asking why Thanos doesn't just magic up more resources so that people don't starve. The apotheosis of this tendency is Walter White, a case in which the audience was a willing accomplice rooting for a murderous drug dealer to some troubling lengths. Too far in one direction and you have a vanilla action film. Too far in the other and you undo the mission and vision of the goodies.

The best villains, I think, are the ones for whom the audience does not cheer, but who have a legitimate complaint or perspective. That is, they offer a legit counterpoint to the "heroes" outside of hollow bullshit lines like "We're not so unalike, you and I!". Two great examples are Jellico (Star Trek TNG) and Tritter (House). In both cases, our villains are not only effective and present a real threat the status quo, if not the premise of the story, but they both offer a legitimate critique. And in both cases, there is rabid hatred in the fan bases of these shows. And yet, in both cases, they reveal something wrong about the dream-world of the story. I think they're hated more for being Skyler-like, somehow being a threat to the basis of the fun itself. But in both cases, other episodes give testimony to their "critiques." In TNG "Lower Decks" and "Tapestry" reveal how much power and privilege the bridge crew enjoys and how there is entitlement that creeps into that privilege. In the case of House, the increasingly erratic and self-destructive behavior of the eponymous character demonstrates that he is both a junky and dangerous to himself and others. In short, the best villains not only threaten our heroes, but also threaten the audience a bit.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Charles » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:52 am

I think villains are interesting because, when there is one, they embody the theme. The hero can only react to the villain, but the villain can go anywhere and do anything. They have no constraints. Watchmen is a good exception to that, but Avengers shows that, even though they may have quirks and catchphrases and personality, all the heroes can do is win, die winning, or lose. Not that that franchise is particularly deep anyway.
replican
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by replican » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:31 am

The motivation to be good vs the motivation to be bad seems to be inherently more film interesting in the latter.

Like all things being equal in life, you should want to not be a negative presence in this reality.

But it's that fly in the ointment that feels more interesting to watch unfold on film.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:38 am

Charles wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:52 am
I think villains are interesting because, when there is one, they embody the theme. The hero can only react to the villain, but the villain can go anywhere and do anything. They have no constraints. Watchmen is a good exception to that, but Avengers shows that, even though they may have quirks and catchphrases and personality, all the heroes can do is win, die winning, or lose. Not that that franchise is particularly deep anyway.
Good points.

We tend to root for the hero because s/he enjoys the defender's moral advantage of having first been attacked (reluctant hero must demonstrate reluctance), so the hero tends to be a status quo force, attempting to restore order to chaos.

I think there are exceptions, such as when the hero is a chaotic element relative to a villainous status quo. When the hero is a maverick we may find the villain reacting to the hero. Also, in a one-off story, it is more likely, isn't it, that the hero is just as likely to embody the theme? Alternatively, if the villain is a stable fixture (e.g., a Moriarty) across stories, then the villain and hero are likely to be fixed points in terms of theme.

At bottom, a conventional hero seems to be primarily constrained by the requirement of "being good" (e.g., gotta have that "save the cat" moment) and our Id gets a greater release by being bad. Thus, this is the appeal of the anti-hero or damaged hero. Ironically, this was the appeal of House which in turn made the critique of Tritter a real threat to the show, because he shines a light on all the ways in which House really is a villain, spoiling the fun (and enraging fans).
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:44 am

replican wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:31 am
The motivation to be good vs the motivation to be bad seems to be inherently more film interesting in the latter.

Like all things being equal in life, you should want to not be a negative presence in this reality.

But it's that fly in the ointment that feels more interesting to watch unfold on film.
Basically, that seems to be it.

Still, we have the Bugs Bunny-types, the Fonzies, the ones who get to be good and get away with having fun.
User avatar
Torgo
Posts: 3208
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:40 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Torgo » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:11 pm

DaMU, did you happen to save all of those Crash with Jesus episode premises? That was one of RT's finest threads.
Last Great Movie Seen
Razorback (Mulcahy, 1984)
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by DaMU » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:20 pm

Torgo wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:11 pm
DaMU, did you happen to save all of those Crash with Jesus episode premises? THat was one of RT's finest threads.
Haha, no, I don't think I saved a thing from RT. That was some silly fun though.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Charles » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:22 pm

Death Proof might have saved it. He was the curator of RT's Necromancy thread after all.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 26054
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Stu » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:17 am

Torgo wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:11 pm
DaMU, did you happen to save all of those Crash with Jesus episode premises? That was one of RT's finest threads.
"Crash With Jesus"?
Yes, I'm a mod; let me know if you need anything.

Read My Reviews
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by DaMU » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:51 am

Some random comment on RT sounded to me like a sitcom pilot where Jesus becomes someone's roommate, and it escalated into us hashing out multiple season arcs.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
replican
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by replican » Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:56 am

I wish House had been a cable TV show. Kept to maybe 6 seasons and 15 episodes. They ruined the show by becoming repetitive and stretching their themes. Still has some brilliant writing.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:11 am

replican wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:56 am
I wish House had been a cable TV show. Kept to maybe 6 seasons and 15 episodes. They ruined the show by becoming repetitive and stretching their themes. Still has some brilliant writing.
The show was initially very tight in terms of A story B story and the "Man falls into a hole and climbs out of a hole" plot-pattern. It worked for a few seasons, but it was so tight that it wore thin pretty quickly. They compensated by making the show more character-centric and by making House more and more flagrant in his House-iness, but yeah, they ran out of gas.

I just wish they had the commitment and courage of Vince Gilligan and Co. with Breaking Bad. They flirted with changing things up by putting him in rehab and in prison, but he always wound back up (implausibly) back at his old job. I think they should have done the prison arc, had him get out, and then go into rehab, get better, and have to figure out what to do next.
replican
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by replican » Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:10 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:11 am
The show was initially very tight in terms of A story B story and the "Man falls into a hole and climbs out of a hole" plot-pattern. It worked for a few seasons, but it was so tight that it wore thin pretty quickly. They compensated by making the show more character-centric and by making House more and more flagrant in his House-iness, but yeah, they ran out of gas.

I just wish they had the commitment and courage of Vince Gilligan and Co. with Breaking Bad. They flirted with changing things up by putting him in rehab and in prison, but he always wound back up (implausibly) back at his old job. I think they should have done the prison arc, had him get out, and then go into rehab, get better, and have to figure out what to do next.
The only commitment network tv wants is for ratings translating to ad dollars.

They did my girl Dr Cuddy wrong. She was soooo good on the show, played perfectly off House.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:31 pm

replican wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:10 am
The only commitment network tv wants is for ratings translating to ad dollars.

They did my girl Dr Cuddy wrong. She was soooo good on the show, played perfectly off House.
Did they do her dirty over money?

It was really telling that Lisa Edelstein didn't show up for the end.
replican
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:51 am

Re: The Random Thoughts Thread

Post by replican » Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:32 pm

Yes. Something along the lines of wanting more pay since she was starting to be used more once her and House got into a relationship.
Post Reply