Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, April 21, 2018

OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)

The following is previously unseen rehearsal footage of Prince & The Revolution from the summer of 1984.

It was in this very room at Flying Cloud Drive Warehouse in Eden Prairie, Minnesota that Prince created and committed to tape one of his most beloved and iconic compositions, which six years later would become a worldwide hit for Sinead O’Connor.

Prince’s original studio version of ‘Nothing Compares 2 U’ is presented here for the first time.

Trial to see if there’s sufficient support to make this a thing.

Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: April 21, 2018 at 02:32 PM | 3812 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: movies, music, off-topic, television, whatever else belongs under the rubric of 'popular culture'

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 21 of 39 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   2001. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5675589)
"Breaking Away" is the only movie I ever went to where the person I went with and both turned to each other at the end and said, "Let's watch this again."

That's a movie I've watched half a dozen times and could easily watch half a dozen more. I spent one of the best weeks of my life in Bloomington, and I still get goosebumps when I watch the scene at the start of the race where the crowd breaks out in the IU song. I generally hate Feelgood movies, but that's one that made me drop all my guards.

I don't know the lines between high/low brow, but "Take the Money and Run" is a Woody Allen movie that's just silliness, while "Radio Days" is mostly a nostalgic, gentle humor. I think either could be satisfying for someone who just wants their entertainment to entertain.

Sure, and I think you can pretty much say the same thing about nearly all of Woody Allen's movies, at least before Interiors, even though I'm not particularly enamored of more than a handful of them. My bottom line has always been that any distinctions among "highbrow", "middlebrow" and "lowbrow" are almost wholly subjective, and AFAICT most people use them wholly as a way virtue signaling one way or the other.

Funny, though, that while all three of those terms get used negatively, only "middlebrow" or "lowbrow" are ever used positively. I've yet to hear a person say he likes "highbrow" movies, even if his taste runs mostly to Bergman or obscure indie films. Sort of like the way all politicians like to wrap themselves in the flags of the working class and the middle class, but few have much good to say (in public. at least) about the class of CEOs.

Just what is a "highbrow" movie, anyway, other than a movie you don't like for whatever personal reasons?

As I said above, I can see "Take the Money and Run" as a switch-your-brain-off and enjoy it movie, and "Radio Days" is a sort of comfort comedy. Movies like "Bananas", "Sleeper", and "Love and Death", are largely slapstick, but there is a lot of satire in them. I can see people maybe not wanting to engage with that.


Sure, but there are plenty of reasons why people don't want to engage with certain movies, and not wanting to engage in satire is only one of them.

And of course satire comes in all shapes and forms, from subtle takes and obscure historical or cultural references all the way down to Alec Baldwin's 308th Trump imitation. Appreciation for satire usually comes down to what you bring to it yourself; understanding the references and whether or not you feel as if your beliefs are being attacked.
   2002. BDC Posted: May 19, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5675590)
Woody Allen? Jesus, is all it takes to make a movie "highbrow" a reference to Albert Shanker or Marshall McLuhan, both of whom were constantly in the news at the time those movies were made? Or is it just a swing era jazz soundtrack? The fact that his movies are often set on Manhattan's Upper West Side? That makes them "highbrow"?

I'd say that one element that is sufficient (but not necessary to make a film "highbrow," I think, is some sort of meta-cinema. Not so much movies about making movies (like Singin' in the Rain or Sunset Boulevard), but some sort of frame-breaking or self-commentary.

So Stardust Memories and The Purple Rose of Cairo for Woody Allen, and films that they evoke, like 8½ by Fellini or Le Mépris by Godard. Or more recently, Adaptation or Synechdoche NY, both written by Charlie Kaufman. Synechdoche NY is about the theater, not the movies, but the idea is similar. There's a self-consciousness involved, a sense that everything's in quotation marks, that you're seeing the reverse of the pattern. You never just relax into the illusion of the movies, as you do with middle- or low-brow pictures. That's the highbrow element of the Marx Brothers, for instance,:Groucho constantly turning to the audience and discussing the stupidity of the scenes his character is half-heartedly playing. Sullivan's Travels (often admired by our old-movie buffs here) is highbrow in this sense, as of course is Sherlock Jr. Sullivan's Travels famously ends with a scene of relaxing into the illusion of the movies. Stardust Memories ends (IIRC) with the alien telling Woody Allen "make more funny movies," which isn't quite as effective.

People tend to love or hate "meta" highbrow pictures. I love some and hate others.

But as I say it's just one possible element.
   2003. BDC Posted: May 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5675592)
And I should say that two pictures I not only watch over and over but laugh at (the same jokes) over and over are Airplane! and Love and Death. Both are parodies, and that must be part of the continual appeal (Police Squad! is the TV equivalent.) Not only do I laugh at them, but lines from them occur to me in everyday life, and I laugh about them, puzzling people around me ("They're on instruments!" "I will never sell my land!" "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith.")
   2004. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5675608)
Woody Allen? Jesus, is all it takes to make a movie "highbrow" a reference to Albert Shanker or Marshall McLuhan, both of whom were constantly in the news at the time those movies were made? Or is it just a swing era jazz soundtrack? The fact that his movies are often set on Manhattan's Upper West Side? That makes them "highbrow"?

I'd say that one element that is sufficient (but not necessary to make a film "highbrow," I think, is some sort of meta-cinema. Not so much movies about making movies (like Singin' in the Rain or Sunset Boulevard), but some sort of frame-breaking or self-commentary.

So Stardust Memories and The Purple Rose of Cairo for Woody Allen, and films that they evoke, like 8½ by Fellini or Le Mépris by Godard. Or more recently, Adaptation or Synechdoche NY, both written by Charlie Kaufman. Synechdoche NY is about the theater, not the movies, but the idea is similar. There's a self-consciousness involved, a sense that everything's in quotation marks, that you're seeing the reverse of the pattern. You never just relax into the illusion of the movies, as you do with middle- or low-brow pictures. That's the highbrow element of the Marx Brothers, for instance,:Groucho constantly turning to the audience and discussing the stupidity of the scenes his character is half-heartedly playing. Sullivan's Travels (often admired by our old-movie buffs here) is highbrow in this sense, as of course is Sherlock Jr. Sullivan's Travels famously ends with a scene of relaxing into the illusion of the movies. Stardust Memories ends (IIRC) with the alien telling Woody Allen "make more funny movies," which isn't quite as effective.


That sailed totally over my head, but I'm not sure whether I should be ashamed or proud. (smile)

Somewhat more seriously, of those movies you mentioned in the second paragraph, the only ones I've seen are Sullivan's Travels and the Marx Brothers (probably all of them), of which the only one I've wanted to watch more than once all the way through was A Night at the Opera. Not that I dislike the others particularly, but after a while they're like Woody Allen's early comedies: They all seem to run together in one big blur. There are parts of some of the others (Tootsie-Frootsie; Hooray For Captain Spaulding) that are sublime, but I can see those parts on YouTube without having to sit through Chico's piano recitals or Harpo's harp solos.

But it's got nothing to do with self-commentary. And I'm lukewarm on Sullivan's Travels because while it's got its moments, overall it just seems like a tired and run into the ground attack on the strawman known as "message movies". I get it I get it I get it I got it the first ten times. I love several other Sturges movies, but it doesn't exactly surprise me that both he and Joel McCrea were conservative Republicans.

People tend to love or hate "meta" highbrow pictures. I love some and hate others.

But as I say it's just one possible element.


That's my reaction to just about all movies no matter what "brow" category they fall into, though there are some genres** I pretty much (though not 100%) avoid altogether. Of my 100 or 1000 favorite movies, I have no idea what percentage of them would fall into the "highbrow", "middlebrow", or "lowbrow" categories. Are all foreign movies highbrow by definition?*** What about noirs? Whodunits? Gangster movies? Pre-codes? Courtroom dramas? Silents?*** Comedies? General dramas? Tearjerkers? Are all those types of movies that easy to categorize?

** Almost too many to list, but in spite of all my biases I've still managed to watch several thousand of movies over the years. And there's always tomorrow.

*** I've noticed that some people seem to feel that subtitles alone make a movie "highbrow" (or "too hard to follow") by definition. That makes no sense to me unless a person is reading-challenged, but it's a sentiment that's out there.

   2005. BDC Posted: May 19, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5675613)
of those movies you mentioned in the second paragraph, the only ones I've seen

Well, that's the only reason my comment sailed over your head :-D I don't think my range of reference is terribly obscure, though. I think about fifteen people saw Synechdoche, New York, but it was at least on a lot of people's radar not to see …

Le Mépris (Contempt), for instance, is a film by Godard based on a novel by Moravia. In the film, a crew is trying to make a movie. They have hired Fritz Lang to direct it, and he is of course played by Fritz Lang. We continually move in and out between trying to make the movie they're actually in and the problems they're having doing so, and Fritz Lang discussing movie-making with the cast and crew. Those are the highbrow elements. I actually think this movie is a crashing bore. Brigitte Bardot appears nude at one point, and if you can make that boring, you can do anything.

Anyway, that kind of thing: flims where you always have to be thinking "what am I watching here?" Fritz Lang himself or a character called Fritz Lang played by Fritz Lang, or … zzzzz.

   2006. Greg K Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:03 PM (#5675615)
*** I've noticed that some people seem to feel that subtitles alone make a movie "highbrow" (or "too hard to follow") by definition. That makes no sense to me unless a person is reading-challenged, but it's a sentiment that's out there.

I have this conversation with my brother all the time. He refuses to watch sub-titled movies*. Yesterday he mentioned that subtitled movies require 100% of his attention, which he isn't really willing to give a movie. Which I suppose makes sense, but just opens up more ways in which we approach movies differently.

*My mom does too, but that's because she knits every second of the day she's sitting down, so she can't be watching the screen 100% of the time during a movie.

I think genre work tends to get lumped in to the low/middle brow range almost by definition. But I do think the dynamic BDC mentions is at play too. If you're a genre film that's self-conscious about the genre its in, things start to get a bit meta.
   2007. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:04 PM (#5675616)
Synechdoche was almost certainly the weirdest movie I've ever seen (at least if you limit it to movies with decent production values). I wouldn't necessarily say I liked it, and despite watching it twice, I still don't really know what to make of it, but it had some very entertaining moments, particularly as the meta-ness of it all starts to get out of control.

Andy, you should watch it, just so that you can give us all a review.
   2008. Greg K Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5675617)
Le Mépris (Contempt), for instance, is a film by Godard based on a novel by Moravia. In the film, a crew is trying to make a movie. They have hired Fritz Lang to direct it, and he is of course played by Fritz Lang. We continually move in and out between trying to make the movie they're actually in and the problems they're having doing so, and Fritz Lang discussing movie-making with the cast and crew. Those are the highbrow elements. I actually think this movie is a crashing bore. Brigitte Bardot appears nude at one point, and if you can make that boring, you can do anything.

Speaking of self-conscious movies, I think Le Mépris is the movie Coogan and Brydon talk about in The Trip to Italy. Their film adaptation of Tristram Shandy sounds a lot like that movie too.
   2009. McCoy Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5675621)
Decided to make some Maryland pit beef this weekend. Don't have a charcoal grill but I think the Weber will work fine.
   2010. BDC Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5675624)
she knits every second of the day she's sitting down, so she can't be watching the screen 100% of the time during a movie

There are lots of older movies, and especially older TV shows, that you can watch that way. They are essentially radio plays with a video track.

In fact, to this day, there are a surprising number of movies that you don't really need to watch. Weirdly, I came to notice this from seeing bits of movies, without sound, over people's shoulders on airplanes. When a film consists visually of characters exchanging dialogue in reverse shots, you begin to realize that you're missing everything when you can't hear it, and conversely would be missing nothing if you couldn't see it.

Spotlight is a recent film like that. I think you could play the soundtrack alone and miss very little. It's not a bad film, but they had a certain story to tell, and they told it verbally.
   2011. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2018 at 01:47 PM (#5675628)
of those movies you mentioned in the second paragraph, the only ones I've seen

Well, that's the only reason my comment sailed over your head :-D I don't think my range of reference is terribly obscure, though. I think about fifteen people saw Synechdoche, New York, but it was at least on a lot of people's radar not to see …

Le Mépris (Contempt), for instance, is a film by Godard based on a novel by Moravia. In the film, a crew is trying to make a movie. They have hired Fritz Lang to direct it, and he is of course played by Fritz Lang. We continually move in and out between trying to make the movie they're actually in and the problems they're having doing so, and Fritz Lang discussing movie-making with the cast and crew. Those are the highbrow elements. I actually think this movie is a crashing bore. Brigitte Bardot appears nude at one point, and if you can make that boring, you can do anything.

Anyway, that kind of thing: flims where you always have to be thinking "what am I watching here?" Fritz Lang himself or a character called Fritz Lang played by Fritz Lang, or … zzzzz.


Sounds like exactly the sort of movie I'd avoid like the plague, although I loved And God Created Woman, and the real Fritz Lang directed about 10 or 12 of my all time favorite movies, both in Germany and in Hollywood. I'm sure that his Dr. Mabuse films and Spione had all sorts of meta-themes in them---it would've been hard to avoid them in Weimar Germany---but I just enjoyed them as straightforward dramas. I generally don't see movies from the perspective of a movie critic, analyzing camera angles, lighting and such, but if those aspects of a movie are working as they should, I'll know it subconsciously and it'll contribute to my enjoyment of the film. Which may be why noir is my favorite genre by far.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** I've noticed that some people seem to feel that subtitles alone make a movie "highbrow" (or "too hard to follow") by definition. That makes no sense to me unless a person is reading-challenged, but it's a sentiment that's out there.

I have this conversation with my brother all the time. He refuses to watch sub-titled movies*. Yesterday he mentioned that subtitled movies require 100% of his attention, which he isn't really willing to give a movie. Which I suppose makes sense, but just opens up more ways in which we approach movies differently.

*My mom does too, but that's because she knits every second of the day she's sitting down, so she can't be watching the screen 100% of the time during a movie.


I correspond frequently with one of the smartest people I've ever known, the creator of this website, and he has the same reason for avoiding subtitled movies: He can't multitask.

Which I can't do while watching movies, either subtitled or not, but I'll multitask all the time while watching many sporting events. I'll turn up the volume and go downstairs to practice pool, and drop everything and rush upstairs when I hear that something gamechanging is going on. Or I'll be reading a book or paper between pitches while never really losing track of what's going on. I just can't do that with movies, since so often if you miss a single bit of dialogue the plot no longer makes sense.
   2012. Omineca Greg Posted: May 19, 2018 at 02:19 PM (#5675635)
Well, Cockygate is grinding on.

Unfortunately, Chuck Tingle hasn't commented on it yet, his most recent opus is "Seduced By The Handsome Physically Manifested Sound That Some People Hear As Yanny And Others Hear As Laurel".

But there is an anthology of all new short fiction, #### Tales, by a group known as The Cocky Collective. All net profits are going to, "Authors already impacted by creative-obstruction (10%), and Romance Writers of America (RWA) (90%) as a general donation intended for their Advocacy Fund."

Let's take a look at the titles:

Nana Malone, USA Today Bestselling author – Foreword

Dylan Allen – ‘Cocked and Loaded’

Jana Aston, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Double Cocked’

Whitney Barbetti – ‘Cocksure Grin’

Author Sawyer Bennett, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘A Wicked, Cocky Plan’

K.f. Breene, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Magical #### and Bull’

Ruth Clampett, Amazon top 20 Bestselling Author – ‘Don’t Get Cocky’

L.H. Cosway, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Illusionist Seeks Neanderthal’

Mariah Dietz – ‘Landmines’

Amy Daws, Amazon Top 25 Bestselling author – ‘Cock and Balls’

BB Easton, Amazon Top 100 Bestselling author – ‘Cocky BB: Two Boys, One Prom.’

Jaymin Eve, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘The Cockier the Dragon, the Harder They Fall’

Emma Hart, NYT and USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Tricky Bond’

Staci Hart, Amazon Top 10 Bestselling author – ‘Cockamamie’

Jessica Hawkins, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cocky Couture’

Julie Johnson Amazon Top 100 Bestselling author – ‘Culinary ####-Up’

Karpov Kinrade, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Crimson Cocktail’

Adriana Locke, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Swag’

Lex Martin, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Love & Hate at the Stallion Station’

Aly Martinez, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Going Down’

Katyi McGee – USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cocksure Co-Star’

Corinne Michaels, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cockblocked’

Liv Morris, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Getting It Up’

Red Phoenix, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Her Cocky Russian’

Daisy Prescott, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Confessions of a Cockblocked Wingman’

Jessica Prince – ‘A Cocky Corruption Engagement’

Meghan Quinn, Amazon Top 20 Bestselling Author – ‘Fight or Flight’

CD Reiss, NYT and USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cocky Capo’

Penny Reid, WSJ and USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Beard and Hen’

Julie Richman, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘The Color of Love’

Aleatha Romig, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Aligned’

Kennedy Ryan, Top 40 Amazon Bestselling author – ‘All’

Kylie Scott, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Short Story with Mal and Anne from The Stage Dive Series’

Sierra Simone, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Until the #### Crows’

Tara Sivec, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Chocolate and Cockup’

Kate Stewart, Amazon Top 30 Bestselling author – ‘The Golden Sombrero’

Leia Stone, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cocky Alpha’

Karla Sorensen – ‘Tristan & Anna: A Bachelors of the Ridge short story’

Rachel Van Dyken, NYT, WSJ, USA Today Bestselling author – ‘Cocky Mafia’
..
April White, Amazon Top 100 Bestselling author – ‘Code of Conduct’

I don't really go for books like that (judging from the titles anyway, well 'Illusionist Seeks Neanderthal' could be good) but I'm enjoying the accelerated pace of this whole brouhaha. It's an ephemeral pastime reading (and apparently writing) stories like this, everything happens so fast and so in the moment. Not much else to say, I'll post it and see how much of it makes it past The Nanny...
   2013. McCoy Posted: May 19, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5675649)
Pit beef Update #1-The top round has its rub on it and is in the refrigerator. Will sear it off tomorrow.
   2014. cardsfanboy Posted: May 19, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5675655)
I don't really go for books like that (judging from the titles anyway, well 'Illusionist Seeks Neanderthal' could be good) but I'm enjoying the accelerated pace of this whole brouhaha. It's an ephemeral pastime reading (and apparently writing) stories like this, everything happens so fast and so in the moment. Not much else to say, I'll post it and see how much of it makes it past The Nanny...



According to twitter, the trademark now says "cancellation pending.". Looking through the trademark database, it looks like there is a cancellation pending as of May 14th.

Trademark link. (Click expand all for details... )
   2015. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 19, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5675667)
Yeah, that trademark registration is going to be dead (unless they settle the cancellation proceeding of course). Never should have been granted in the first place, at least not without a strong showing of evidence of consumer perception as an indicator of source. The owner was stupid to make such overreaching policing efforts- she was basically begging for a cancellation petition. She got overconfident...I feel like there's a word for that...
   2016. cardsfanboy Posted: May 19, 2018 at 03:36 PM (#5675670)
The owner was stupid to make such overreaching policing efforts- she was basically begging for a cancellation petition. She got overconfident...I feel like there's a word for that...


From an article explaining the whole thing (this one)


I ask you to take a moment to contemplate all of the “cocky” puns to which I, your humble reporter, have heroically chosen not to subject you.
.................
.................
.................
Ironically, by registering a trademark in what she says was an attempt to protect her “cocky” brand, Hopkins may have done irreparable damage to her name brand instead.

One could almost say she got too cocky.

Look, you had to give me one.
   2017. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: May 19, 2018 at 03:40 PM (#5675673)
Coke to that guy then.
   2018. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 19, 2018 at 07:23 PM (#5675811)
Jose Canseco just announced his own cryptocurrency on Twitter.

Cansecoin is launched! If u are a good ICO lawyer please get a hold of me .
   2019. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 19, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5675823)
I don't feel compelled to categorize movies into high, low, and middle, or really any other categories. I like what I like.

I loved The Stunt Man, for example and would have no idea how to categorize it and don't need to.
   2020. BDC Posted: May 19, 2018 at 09:49 PM (#5675853)
I don't feel compelled to categorize movies into high, low, and middle, or really any other categories. I like what I like

Yes, I value (for myself and for students and anyone else) cultivating a taste that is independent and true to one's self.

I do find it interesting to try to define what people talk about when they talk about high, middle, and low tastes, though, partly as a way of observing culture and social status. As several have noted, high and low tastes often meet, where high taste likes low things ironically, or in a cultish, ruminative kind of way.

I like GregK's observation on "a genre film that's self-conscious about the genre it's in." I think it's still possible even in the 21st century to make a noir film that's just a noir, that tries to show believable characters in twisty crime situations: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, for instance, or Hell or High Water. You can enjoy them as just crime films, or as the Nth twist in an ancient genre. But then there are noir films like Brick that are so artificial that they're practically on life support. They are clever as hell but they are about their own cleverness; I think that's a value that "highbrows" hold.

Or compare Three Billboards to Seven Psychopaths, both by Martin McDonagh. Both are noirs, and not very realistic ones. The former is about quirky real characters caught in a noir plot, and the latter is about a screenwriter unable to write a good noir film like Three Billboards, because he thinks about it too much, populates it with unbelievable characters, and starts drinking heavily instead. You can enjoy Three Billboards on several levels, but you can only enjoy Seven Psychopaths for its self-aware hilarity (there's nothing else to it).
   2021. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2018 at 10:42 PM (#5675867)
Or compare Three Billboards to Seven Psychopaths, both by Martin McDonagh. Both are noirs, and not very realistic ones. The former is about quirky real characters caught in a noir plot, and the latter is about a screenwriter unable to write a good noir film like Three Billboards, because he thinks about it too much, populates it with unbelievable characters, and starts drinking heavily instead. You can enjoy Three Billboards on several levels, but you can only enjoy Seven Psychopaths for its self-aware hilarity (there's nothing else to it).

I loved Three Billboards for the sheer stubborn personality of the McDormand character, and now I want to see Seven Psychopaths just so I can get an idea of what you mean by self-awareness in a movie. The most cartoonishly pretentious movie I can think of is My Dinner With Andre, but I'm still not sure where pretentiousness ends and self-awareness begins.

Question: What Hollywood sound films prior to about 1967 would be considered highbrow? Citzen Kane and what else? Can a movie be both highbrow and popular? What about a movie like Judgement at Nuremberg? Highbrow subject matter, I guess, but a fairly straightforward treatment of it.

And then there are all those Italian neo-realist movies like Open City, Bicycle Thieves, Shoeshine, etc. All of these get dismissed in some quarters as "highbrow", but all three of them seem to me to be nothing but (very) compelling straightforward dramatic movies about war and poverty, and not even the tiniest bit obscure or hard to follow. Are they considered "highbrow" simply because they're foreign and mostly played in "arthouse" theaters?

   2022. Omineca Greg Posted: May 19, 2018 at 11:16 PM (#5675873)
I haven't seen it mentioned, so I'll just throw it out there, but sometimes the highbrowness of a film has to do with the material it's adapted from. People are busy, they hear about a great book, never get a chance to read it, but when a film adaption comes out, they bring that sense of pre-approval with them to the theatre. It's like the film has already been vetted for quality, and film-goers are more likely to laud its virtues, even if it's a mediocre adaption. But people who have never even heard of the original novel look at the film with more skeptical eyes, and wonder, "Why the heck is everyone liking this?"

There's a film that comes to mind for me. Remains of the Day. I loved that book, I don't know if it's particularly highbrow, but it juggles so many themes just effortlessly...tremendous book. The movie? Well, I saw the film with a whole bunch of artsy fartsy people, none of whom had read the book (but oh yeah, they'd heard of it, I think hearing about things that you never actually get around to experiencing is a very highbrow characteristic), except my wife and me. Oh, and there were a couple of normies, who were going in cold, too. I don't think it was a bad film, but we thought it was a pale substitute for reading the novel. Afterwards, over drinks and snacks, we talked about the movie, and everybody loved loved loved it.

Except the two of us who had read the book.

And the two normies.

The normies couldn't understand how it was supposed to be interesting. They didn't exactly hate it, but they were getting a bit defensive, "Oh, you just don't understand it" the art-farts would say, which is just begging to be kicked in the balls if you ask me, but there you go. That's a long story considering my only point is Remains of the Day (the film) struggled to bring the qualities of the novel to the screen, which happens, maybe even happens more times than not when dealing with adaptions. But there was a clear divide in the perceptions of the work, depending on what you brought to it.

So how 'bout a song?

This song pisses off every last person I've played it for, so let's see if you guys can break the slump. It's written and performed by Terry Allen, who is one of those proto-alt country/sculptor/painter types that are just everywhere these days. Except this song is from 1979. Insulting to art lovers, insulting to country music fans (who inevitably feel he's taking the piss out of the genre), with no further ado, "Truckload of Art"...

Reciting:

Once upon a time, sometime ago
Back on the East coast in New York City, to be exact
A bunch of artists and painters and sculptors and musicians
And poets and writers and dancers and architects
All started feeling real superior to their ego counterparts
Out on the West Coast
So they all got together and decided
They would show those snotty surfer upstarts
A thing or two about the Big Apple
And they hired themselves a truck
It was a big, spanking new white-shiny chrome-plated cab-over
Peterbilt with mud flaps, stereo, TV, AM and FM radio
Leather seats and a Naugahyde sleeper
All fresh with new American Flag decals and "ART ARK"
Printed on the side of the door with solid twenty-four karat gold leaf type
And they filled up this truck with the most significant piles
And influential heaps of art work to ever be assembled in modern times
And it sent it West
To chide, cajole, humble and humiliate the Golden Bear
And this is the true story of that truck

Singing:

Hail, a truckload of art from New York City
Came rollin' down the road
Oh, the driver was singing and the sunset was pretty
But the truck turned over and she rolled off the road

Yeah, the truckload of art, it's burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered all over the ground
And it's a terrible sight if a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around

Yeah, the driver went sailing high in the sky
Landing in the gold lap of the Lord
Who smiled and then said, "Son, you're better off dead
Than haulin' a truckload full of hot avant-garde"

Yeah, the truckload of art, it's burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered all over the ground
And it's a terrible sight if a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around

Yes, an important artwork was thrown burning to the ground
Tragically landing in the weeds
And the smoke could be seen, ah, for miles all around
Yeah, but nobody knows what it means

Yeah, the truckload of art, it's burning near the highway
And a tough job for the highway patrol
Ah, they'll soon see the smoke an' come runnin' to poke
Then dig a deep ditch and throw the arts in a hole

Yeah, the truckload of art, it's burning near the highway
And it's raging far out of control
And what the critics have cheered is now shattered and queered
And their noble reviews have been stewed on the road

Yeah, the truckload of art, it's burning near the highway
Precious objects are scattered all over the ground
A terrible sight if a person were to see it
But there weren't nobody around

Allen
   2023. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2018 at 11:32 PM (#5675882)
Hey, that reminds me to catch the new version of Fahrenheit 451. I'm recording it as I write.

And no, I haven't read the book. But I've sold plenty of the posters.
   2024. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: May 20, 2018 at 12:21 AM (#5675898)
That song is hilarious OGreg
   2025. BDC Posted: May 20, 2018 at 09:18 AM (#5675920)
What Hollywood sound films prior to about 1967 would be considered highbrow? Citzen Kane and what else? Can a movie be both highbrow and popular? What about a movie like Judgement at Nuremberg?

That's an intriguing question, because the qualifiers "Hollywood" and "pre-1967" just about exclude everything. I thought immediately of John Cassavetes, but most of his films are post-1967, and I wonder if Shadows (1959) would qualify as "Hollywood." To some extent, if "indie" by definition equals highbrow, then highbrow is by definition not Hollywood. Even Welles, who was certainly highbrow … by the time you get to Touch of Evil, is that a "Hollywood" picture? Welles was famous for being unable to make films in Hollywood.

As Omenica Greg says, though, highbrow can be defined by source material. Hollywood did Shakespeare, for instance, though sometimes bizarrely (Max Reinhardt's 1935 Midsummer Night's Dream). RKO did Of Human Bondage with Leslie Howard and Bette Davis – that's a prestige film with impeccable source material. Prestige drama provided a lot of material: many of Eugene O'Neill's plays were filmed, so were those of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. These could also be sensational and popular, but there was no doubt that they were egghead stuff too. Long Day's Journey into Night (directed by Sidney Lumet) is pretty rarefied, not to say unwatchable :)

"Message" films from Fritz Lang's Fury to The Ox-Bow Incident (William Wellman), The Pawnbroker (Lumet again), even Twelve Angry Men (again Lumet) are certainly aimed at the thinking audience, even when they're not particularly artsy. Judgment at Nuremberg comes to mind, for sure; also The Best Years of Their Lives. Or something like Rope; Hitchcock did some splashy star-vehicle stuff in Hollywood, but he had his intellectual side in films like Rope, The Wrong Man, The Paradine Case.

But it also might be interesting to think of highbrow elements of Hollywood film rather than entire films. Writers like Maxwell Anderson and Sidney Howard worked in Hollywood, and were surely highbrow by American standards. More to the point, composers like Miklós Rózsa, Max Steiner, and especially Erich Korngold worked very much within the studio system, and though that degraded them for a while in the eyes (ears?) of classical-music audiences, we now look back and see (hear) them as part of the classical tradition and sometimes the classical repertoire. And they were definitely high-prestige assets to their studios at the time.

   2026. BDC Posted: May 20, 2018 at 09:25 AM (#5675921)
Afterthought: and having mentioned Sidney Howard and Max Steiner, I realize I am close to defining Gone with the Wind as a highbrow film. But in a sense it was, if only piecemeal. It didn't have an arty director, it was a big can of corn in terms of story, it was spectacular Technicolor instead of restrained art-film visually, and Clark Gable doesn't scream "thinking-man's actor" … but Leslie Howard was a prestige player, and Vivien Leigh was exotic, and the novel had won the Pulitzer Prize. Maybe "prestige" is how Hollywood defined "highbrow" for itself.
   2027. McCoy Posted: May 20, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5675922)
Magnificent Ambersons-I could tell it was highbrow because critically acclaimed and incredibly boring.
   2028. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5675937)
Maybe "prestige" is how Hollywood defined "highbrow" for itself.

That's exactly what I was about to say, but you beat me to it. And it's further a indication of why I find "highbrow" to be impossibly vague and meaningless other than in describing movies which are deliberately abstract, self-referential and/or loaded with obscure symbolism, making them virtually impossible for most people to understand. Of course by any rational definition the idea that Gone With The Wind is "highbrow" is simply laughable. It's a fine movie on its own terms, but as a category it's little more than a lavishly produced and over-the-top tearjerker.

But here's one further thought: Some movies can become "highbrow" over time, simply because their focus was on events or conditions that were current at the time of their release, but are now but a distant memory to modern audiences.

Those Italian neo-realist films I mentioned above would be examples of this. Take Shoeshine or Bicycle Thieves. When those two movies were released, Europe was ravaged in the aftermath of World War 2, with its mass hunger and poverty featured in American newspapers and magazines on a level that no few people today without a sense of history could possibly comprehend. And so on a certain level those films were merely "ripped from the headlines" like the Warner Brothers gangster movies of the 30's. They didn't attract musical comedy level mass audiences in the U.S., because the subject matter was grim and most Americans just wanted to forget about Europe, but they weren't written off as something from another "highbrow" planet.

But fast forward 70 years, and movies like Shoeshine are relegated to the "highbrow" ghetto of the Criterion Collection, still a favorite of hardcore film buffs and TCM viewers, but completely unrelateable to the vast bulk of contemporary audiences. After all, who looks at Italy anymore and expects to see starving children begging in the streets? What planet are they from? It's another version of the dismissive putdown, "That was before my time".
   2029. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5675938)
double post
   2030. BDC Posted: May 20, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5675961)
Some movies can become "highbrow" over time, simply because their focus was on events or conditions that were current at the time of their release, but are now but a distant memory to modern audiences

Yes, definitely. Or just because intellectuals develop an appreciation for the art. Chaplin and Keaton were eventually seen (in their own lifetimes) as consummate artists, noir films became classics, Hollywood horror became prime material for cultural studies, etc.

Basically, Hollywood 1927-67 almost never consciously aimed for high art. They did stockpile talent associated with high art, like Korngold. At any given time various studios would have Fitzgerald and Faulkner on contract, Kurt Weill writing songs, Lang and Ernst Lubitsch behind the camera.

A line in Casablanca sums it up. SZ Sakall says of Rick's that "The leading banker in Amsterdam is now the pastry chef in our kitchen." And so Rick's has one of the great French film actors (Dalio) as croupier, watching one of the great stars of German Expressionism (Conrad Veidt) have another (Peter Lorre) arrested.
   2031. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5675966)
A line in Casablanca sums it up. SZ Sakall says of Rick's that "The leading banker in Amsterdam is now the pastry chef in our kitchen." And so Rick's has one of the great French film actors (Dalio) as croupier, watching one of the great stars of German Expressionism (Conrad Veidt) have another (Peter Lorre) arrested.

That's a beautiful example of the cornucopia of talent that Hollywood had at its disposal in those years, thanks to Adolf Hitler and the last few Russian Tsars.

As I think you said above: Develop your own independent taste, and disregard meaningless categories. The bottom line is that movies are meant to be enjoyed for whatever reasons you find them enjoyable, and no critic can know those reasons.
   2032. Hysterical & Useless Posted: May 20, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5676011)
2027. McCoy Posted: May 20, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5675922)
Magnificent Ambersons-I could tell it was highbrow because critically acclaimed and incredibly boring.


You, sir, are a fraud who poops his pants. Or other peoples pants.
   2033. Omineca Greg Posted: May 20, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5676024)
After appearing in If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast last year, Patricia Morison isn't eating breakfast this morning. At 103, she had a good run. Here's a montage of publicity stills someone has put together on Youtube. A strikingly beautiful woman.
   2034. Chicago Joe Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:36 AM (#5676237)
Re: MagAmb: book was pretty good.
   2035. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:07 AM (#5676243)
After all, who looks at Italy anymore and expects to see starving children begging in the streets?


Nobody, assuming we agree that the gypsies aren’t really people.
   2036. Rennie's Tenet Posted: May 21, 2018 at 06:22 AM (#5676254)
A strikingly beautiful woman.


At least on Newsradio's pretty-cute scale.
   2037. Lassus Posted: May 21, 2018 at 08:04 AM (#5676273)
Saw Deadpool over the weekend. Fun film. I've never really cared about Deadpool as a character, although he has proven an effective Greek meta-chourus, I suppose. It had its funny moments, its slow moment, its dumb and smart moments. Its subjective and not qualitative, but I'd rate it a very solid but-not-above B as entertainment. (I kind of hate what they've done to Pyotr Nikolayevich Rasputin, but again, I suppose it's subjective.)
   2038. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 08:44 AM (#5676283)
Yes, definitely. Or just because intellectuals develop an appreciation for the art. Chaplin and Keaton were eventually seen (in their own lifetimes) as consummate artists, noir films became classics, Hollywood horror became prime material for cultural studies, etc.


This is happening of course. Something else is too. As we are further removed from their cultural milieu, it increasingly requires both extratextual knowledge (to understand what's happening) and cultural sensitivity/curiosity (to enjoy a film that's intended for a radically different audience).

It's easy to mock the idea that all foreign (or B&W) films are highbrow but I think there's actually something to it. Even the dumbest, lowest common denominator foreign movie necessarily has an extra layer of complexity for a non-native viewer. And all older movies, whatever their original intention, are increasingly highbrow because as time passes they require more and more of that extra measure of knowledge and sensitivity to be understood and enjoyed.

   2039. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5676295)
Yes, definitely. Or just because intellectuals develop an appreciation for the art. Chaplin and Keaton were eventually seen (in their own lifetimes) as consummate artists, noir films became classics, Hollywood horror became prime material for cultural studies, etc.

This is happening of course. Something else is too. As we are further removed from their cultural milieu, it increasingly requires both extratextual knowledge (to understand what's happening) and cultural sensitivity/curiosity (to enjoy a film that's intended for a radically different audience).

That's what I was saying about (older) foreign movies in #2028, but I guess you could also apply it to many older Hollywood movies as well.

It's easy to mock the idea that all foreign (or B&W) films are highbrow but I think there's actually something to it. Even the dumbest, lowest common denominator foreign movie necessarily has an extra layer of complexity for a non-native viewer. And all older movies, whatever their original intention, are increasingly highbrow because as time passes they require more and more of that extra measure of knowledge and sensitivity to be understood and enjoyed.

Another way of putting it would be to invoke the old (but true) cliche that "The past is a foreign country." Whether or not that makes all B&W / older movies "highbrow" is a matter of semantics, and I wouldn't put it that way myself, but I can see where you're coming from.

OTOH I'm not sure how this theory would hold for certain genres. Noirs, for instance. Unless the idea of gangsters always wearing coats and ties and being able to find street parking in Manhattan without driving around the block 50 times makes a movie incomprehensible all by itself.
   2040. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 09:49 AM (#5676317)
I occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable. Pacing is generally pretty slow, the effects generally pretty poor, stuntwork is hokey, dialogue is campy, camerawork rather basic, and the editing needs to be more efficient.
   2041. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5676327)
OTOH I'm not sure how this theory would hold for certain genres. Noirs, for instance.


Why not? A noir will have just as many cultural signifiers as any other movie.
   2042. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5676348)
OTOH I'm not sure how this theory would hold for certain genres. Noirs, for instance.

Why not? A noir will have just as many cultural signifiers as any other movie.


I dunno. The standard issue noir combination of ruthless killers, crooked cops, conflicted good guy, flashy temptress, lots of gunfire, and (most of all) underlying cynicism about human nature all seem pretty timeless to me. I suppose that the black & white film stock, the 4.3 screen ratio, a somewhat less bluish vocabulary, and mandatory coats and ties for the gangsters might make most noirs seem superficially dated, but it's not as if you really need much knowledge of the 1940's or early 50's to follow what's going on or appreciate them.
   2043. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 10:28 AM (#5676357)
Well, in that regard virtually all films are timeless. I mean you don't need a lot of context to enjoy La Dolce Vita. You don't have to study up on WWII and post war Italy to follow along. We don't need to know the state of affairs in the 17th and 18th century Caribbean sea area to enjoy Captain Blood or even the state of affairs of Hollywood in the 1930's.

But in regards to PF's point it does help to know where Hollywood was at socially, economically, politically, culturally, and in technological ability when it makes a film. Noir films were at the time made a specific point in Hollywood and American history that no longer exists.


At this point in time it would be very hard to do a late 40's/50's straight up noir film in Hollywood. It would be seen as tired and cliched. At this point you would need to make an evolved noir film. Something like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Sin City though at this point you'd have to evolve past that as well. So watching an old 1950's noir film a viewer must be cognizant of the evolution of film to really truly appreciate all of the film outside of just straight storytelling because the modern viewer is probably going to find the story to be rather plain and or dull.
   2044. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5676369)
I dunno. The standard issue noir combination of ruthless killers, crooked cops, conflicted good guy, flashy temptress, lots of gunfire, and (most of all) underlying cynicism about human nature all seem pretty timeless to me.


OK. I agree that genre conventions can help preserve a film for later generations. But only to some extent.

I find the noir trappings very stylish and attractive, and many others do too, but with later generations, who knows? Maybe the Western will rise again.
   2045. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5676383)
Boy meets girl is timeless. The Arthurian quest is timeless. The ugly duckling is timeless. That the basic story structure is timeless does not mean movies following those basic story structures at a certain point in film making history are timeless. I mean at one point in time Chaplin films fell out of favor. Some would consider them highbrow at this point but it isn't because of the timeless nature of their high quality storytelling. In fact Lil' Tramp stories are rather basic.
   2046. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5676386)
Well, in that regard virtually all films are timeless. I mean you don't need a lot of context to enjoy La Dolce Vita. You don't have to study up on WWII and post war Italy to follow along. We don't need to know the state of affairs in the 17th and 18th century Caribbean sea area to enjoy Captain Blood or even the state of affairs of Hollywood in the 1930's.

I've never seen La Dolce Vita, but the difference between noir and those other older Hollywood genre movies is that the underlying cynicism they project is thoroughly modern. With all those other genres you have to believe too many impossible things, or accept too many long gone cultural assumptions, to even begin to "get" them, but that's not the case with noirs.

But in regards to PF's point it does help to know where Hollywood was at socially, economically, politically, culturally, and in technological ability when it makes a film. Noir films were at the time made a specific point in Hollywood and American history that no longer exists.

Sure, but again, it's a lot easier for a modern audience to link a Bogart or a Robert Mitchum to the Russell Crowe of LA Confidential or the Delroy Lindo of Clockers than it would be to link Mickey Rooney or Shirley Temple to any modern counterparts.

Of course some people will simply refuse to make any effort at all to transcend their own era, as I'm sure plenty of baseball fans today see Babe Ruth as just some old and fat white dude, but I'm talking about a modern audience that's at least marginally sentient and not willfully closeminded.

At this point in time it would be very hard to do a late 40's/50's straight up noir film in Hollywood. It would be seen as tired and cliched. At this point you would need to make an evolved noir film. Something like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Sin City though at this point you'd have to evolve past that as well. So watching an old 1950's noir film a viewer must be cognizant of the evolution of film to really truly appreciate all of the film outside of just straight storytelling because the modern viewer is probably going to find the story to be rather plain and or dull.

Well, technology alone would make any current attempt to replicate an old B&W noir seem silly at best and pretentious at worst. But I doubt if too many non-vegetating modern viewers would find films like The Killers plain and dull if they ever bothered to watch it without any preconceptions.
   2047. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5676396)
Boy meets girl is timeless.

But not boy and girl meeting over ice cream sodas in a Malt Shoppe and planning on the next hayride.

The Arthurian quest is timeless. The ugly duckling is timeless. That the basic story structure is timeless does not mean movies following those basic story structures at a certain point in film making history are timeless. I mean at one point in time Chaplin films fell out of favor. Some would consider them highbrow at this point but it isn't because of the timeless nature of their high quality storytelling. In fact Lil' Tramp stories are rather basic.

But again, in all those other genres the cultural assumptions are completely different than they are today, and that's not really the case for noir. In the case of Chaplins, the differing cultural references aren't quite so important, but the subtitles are a buzzkiller for all but a handful of people.
   2048. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM (#5676408)
Except noir has changed. Classical noir films had the criminals punished. They don't get away with their sins and that happens because the climate in Hollywood back in the 1940's and 1950's demanded that criminals don't profit from their sins. Nowadays they can.

Hollywood still makes Rooney and Temple films and lots of them.

But not boy and girl meeting over ice cream sodas in a Malt Shoppe and planning on the next hayride.

Well, then noir from the 1940's and 1950's is not timeless either considering that it would crooks plan on defrauding a rich man by sending a false telegram in which they tell him his wife is dead and then a new woman shows up claiming to be the wife even though she doesn't look anything like the real wife. Nowadays we would ask what's a telegram, did a Nigerian prince send it, you can't check instagram to see what the wife looks like?
   2049. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5676414)
Sure, but again, it's a lot easier for a modern audience to link a Bogart or a Robert Mitchum to the Russell Crowe of LA Confidential or the Delroy Lindo of Clockers than it would be to link Mickey Rooney or Shirley Temple to any modern counterparts.

I should also add that modern noir seems to be stuck in the late 40's and early 50's in that most of the noir that is put out nowadays is either placed back in that period or stylistically that period is recreated. As mentioned LA Confidential and Sin City fit into this kind of neo-noir film.
   2050. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5676442)
I'm going to do something I haven't done since I was 14 this weekend. I'm going to a drive-in movie theater.
   2051. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5676446)
Hope you get lucky!
   2052. Greg K Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5676452)
I should also add that modern noir seems to be stuck in the late 40's and early 50's in that most of the noir that is put out nowadays is either placed back in that period or stylistically that period is recreated. As mentioned LA Confidential and Sin City fit into this kind of neo-noir film.

The Big Lebowski and The Nice Guys are also what you might call period piece noirs. BDC mentioned Brick, which seems technically set in the contemporary world, but may as well be an alternate universe.
   2053. Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt! Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5676453)
Hope you get lucky!

Naw, I'm married...
   2054. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5676456)
I occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable. Pacing is generally pretty slow, the effects generally pretty poor, stuntwork is hokey, dialogue is campy, camerawork rather basic, and the editing needs to be more efficient.
Funny, my kids say that about any Pre-Harry Potter movie.
   2055. BDC Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:15 PM (#5676463)
occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable.

Hmmmn.

Pacing is generally pretty slow

OTOH, character development can be very thorough. There's a tradeoff. Older comedies are pretty fast-paced, too.

the effects generally pretty poor

One way to enjoy this is meta. The work of Willis O'Brien (King Kong) and Ray Harryhausen (Earth vs. the Flying Saucers) can be fascinating if you take it for the state of the art at its time and enjoy how it was done. (Put another way, it's almost a given that some future viewer will find the effects in any current film, at any time, to be pretty poor; but for what was then possible, they're usually not. Well, some are, but some seem terrible to contemporaries, too.)

stuntwork is hokey

But it was really, really dangerous. The house façade falling around Buster Keaton in Steamboat Bill, Jr. was done in one take, no practice possible. Keaton looked at the set, drove a nail into the ground where it looked like he should stand, and said "let's shoot it."

dialogue is campy

Feature :)

camerawork rather basic, and the editing needs to be more efficient

As with effects, this can depend on a sense of what was possible. But also, the better films pre-1970 established the whole grammar of camerawork and editing. And in some respects (eg early Disney animation or Technicolor) they achieved things that would be hard to recapture today, because the expertise and infrastructure have evaporated. "Better" stuff has taken its place, but there's been a certain deskilling.
   2056. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5676465)
I occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable. Pacing is generally pretty slow, the effects generally pretty poor, stuntwork is hokey, dialogue is campy, camerawork rather basic, and the editing needs to be more efficient.


And this is why old movies are now "highbrow" entertainment. It requires a little brainpower or sensitivity to surmount these barriers.
   2057. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5676468)
But it was really, really dangerous. The house façade falling around Buster Keaton in Steamboat Bill, Jr. was done in one take, no practice possible. Keaton looked at the set, drove a nail into the ground where it looked like he should stand, and said "let's shoot it."


I'm not trying to down play the danger of that scene, but where the window was going to land on the ground is one of the easiest geometric calculations to make. Keaton wasn't just guessing where to stand.
   2058. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:27 PM (#5676472)
I'm not trying to down play the danger of that scene, but where the window was going to land on the ground is one of the easiest geometric calculations to make.


How many modern comedians would you trust to make that calculation? I could see forgetting to carry the two if Paulie Shore was standing there.
   2059. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5676475)
You can buy cuckold.com for $319,000.
   2060. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM (#5676478)
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread, but here goes. My girlfriend and I are spending a week in Yellowstone: 5/26 through 6/1. It's a bucket list item for both of us. We were hoping that by visiting at the very end of May we could avoid the summer crowds but still see large swathes of the park as the snow melts. I understand that it was a heavy snow season for the park, but oh well, there's nothing we can do about it. We are splitting our visit up by staying in the Canyon, Mammoth Hot Springs, and Old Faithful areas. We are mostly hoping to day hike and observe wildlife. Does anyone have any recommendations as to day hikes that could be accessible this time of the year? Any tips or general advice? We've heard that Old Faithful itself is a tourist trap, but we feel obliged to see it at least once in our lives.
   2061. chisoxcollector Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5676480)
ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 17, 2018 at 12:11 PM

Superhero comics and movies are fine for 14 year olds. For adults I have to wonder.


ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 11:01 AM


I'm talking about a modern audience that's at least marginally sentient and not willfully closeminded.
   2062. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5676482)
Yellowstone is amazing. There's only one other place on earth with geothermal features like that, and it's in Siberia. Every time I go I experience moments where I feel like I'm on another planet.

My wife and I have hiked the area extensively, most recently in 2014, but she would know the names of the trails and the inside scoop on where to go when, she's our national parks expert. Yellowstone is a fairly dangerous place as national parks go, so make sure you have things pretty well planned out with backup alternatives beforehand. I'll check and see if I can pass along any wisdom on where to go, but you're going to be amazed.

Re: Old Faithful, take advantage of its regularity to visit it at around 2AM. It's the pitchest of pitch black, no tourists, and a canopy of stars stretching as far as the eye can see. Bring blankets, it will be cold, and just stretch out on the boardwalk and wait. Unforgettable experience.
   2063. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5676484)
I'm planning on a few days in Yellowstone in July, and would also gratefully welcome any tips and suggestions.
   2064. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5676488)
Graham, to be honest I'm not a big fan of Yellowstone. I find it less impressive than (say) Yosemite or Glacier, and it is overrun with yokels. The geothermal oddities don't really do it for me, maybe you're different.

I've been through twice, and my abiding memory is being stuck in about 45 minutes of traffic because the cars ahead were stopping to photograph and ogle a single elk. About 20 minutes after passing that elk, we found that there was a herd of about 50 standing immediately outside the visitor's center.

With that said, I haven't done much backcountry hiking and I'm sure there's a lot of great stuff. But I would consider widening your scope to at least include the Tetons.
   2065. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5676491)
I occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable. Pacing is generally pretty slow, ... stuntwork is hokey, dialogue is campy...


I suggest you spend a weekend watching the Marx Bros. You may come away with a different point of view.
   2066. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 21, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5676492)
On a separate note, I am reading the novel "Spin" by Robert Charles Wilson; it's a decent enough read but, as usual, I fear an unsatisfying ending. Then I found out there's two sequels. Anyone read them and can tell me if they're worth the effort?

As a point of reference, I thoroughly enjoyed all the Ender's Shadow books, and didn't care for Xenocide/Children of the Mind.
   2067. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: May 21, 2018 at 01:08 PM (#5676501)
YR - Thank you for the tip on Old Faithful. We are picking up bear spray before we head into the park. As to weather/seasonal dangers, we have multiple hiking options identified for almost every day and plan to consult with a park ranger when we get there so we can hike the safer trails more suited for the conditions. If you can pass along anything from your wife, I would greatly appreciate it.

Fish - We have heard this from several people, so I'd be lying if I said we didn't have any anxiety about being disappointed. We're really hoping we're early enough to dodge some of the crowds and would like to be on the trails early enough (before 7-8 a.m.) to avoid as much traffic as possible. We've heard great things about Yosemite and Glacier and plan to visit both in the future. We spent five days in Acadia last summer and loved every minute. She did a three-week swing with her girlfriends through Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah to hit Bryce Canyon, Arches, Zion, and the Grand Canyon a few summers ago. Of course, she wants to go back, but wanted to explore something new first. I am itching to visit Big Bend and Guadalupe soon as well.
   2068. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5676510)

How many modern comedians would you trust to make that calculation? I could see forgetting to carry the two if Paulie Shore was standing there.


Keaton was also an accomplished stuntman. And I would trust that most, if not all, professional stuntmen would be able to correctly measure where to stand.
   2069. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5676513)
I've been through twice, and my abiding memory is being stuck in about 45 minutes of traffic because the cars ahead were stopping to photograph and ogle a single elk. About 20 minutes after passing that elk, we found that there was a herd of about 50 standing immediately outside the visitor's center.


Fun fact, if you pull over on the side of the road, point, and aim your camera at nothing, people WILL stop and take pictures of nothing. It's entertaining.
   2070. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 01:58 PM (#5676559)
spending a week in Yellowstone: 5/26 through 6/1. It's a bucket list item for both of us. We were hoping that by visiting at the very end of May we could avoid the summer crowds but still see large swathes of the park as the snow melts. I understand that it was a heavy snow season for the park, but oh well,


This is very smart. While some of the trails may be wet (during runoff) its still very pleasant, and relatively low key before June/July/Aug. My parents retired to Cody 20 years ago, I used to spend summers out there and have been to Yellowstone dozens of times. There will be some construction in 2/3 areas you're heading (Canyon, Mammoth). Check the park's site for updates.

Not sure where you're entering the park from, but Sylvan Pass (near east entrance) will likely (usually is) be the snowiest area of the park at this time (as far as main road travel). You can get some slides/avalanches, in addition to simply having snow around. I've had some trouble w snow travel through there in late May before.

Beartooth Mountain pass should open around the 25th, to me that's the best scenic drive in the lower 48. (NE of Yellowstone).

I'm not huge on Old Faithful. I tend to go hang out on the outdoor deck of the Lodge, there's a small little bar up there and a seating area. I do like the 2 am recc. though.

I would do as much map scouting in advance as you can on where you want to hike. It's just a useful time saver given the abundance of choices. As you may already know, you need to specifically get a permit for any backcountry hikes. I also recommend against doing any fishing inside the park. It isn't worth it IMO.
   2071. Lassus Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:12 PM (#5676581)
On a separate note, I am reading the novel "Spin" by Robert Charles Wilson; it's a decent enough read but, as usual, I fear an unsatisfying ending. Then I found out there's two sequels. Anyone read them and can tell me if they're worth the effort?

WHEELHOUSE!

Except, um, I never read that first one because I didn't want to read about kids, so, sorry.
   2072. Lassus Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:14 PM (#5676583)
YR - Thank you for the tip on Old Faithful. We are picking up bear spray before we head into the park.

I would avoid mountain biking in the State of Washington these days. Or maybe anywhere in the NW period. Just google it if you don't know what I'm referring to.


   2073. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5676584)
Not sure where you're entering the park from, but Sylvan Pass (near east entrance) will likely (usually is) be the snowiest area of the park at this time (as far as main road travel). You can get some slides/avalanches, in addition to simply having snow around. I've had some trouble w snow travel through there in late May before.


We're flying into Bozeman, driving down through Gardiner, and coming into the park at the North Entrance. I am definitely going to add the Beartooth Mountain pass to our itinerary. Given the amount of snow, it looks like the valley and meadow hikes will be our best bets. Have you hiked the Black Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Lamar River Trail, or any of the other meadows? Any recommendations? We'd love to hike Mt. Washburn or Bunsen Peak or Avalanche Peak, but I don't think those are in the cards this time.
   2074. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:30 PM (#5676598)

Fun fact, if you pull over on the side of the road, point, and aim your camera at nothing, people WILL stop and take pictures of nothing. It's entertaining.


I remember an old silent movie. Guy leaves the doctor's office with his neck in a brace and is told not to look down. Everyone passing him starts looking up trying to see what he is looking at.
   2075. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 02:58 PM (#5676636)
I remember an old silent movie. Guy leaves the doctor's office with his neck in a brace and is told not to look down. Everyone passing him starts looking up trying to see what he is looking at.


Hal Roach recycled that bit in an Our Gang talkie, as well.
   2076. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5676639)
Just peeked at the 'backcountry sit rep', holy ####, there's a lot of trails still deeply covered in snow. Yeah, Mt. Wasburn isn't going to happen, sorry. I do indeed like the Lamar River Trail, mostly because it is easy for my kids too, plus I've had some great wildlife sightings here, beyond the tons of buffalo. My Mom says via text, streams are uncrossable in a lot of areas especially afternoon. Things can change pretty quickly.
   2077. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5676643)
On a separate note, I am reading the novel "Spin" by Robert Charles Wilson; it's a decent enough read but, as usual, I fear an unsatisfying ending. Then I found out there's two sequels. Anyone read them and can tell me if they're worth the effort?


I liked Spin. I didn't love it, but I liked it. I went through an RCW phase where I read a bunch of his stuff and by the time I got to Spin I was a little off put by the "Hey, I recognize that character!" for ... ummm ... all the characters.

Anyway I also read Axis and thought it was fun enough. If I remember correctly (It has been a while and my memory is bad) it was more "adventurey" than Spin, but less of a "BIG IDEA!" novel. I enjoyed it a fair amount, it is not as "good" as Spin, but I was less annoyed by the characters, so I liked it more.

FWIW: Chronolith was my favorite of his books, because I really thought it a clever take, but it was flawed as well.

EDIT: And I never read the third novel. Now that I know it exists I will likely read it.
   2078. Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck" Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5676646)
Thanks again (especially for getting the local report from your mom). We'll make the best of it, and I'm sure we'll have a blast on whatever trails that are open.
   2079. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5676648)
I didn't want to read about kids, so, sorry.
Lassus, they're only kids for about two chapters, then it's college-and-beyond rather quickly. I thought from the blurb that it would be mainly adolescence but that was not the case.
   2080. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5676673)
I occasionally try to watch old Hollywood movies but most movies prior to late 60's are just so unwatchable. Pacing is generally pretty slow, ... stuntwork is hokey, dialogue is campy...

I suggest you spend a weekend watching the Marx Bros. You may come away with a different point of view.

Or, once again, give The Killers a try.

Added note: There was a 1964 remake of that movie, not as good as the original Lancaster / Ava Gardner version but not all that bad, and it featured Ronald Reagan as a mob boss who pimp-slaps Angie Dickinson! Lee Marvin was in it, and he said it was his favorite film.
   2081. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5676689)
A huge percentage of the Marx Bros’ jokes fall flat today. It’s primarily the truly zany #### and slapstick that is timeless.
   2082. Hysterical & Useless Posted: May 21, 2018 at 03:54 PM (#5676693)
A huge percentage of the Marx Bros’ jokes fall flat today


I dunno, a gala day's enough for me.
   2083. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5676699)
2081

A huge percentage of the Marx Bros’ jokes fall flat today. It’s primarily the truly zany #### and slapstick that is timeless.


From their first film, The Cocanuts:

Groucho & Chico are looking over a Florida real estate map.


Groucho: "Over here are the levees."

Chico: "Oh, that's the Jewish neighborhood!"

Groucho (giving him a side-eye): "Well, we'll pass over that."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the hotel desk.

Groucho: "Will you take a suite on the top floor?"

Chico: "No, I take a Polak in da basement."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from Duck Soup:

Groucho: "Chicolini, I sentence you to 10 years at Leavenworth, or 11 years at Twelveworth."

Chico: "I take-a 5 & 10 at Woolworth's."
   2084. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5676700)
A huge percentage of the Marx Bros’ jokes fall flat today


I dunno, a gala day's enough for me.


Margaret Dumont: "You want to marry all of us?"

Groucho: "Sure!"

MD: "Why, that's bigamy!"

G: "Yeah and it's big o' me, too!"
   2085. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5676702)
Let's take a look at the titles:


Disappointed that there's no "Tristram Eye-Candy, a #### and Balls Story."

I'd rate it a very solid but-not-above B as entertainment


That's where I'd put the new Deadpool too. It was certainly worth the matinee price, and I apparently really enjoy watching Ryan Reynolds get knocked around like a ragdoll. What don't you like about this depiction of Colossus, though?

You can buy cuckold.com for $319,000.


I can't tell whether that's a high or low price.
   2086. Lassus Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:07 PM (#5676703)
What don't you like about this depiction of Colossus, though?

Stereotypical comedy foil, never beats anyone on his own, portrayed as dumb. Not the kind of straight man I prefer.

It's subjective. Colossus and Nightcrawler were big favorites, they've never been done right. The latter was always a wiry, wisecracking, confident hero, never the wilting flower religious freak he's been so far. Maybe when Marvel takes over.
   2087. Cowboy Popup Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:07 PM (#5676704)
from Duck Soup:

Groucho: "Chicolini, I sentence you to 10 years at Leavenworth, or 11 years at Twelveworth."

Chico: "I take-a 5 & 10 at Woolworth's."


That entire scene is solid gold.

So much of the Marx Bros' humor is rooted in subverting authority and a disdain for pretension. I would argue those are timeless elements of humor and while some jokes might take some translating for era, the bulk of them will be funny for a very long time. Duck Soup, for example, is probably more relevant today than it was 25 years ago.
   2088. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5676711)
One way to enjoy this is meta. The work of Willis O'Brien (King Kong) and Ray Harryhausen (Earth vs. the Flying Saucers) can be fascinating if you take it for the state of the art at its time and enjoy how it was done. (Put another way, it's almost a given that some future viewer will find the effects in any current film, at any time, to be pretty poor; but for what was then possible, they're usually not. Well, some are, but some seem terrible to contemporaries, too.)

I'm a big believer in the Spielberg style of effects which is that if it looks hokey don't use it. That's why his movies can stand the test of time. Jaws doesn't look like a toy despite the fact that Spielberg couldn't get the darn thing to work right. Instead he simply turned a weakness/negative into a strength in the movie. Same thing with Jurassic Park. Still to this day the effects don't look dated.
   2089. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5676715)

I suggest you spend a weekend watching the Marx Bros. You may come away with a different point of view.


The thing of it is is that I've seen a lot of the old movies. As a kid up through my teenage years I watched a ton of movies from silent Chaplin/Keaton all the way up through mid 60's movies. Had samurai sundays, did the John Wayne movies on Saturdays, the James Bond marathons, the Errol Flynn swashbucklers, the Bible story craze, the noir era of Hollywood, WWII period films, slapstick, screwball, the serials, all of it. It was a widely available in the 80's and early 90's.

When I say these things about old movies I'm not saying them from a position of ignorance but of a person who has watched thousands of movies and knows what he likes and why.
   2090. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5676718)
Or, once again, give The Killers a try.

I've seen it.
   2091. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5676727)
The thing of it is is that I've seen a lot of the old movies. As a kid up through my teenage years I watched a ton of movies from silent Chaplin/Keaton all the way up through mid 60's movies. Had samurai sundays, did the John Wayne movies on Saturdays, the James Bond marathons, the Errol Flynn swashbucklers, the Bible story craze, the noir era of Hollywood, WWII period films, slapstick, screwball, the serials, all of it. It was a widely available in the 80's and early 90's.

When I say these things about old movies I'm not saying them from a position of ignorance but of a person who has watched thousands of movies and knows what he likes and why.

Or, once again, give The Killers a try.

I've seen it.


Fair enough. As I've said a million times, movie preferences are almost wholly subjective. One person's classic is another person's snoozer, and no amount of persuasion is going to change either side. Nothing short of a $500 bribe could get me to watch Jaws** or almost any other Hollywood blockbuster movie a second time, and even watching them once is usually too much of an effort. 99% of Hollywood's modern day special effects put me to sleep in less than a minute.

** When it comes down to Richard Dreyfuss or a shark, I'm rooting for the shark.
   2092. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5676742)
McCoy, #2088:
I'm a big believer in the Spielberg style of effects which is that if it looks hokey don't use it. That's why his movies can stand the test of time. Jaws doesn't look like a toy despite the fact that Spielberg couldn't get the darn thing to work right. Instead he simply turned a weakness/negative into a strength in the movie.



While you're right on the whole, this is about the worst example to use. I have seen a teenager laugh aloud at the sight of the shark coming up onto the boat (*), because of how obviously phony it looks. Back in 1975, audience reactions were quite different.

And she loved "Jaws" anyway, because it's great and she has good taste.

(*Spoiler Alert.)
   2093. Swoboda is freedom Posted: May 21, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5676748)
Margaret Dumont: "You want to marry all of us?"

Groucho: "Sure!"


Groucho get check at restaurant. Looks at it and flips it over the Dumont. "This is outrageous, I wouldn't pay that if I were you."


One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know. Then I had to remove the tusks, which is very hard. Except in Alabama, where the Tuscaloosa.
   2094. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5676752)
I'm a big believer in the Spielberg style of effects which is that if it looks hokey don't use it. That's why his movies can stand the test of time. Jaws doesn't look like a toy despite the fact that Spielberg couldn't get the darn thing to work right. Instead he simply turned a weakness/negative into a strength in the movie.


While you're right on the whole, this is about the worst example to use. I have seen a teenager laugh aloud at the sight of the shark coming up onto the boat (*), because of how obviously phony it looks. Back in 1975, audience reactions were quite different.

And she loved "Jaws" anyway, because it's great and she has good taste.
I actually think that helps McCoy's point; the scenes where you actually SEE the shark are the weakest in the entire film.

To an extent this is similar in JP; the scenes with full-bodied dinosaurs (like the stampeding herd, or T-Rex running behind the jeep) are less engaging (to me) than the dilating eye peering in the window. Less is more.
   2095. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5676756)
Pit Beef Update-Final cooked off the top loin yesterday on a gas grill after letting sit in a rub for a day. It was very tasty. Made a horseradish mayonnaise for it and served it on a regular kaiser roll. Next time I'm going to use an onion roll. My GF and I are seriously considering opening a pit beef shop in our local food hall. The hall is supposed to open up by the end of the year and we figure a year to two years after that one of the original opening will have closed and we'll get a better sense of the kind of traffic in the hall. At that time we'll probably jump into owning our own business. In the meantime two local guys are opening up a brewery as well and their plan is to have food trucks supply the food but they will also be building a kitchen for catered events as well. Though I'm also guessing they'll probably want somebody to eventually to take the spot over and run the food program. So I figure if they are actually installing grills and stoves in the brewery I can cater pit beef on some weekends to see what the reaction is as well as refine the food.
   2096. McCoy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:17 PM (#5676757)
While you're right on the whole, this is about the worst example to use. I have seen a teenager laugh aloud at the sight of the shark coming up onto the boat (*), because of how obviously phony it looks. Back in 1975, audience reactions were quite different.

And she loved "Jaws" anyway, because it's great and she has good taste.


I meant to give a counter example or two but got pulled away. Good counter examples would be something like Jaws 3 or I think the crocodile scenes in Arnold's Eraser. Or even Star Wars I vs say Blade Runner
   2097. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5676763)
Stereotypical comedy foil, never beats anyone on his own, portrayed as dumb.


I'd agree with the first point, and with the second it's a problem with the Worf Effect.* But I don't think he comes off as dumb at all. He seems to be an all around good dude, especially considering he can put up with Deadpool, and he's not wrong in the advice he gives Wade.

* Also, SPOILERS:

Considering we saw Juggernaut easily fend off Cable, Domino, and Deadpool before his arrival, and considering that Juggernaut literally tore Deadpool in half earlier, the fact that Colossus could go toe to toe with him for pretty much the whole fight wasn't exactly an insult to his character.
   2098. cardsfanboy Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:50 PM (#5676781)
With Colossus it really depends on when they are using him. Marvel for years made a big deal out of flat out declaring that he was in the 90 ton category of strength (note don't take that literally at the higher levels, it's mostly about rankings, where 100 ton characters could have nearly unlimited strength, and that a 90 ton character was clearly below them) Juggernaut has always been a 100 ton character and it was a big point in the comics when Colossus successfully went two-to-two with him. As far as personality, Colossus is straight laced, has always been portrayed that way, he is the gallant, naive farmboy from Russia with the biggest heart of all the X-men. There is a reason he was the one to take the cure of the legacy virus. In some respects, his personality in the comics mimics early years of Clark Kent.


As far as Nightcrawler goes, this bible thumping thing has been a self created cycle, where it was a throw away comment that he was religious, and then they kept adding more and more layers too it, because the writers thought it would be cool to see someone that looks like him, being religious(and for some of them, it was better to go that way, than to make him gay)
   2099. Rennie's Tenet Posted: May 21, 2018 at 05:59 PM (#5676791)
I think it can make quite a bit of difference if you can get introduced to old movies in a theater. As a weird kid in the 70's, I was lucky to have an old theater that did Saturday repertory only two bus rides away. They showed all the slapstick classics, screwballs, Ealing comedies, the early Pink Panther films. After a few years, the early Woody Allen movies were old and cheap enough to run them. I'm still weird and basically blind, but when I see any of these movies now I can always go back to that theater.
   2100. PreservedFish Posted: May 21, 2018 at 06:18 PM (#5676800)
floop
Page 21 of 39 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1118 - 2:41pm, Oct 18)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2060 - 2:40pm, Oct 18)
Last: Rally

NewsblogFan interference negates Jose Altuve home run
(38 - 2:39pm, Oct 18)
Last: Khrushin it bro

NewsblogRed Sox Voice Joe Castiglione Falls Off Chair Calling Game 4 Final Out | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(6 - 2:37pm, Oct 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogMLB playoffs 2018: Brewers used a fake starter, Dodgers used Clayton Kershaw - SBNation.com
(55 - 2:35pm, Oct 18)
Last: Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(322 - 2:34pm, Oct 18)
Last: Graham & the 15-win "ARod Vortex of suck"

NewsblogDave Littlefield latest candidate to interview for Mets' GM role
(11 - 2:21pm, Oct 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogMore questions after Astros get free pass on dugout spying
(8 - 2:16pm, Oct 18)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogBryce Harper’s Future in the League
(6 - 2:16pm, Oct 18)
Last: QLE

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(656 - 2:04pm, Oct 18)
Last: GregD

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-18-2018
(8 - 1:35pm, Oct 18)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogRustin Dodd on Twitter: "Here’s the space between the yellow line and the first row in right field at Minute Maid Park:… "
(4 - 1:32pm, Oct 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogThe Angels are making their managerial candidates take a two-hour test
(46 - 12:47pm, Oct 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Sox TherapyALCS Thoughts
(89 - 12:26pm, Oct 18)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogThis unbelievable catch by Tony Kemp killed a Red Sox rally, but is it too good to be true?
(25 - 11:50am, Oct 18)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

Page rendered in 0.8836 seconds
46 querie(s) executed