|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 18, 2024 17:52:38 GMT
You know what would make for a funny sequel to Cast Away? Him trying to secure a car loan or rent an apartment after getting back. Having been gone for 4 years, and legally declared dead, he has no "recent payment history" so his credit would be in the shitter. Even faced with a logical explanation, credit reporting agencies are some of the most myopic people on the planet. No way in hell FexEx is footing the bill. Although I guess if it took place today, he could launch a GoFundMe and do pretty well. Reminds me of this scene.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 22, 2024 12:32:14 GMT
I am tackling the 3 Body Problem, a new science fiction show on Netflix, based on the eponymous book by Chinese author Cixin Liu. The book had been on my radar since it became a worldwide success a few years ago but only now with the release of the TV show did I finally get around to reading it. I enjoyed it well enough so next step is watching the show. First episode (of eight) was pretty good. Started this a few weeks back but haven't kept up with it. Maybe three episodes in, I can't remember. My favorite scene so far was first contact with the aliens. "You're lucky I received your message first. I am a pacifist. If anyone else sees this, we will come and conquer your planet. Do not reply." And the embittered woman who has lost faith in humanity tells them to come conquer us. The story works not only as a worst case scenario for first contact with aliens, but also as a commentary on the dangers of advanced technology, and how easily it could be used for catastrophic effect if put into the wrong hands. I don't love the video game aspect of the storytelling, but as it's the eye candy and probably the selling point of the show, I suppose it's necessary until (if/when) the aliens show up. I have to get caught up on a few other shows, but I'll circle back to this one.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Apr 22, 2024 13:39:44 GMT
I am tackling the 3 Body Problem, a new science fiction show on Netflix, based on the eponymous book by Chinese author Cixin Liu. The book had been on my radar since it became a worldwide success a few years ago but only now with the release of the TV show did I finally get around to reading it. I enjoyed it well enough so next step is watching the show. First episode (of eight) was pretty good. Started this a few weeks back but haven't kept up with it. Maybe three episodes in, I can't remember. My favorite scene so far was first contact with the aliens. "You're lucky I received your message first. I am a pacifist. If anyone else sees this, we will come and conquer your planet. Do not reply." And the embittered woman who has lost faith in humanity tells them to come conquer us. The story works not only as a worst case scenario for first contact with aliens, but also as a commentary on the dangers of advanced technology, and how easily it could be used for catastrophic effect if put into the wrong hands. I don't love the video game aspect of the storytelling, but as it's the eye candy and probably the selling point of the show, I suppose it's necessary until (if/when) the aliens show up. I have to get caught up on a few other shows, but I'll circle back to this one.
The video game gets far more page time than it gets screen time. In the book, there are more levels and the progression in the understanding of the "Three-body problem" is described in more detail. It works in the book, but it was probably a good idea to trim it mercilessly for TV.
I haven't finished it yet but I am still enjoying it. I hope the rumours about Netflix pulling the plug on a second season are not true. I haven't read the second book yet, but my brother says he's liked it even more than the first.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Apr 28, 2024 4:34:17 GMT
I tried to watch Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2013) mostly because I was impressed by the director’s most recent film, Zone of Interest, but also because I had read that Scarlett Johansson appears naked in it. I think we are all men in this thread so I can admit to it.
From the start I was rhetorically asking myself “what the fuck is this” but I tried my best to stick with it, hoping that things would fall into place eventually. One hour in and I decided to cut my losses. There is only so much I can take of watching Scarlett Johansson drive around in a van picking up men to consume in some bizarre way.
If anyone has seen it and enjoyed it, an explanation of what I missed would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Apr 28, 2024 13:30:49 GMT
I tried to watch Under the Skin (Jonathan Glazer, 2013) mostly because I was impressed by the director’s most recent film, Zone of Interest, but also because I had read that Scarlett Johansson appears naked in it. I think we are all men in this thread so I can admit to it. From the start I was rhetorically asking myself “what the fuck is this” but I tried my best to stick with it, hoping that things would fall into place eventually. One hour in and I decided to cut my losses. There is only so much I can take of watching Scarlett Johansson drive around in a van picking up men to consume in some bizarre way. If anyone has seen it and enjoyed it, an explanation of what I missed would be appreciated. I liked it, but Klaw was the real champion for this title. He encouraged me to watch it while I encouraged him to watch Almodavar's The Skin I Live In. I'll let him explain what he appreciates about it, but I like a cryptic and artsy dark meditation like this. It ends up paying off in odd ways too. I'm glad I gave it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 30, 2024 15:27:04 GMT
Ended up seeing The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) last week. It was a fun little romp, typical of Guy Ritchie's other films. The cast was solid and though the villain was a bit cartoonish, I think that was the point. Virtually all of the violence in the entire film is played for laughs. It wasn't quite as, I don't know, rip-roaring as I thought it would be, but it was enjoyable, nonetheless. And yes, I was that annoying guy that leans over and tells his wife Ian Fleming is the author of the Bond books when Fleming shows up as a character in the film. It's worth a watch if you usually get a kick out of Ritchie's films, though I have to admit, I might have liked it better as a more serious action/thriller.
Separate topic, but a continuation of a previous conversation in the thread. There was a woman in the concession line wearing a MAGA hat and it took me five seconds to guess she was there to watch Civil War (I listened to the usher direct her to her theater to confirm). She's exactly the person I was talking about earlier in the thread, either ignoring or misinterpreting the probable message of that film. Most rational people (including, surely, the filmmakers) understand that Civil War is and would be terrible, and while it's unlikely here in the modern US, it sadly is still not an impossible scenario, as the two political parties become more extreme and their most radical followers start treating political ideologies as some kind of holy war.
Not to stray into politics too far, I'm going to focus on this particular woman in the MAGA hat. Here is someone clearly stating they are in favor of this imaginary Civil War. It's like cosplayers who go to Star Wars movies, or a guy in face paint at a football game. You're sending a message loud and clear that you're into this shit. Think about that for a second. Someone is enthusiastic for a breakdown in our society so extreme as to become an all-out war. Like the football fan, they want you to know who's side they're on in this conflict.
Obviously the film is fictitious and doesn't feature any real politicians as characters. And though I haven't seen Civil War, again I'm assuming the point of the film is a warning not to let things escalate to that point. Come to your senses and drop the 'us vs. them' mentality, particularly regarding your fellow American. Now I'll ask again, what message do you think MAGA lady took from this film?
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Apr 30, 2024 15:51:04 GMT
Ended up seeing The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024) last week. We were supposed to see this today (currently abroad) but the plans didn't work out. Looks pretty good. Nothing good, I'll bet. MAGA lady was probably rooting for Jesse Plemons.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Apr 30, 2024 17:21:05 GMT
On a flight home yesterday, I watched Blackberry (2023), which is a fictionalized account of the meteoric rise and precipitous fall of BlackBerry back in the early-mid 00s. This seems to be a popular means of generating movies and shows now that 80s nostalgia has started to fade - the corporate docudrama. I really liked The Dropout (the one about Elizabeth Holmes starring Amanda Seyfried), the Uber one was pretty good, and I really really wanted to like this one solely due to the cast, led by Glenn Howerton who is giving his absolute all. Howerton is the reason to watch this movie, he's really funny and this is the first time I've seen him in a leading role. The problem is that, as funny as he is, he is completely one note the entire time. Further, while the movie tries to develop its characters through their various ticks, it fails to gel in that regard. For instance, there's a great early scene with Jay Baruchel (who plays the co-founder of the company, Mike Laziridis) where he eschews preparing for a pivotal meeting so he can disassemble and repair an intercom that is buzzing. It's a terrific little nod to his character sans exposition, but that's kinda it. For every character. Jim Balsillie (Howerton) loves hockey, and otherwise he just yells at everyone. There's no real story at all beyond just the plot points. Yeah, it's played for laughs but I found myself largely disinterested towards the end. Plus, Mike Laziridis has an abrupt character shift from one scene to the next and it's pretty jarring and kinda throws the movie off kilter a little. There are certainly worse things to watch, but I didn't like this one as much as I had hoped.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 30, 2024 17:24:33 GMT
So I finished Shogun the other day and I have to say, it was underwhelming. After a very strong start, the show just kind of meandered along and ended with a whimper. To compare it to GOT, it would almost be like saying, "What if Ned Stark outmaneuvered everyone politically from the outside, and in the end nothing actually happened?" You would call that a boring story. I don't want to call Shogun boring, because the political intrigue and characterization of all involved parties at the beginning was excellent. But it never felt like anyone had an angle that went anywhere, other than Toranaga. And to end it with a five minute exposition scene where he reveals his whole plan, without actually showing the battle the entire series was leading up to is just puzzling.
The final episode is framed as a flashback by a dying elderly John Blackthorne, which is odd because it adds nothing to the story (and in fact works to its detriment by telling us he survived this entire saga), and isn't a technique ever used previously in the series. Why do it there? If the point was to show the wit of Toranaga instead of highlighting his battle prowess, maybe that works better on the page than on the screen. In the end the entire saga comes across as a whole lot of nothing, where scheming characters have hollow agendas that serve as nothing but filler in the big picture. Little to no drama in the final episode, it essentially runs as an hour long epilogue.
The performances were excellent, I just wish the story felt like it went somewhere by the end.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on May 6, 2024 3:53:09 GMT
RIP Bernard Hill.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 6, 2024 12:03:48 GMT
He goes now to his fathers, in whose mighty company he shall not now feel ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 6, 2024 12:43:20 GMT
I watched Unfrosted (2024) last night. I don't even know where to start. Every scene during its entire runtime is funny because it's not funny, and I don't get the sense that's what they were going for. It would've killed about 30 careers if most of the people weren't already on their way out, anyway-- or if anyone cared about straight to Netflix movie releases. I can't count the number of times I just snickered and said, "What the fuck." It's like they found a way to film someone's dream-- like literal sleeping dream, it truly is that nonsensical. My wife wondered why they didn't let the actors riff more, but I pointed out you can't ad lib when the story already makes zero sense. There's just nowhere to go with any given attempt at humor in this movie. There's a line in the movie that goes something like, "when you eat garbage, you take what you have and try to make something out of it." And for the life of me I can't decide if that meta-commentary on the making of this movie was deliberate. To ask why James Marsden is playing Jack Lalanne or why Jack Lalanne is in this film is missing the point, I think. Bill Burr plays JFK, Hugh Grant plays Tony the Tiger, and Christian Slater (?) plays an agent of the evil milkman syndicate, which is headed up by Peter Dinklage. Snap, Crackle & Pop play the bagpipes at Steve Schwinn's funeral. You read that right, and no matter how many times you read it, it won't make any more sense, not even after you watch the movie. It blows my mind that this is Jerry Seinfeld's directorial debut. This is what a Seinfeld passion project looks like? It's an endless collection of puns, sight gags and odd references (the invention of Tang, the space race, even an anachronistic January 6th riot subplot during the film's climax, featuring Hugh Grant's Tony the tiger going full QAnon Shaman-- complete with horns) that doesn't fit together in any way, acted out by every B, C, and D list comedian over the last 25 years. It's so wild. Needless to say, almost all of the story is fictitious. (For the record, there's a fun episode of the History Channel show The Food That Built America on the topic of the origins of the Pop Tart.) I'll say this, due to its bizarre nature, I was never bored. The jokes didn't land, but all I could do was watch in awe as the trainwreck just kept unfolding and the random cameos kept on coming (Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their Mad Men roles). I wouldn't recommend it, but rather say you have to see it to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on May 6, 2024 18:49:32 GMT
I watched Unfrosted (2024) last night. I don't even know where to start. Every scene during its entire runtime is funny because it's not funny, and I don't get the sense that's what they were going for. It would've killed about 30 careers if most of the people weren't already on their way out, anyway-- or if anyone cared about straight to Netflix movie releases. I can't count the number of times I just snickered and said, "What the fuck." It's like they found a way to film someone's dream-- like literal sleeping dream, it truly is that nonsensical. My wife wondered why they didn't let the actors riff more, but I pointed out you can't ad lib when the story already makes zero sense. There's just nowhere to go with any given attempt at humor in this movie. There's a line in the movie that goes something like, "when you eat garbage, you take what you have and try to make something out of it." And for the life of me I can't decide if that meta-commentary on the making of this movie was deliberate. To ask why James Marsden is playing Jack Lalanne or why Jack Lalanne is in this film is missing the point, I think. Bill Burr plays JFK, Hugh Grant plays Tony the Tiger, and Christian Slater (?) plays an agent of the evil milkman syndicate, which is headed up by Peter Dinklage. Snap, Crackle & Pop play the bagpipes at Steve Schwinn's funeral. You read that right, and no matter how many times you read it, it won't make any more sense, not even after you watch the movie. It blows my mind that this is Jerry Seinfeld's directorial debut. This is what a Seinfeld passion project looks like? It's an endless collection of puns, sight gags and odd references (the invention of Tang, the space race, even an anachronistic January 6th riot subplot during the film's climax, featuring Hugh Grant's Tony the tiger going full QAnon Shaman-- complete with horns) that doesn't fit together in any way, acted out by every B, C, and D list comedian over the last 25 years. It's so wild. Needless to say, almost all of the story is fictitious. (For the record, there's a fun episode of the History Channel show The Food That Built America on the topic of the origins of the Pop Tart.) I'll say this, due to its bizarre nature, I was never bored. The jokes didn't land, but all I could do was watch in awe as the trainwreck just kept unfolding and the random cameos kept on coming (Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their Mad Men roles). I wouldn't recommend it, but rather say you have to see it to believe it. I've noticed Jerry Seinfeld has been in the news lately but I haven't paid enough attention as to why. It seemed like it was for a negative reason though. I suppose he was getting bad reviews for this film? I never knew he had anything coming out, not that I'm a huge fan of his anyways. The nonsense plot you described and the list of random "stars" in it, reminds me of the film "Movie 43" which the studio just forced A listers into a film to complete their contracts with the studio and it was the most atrocious thing I've ever watched. I still remember Hugh Jackman having a nutsack hanging from his chin.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 6, 2024 19:27:12 GMT
I watched Unfrosted (2024) last night. I don't even know where to start. Every scene during its entire runtime is funny because it's not funny, and I don't get the sense that's what they were going for. It would've killed about 30 careers if most of the people weren't already on their way out, anyway-- or if anyone cared about straight to Netflix movie releases. I can't count the number of times I just snickered and said, "What the fuck." It's like they found a way to film someone's dream-- like literal sleeping dream, it truly is that nonsensical. My wife wondered why they didn't let the actors riff more, but I pointed out you can't ad lib when the story already makes zero sense. There's just nowhere to go with any given attempt at humor in this movie. There's a line in the movie that goes something like, "when you eat garbage, you take what you have and try to make something out of it." And for the life of me I can't decide if that meta-commentary on the making of this movie was deliberate. To ask why James Marsden is playing Jack Lalanne or why Jack Lalanne is in this film is missing the point, I think. Bill Burr plays JFK, Hugh Grant plays Tony the Tiger, and Christian Slater (?) plays an agent of the evil milkman syndicate, which is headed up by Peter Dinklage. Snap, Crackle & Pop play the bagpipes at Steve Schwinn's funeral. You read that right, and no matter how many times you read it, it won't make any more sense, not even after you watch the movie. It blows my mind that this is Jerry Seinfeld's directorial debut. This is what a Seinfeld passion project looks like? It's an endless collection of puns, sight gags and odd references (the invention of Tang, the space race, even an anachronistic January 6th riot subplot during the film's climax, featuring Hugh Grant's Tony the tiger going full QAnon Shaman-- complete with horns) that doesn't fit together in any way, acted out by every B, C, and D list comedian over the last 25 years. It's so wild. Needless to say, almost all of the story is fictitious. (For the record, there's a fun episode of the History Channel show The Food That Built America on the topic of the origins of the Pop Tart.) I'll say this, due to its bizarre nature, I was never bored. The jokes didn't land, but all I could do was watch in awe as the trainwreck just kept unfolding and the random cameos kept on coming (Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their Mad Men roles). I wouldn't recommend it, but rather say you have to see it to believe it. I've noticed Jerry Seinfeld has been in the news lately but I haven't paid enough attention as to why. It seemed like it was for a negative reason though. I suppose he was getting bad reviews for this film? I never knew he had anything coming out, not that I'm a huge fan of his anyways. The nonsense plot you described and the list of random "stars" in it, reminds me of the film "Movie 43" which the studio just forced A listers into a film to complete their contracts with the studio and it was the most atrocious thing I've ever watched. I still remember Hugh Jackman having a nutsack hanging from his chin. Seinfeld was in the news for saying nobody watches movies anymore. Maybe he was hoping nobody would watch his. It's just so poorly conceived and written. There can't be a single person involved in its production who saw the finished product and thought it was good, I don't understand why it was made. At least you explained the rationale behind Movie 43, Unfrosted is a true mystery.
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 6, 2024 20:31:25 GMT
I've noticed Jerry Seinfeld has been in the news lately but I haven't paid enough attention as to why. It seemed like it was for a negative reason though. I suppose he was getting bad reviews for this film? I never knew he had anything coming out, not that I'm a huge fan of his anyways. The nonsense plot you described and the list of random "stars" in it, reminds me of the film "Movie 43" which the studio just forced A listers into a film to complete their contracts with the studio and it was the most atrocious thing I've ever watched. I still remember Hugh Jackman having a nutsack hanging from his chin. Seinfeld was in the news for saying nobody watches movies anymore. Maybe he was hoping nobody would watch his. It's just so poorly conceived and written. There can't be a single person involved in its production who saw the finished product and thought it was good, I don't understand why it was made. At least you explained the rationale behind Movie 43, Unfrosted is a true mystery. He's also been bitching that comedies can't get made anymore because of woke culture, which is just about the laziest excuse concocted by older white dudes who can't come up with new material. There's a reason why talentless scrubs like Jim Breuer and Rob Schneider are champions of this reasoning. The streaming service wars have expanded the reach of everyone's entertainment choices, so your typical network sitcoms, which are invariably bad, don't get made as often because their audience has thinned out. But the existence of Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny make his "point" completely pointless, not that Fox News didn't jump all over it.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on May 6, 2024 22:21:49 GMT
Seinfeld was in the news for saying nobody watches movies anymore. Maybe he was hoping nobody would watch his. It's just so poorly conceived and written. There can't be a single person involved in its production who saw the finished product and thought it was good, I don't understand why it was made. At least you explained the rationale behind Movie 43, Unfrosted is a true mystery. He's also been bitching that comedies can't get made anymore because of woke culture, which is just about the laziest excuse concocted by older white dudes who can't come up with new material. There's a reason why talentless scrubs like Jim Breuer and Rob Schneider are champions of this reasoning. The streaming service wars have expanded the reach of everyone's entertainment choices, so your typical network sitcoms, which are invariably bad, don't get made as often because their audience has thinned out. But the existence of Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny make his "point" completely pointless, not that Fox News didn't jump all over it. Not trying to say that Seinfeld is correct, however I can't seem to think of the last film or series comedy that I enjoyed. Does Righteous Gemstones count? I enjoyed bits of it the first season I watched. EDIT: Tacoma FD was (recently canceled) a favorite 30 minute comedy I enjoyed. Im a fan of the Broken Lizard group. I attributed my older age changing my taste in comedy more than any woke culture. Im not 13 anymore so Adam Sandler isn't funny any more. I'm not in college anymore so drunken party movies aren't funny anymore. I've also outgrown the repetitive Seth Rogen weed humor. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is one of my favorite comedies ever, I think it could just as easily get made today without any "woke culture" killing it. It still holds up as a hilarious movie if you ignore the Russell Brand aspect of it but thats no fault of the film just a casting that hasn't aged well. Anchorman, Talladega Nights, Step Brothers, Super Troopers as well could get made and be successful today.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 6, 2024 22:26:15 GMT
Seinfeld was in the news for saying nobody watches movies anymore. Maybe he was hoping nobody would watch his. It's just so poorly conceived and written. There can't be a single person involved in its production who saw the finished product and thought it was good, I don't understand why it was made. At least you explained the rationale behind Movie 43, Unfrosted is a true mystery. He's also been bitching that comedies can't get made anymore because of woke culture, which is just about the laziest excuse concocted by older white dudes who can't come up with new material. There's a reason why talentless scrubs like Jim Breuer and Rob Schneider are champions of this reasoning. The streaming service wars have expanded the reach of everyone's entertainment choices, so your typical network sitcoms, which are invariably bad, don't get made as often because their audience has thinned out. But the existence of Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny make his "point" completely pointless, not that Fox News didn't jump all over it. This is like 90% of the problem facing theater releases these days, yet right-wingers keep trying to insist it's because 'people are rejecting woke Hollywood.'
|
|
|
Post by Shane Falco on May 6, 2024 22:47:05 GMT
He's also been bitching that comedies can't get made anymore because of woke culture, which is just about the laziest excuse concocted by older white dudes who can't come up with new material. There's a reason why talentless scrubs like Jim Breuer and Rob Schneider are champions of this reasoning. The streaming service wars have expanded the reach of everyone's entertainment choices, so your typical network sitcoms, which are invariably bad, don't get made as often because their audience has thinned out. But the existence of Curb Your Enthusiasm and It's Always Sunny make his "point" completely pointless, not that Fox News didn't jump all over it. This is like 90% of the problem facing theater releases these days, yet right-wingers keep trying to insist it's because 'people are rejecting woke Hollywood.' Thats all I hear anymore is about this "go woke go broke" mantra getting spewed at Disney films. It always seems to be from people that either can't define the term woke or never were gonna see the film anyways. I cant imagine some of these Disney films "failing" at the box office because they went "woke" somewhere. Oh there is a random gay couple in this film? Guess what idiots, they fucking exist in the real world too. Its not gonna tank a films box office. Remember the outrage over Beauty and the Beast and they made Gaston's sidekick played by Josh Gad gay? That movie still made over $1 billion. The "woke" aspect just gets thrown out as the reason any Disney film fails now, not because heaven forbid Disney can put out bad products too. That said, while I feel bad for theaters ever since Covid and the on demand at home rentals I dont miss the experience at all. Id much rather watch any film at home. When I hear directors like Nolan state a film HAS to be experienced in theaters or IMax it tells me it must not be worth watching if I have to watch it some more expensive way compared to enjoying the film on its own merit. You shouldn't need gimmicks and tricks to make your film worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on May 7, 2024 14:06:17 GMT
I watched Unfrosted (2024) last night. I don't even know where to start. Every scene during its entire runtime is funny because it's not funny, and I don't get the sense that's what they were going for. It would've killed about 30 careers if most of the people weren't already on their way out, anyway-- or if anyone cared about straight to Netflix movie releases. I can't count the number of times I just snickered and said, "What the fuck." It's like they found a way to film someone's dream-- like literal sleeping dream, it truly is that nonsensical. My wife wondered why they didn't let the actors riff more, but I pointed out you can't ad lib when the story already makes zero sense. There's just nowhere to go with any given attempt at humor in this movie. There's a line in the movie that goes something like, "when you eat garbage, you take what you have and try to make something out of it." And for the life of me I can't decide if that meta-commentary on the making of this movie was deliberate. (..) Needless to say, almost all of the story is fictitious. (For the record, there's a fun episode of the History Channel show The Food That Built America on the topic of the origins of the Pop Tart.) I'll say this, due to its bizarre nature, I was never bored. The jokes didn't land, but all I could do was watch in awe as the trainwreck just kept unfolding and the random cameos kept on coming (Jon Hamm and John Slattery reprising their Mad Men roles). I wouldn't recommend it, but rather say you have to see it to believe it. I've noticed Jerry Seinfeld has been in the news lately but I haven't paid enough attention as to why. It seemed like it was for a negative reason though. I suppose he was getting bad reviews for this film? I never knew he had anything coming out, not that I'm a huge fan of his anyways. The nonsense plot you described and the list of random "stars" in it, reminds me of the film "Movie 43" which the studio just forced A listers into a film to complete their contracts with the studio and it was the most atrocious thing I've ever watched. I still remember Hugh Jackman having a nutsack hanging from his chin.
"Movie 43" was a crime against humanity!
|
|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on May 7, 2024 16:55:13 GMT
Doing the deep dive I did after watching it was a lot more interesting as they would go into far more detail about the meat of the documentary and stuff that they probably couldn't speak on whether legally or because they were just rumors idk, like the Dan sleeping with Bynes and impregnating an under age Jaime Lynn Spears. The two women who worked under Dan, that entire story was needless once you got into the sexual predators of the thing. Sorry but you getting paid so little and having to deal with the "boys club" aspect of the writers room isn't at all necessary. The same goes for one of the child actors being replaced. That shit is just show business, sucks to happen to a kid trying to get his family out of a tough situation but its not the companies responsibility to just keep you employeed. It would have been far better had the whole thing focused on what happened with Drake Bell and had gotten interviews with the likes of Amanda Bynes or Jenette McCurdy to go deeper into things Dan actually did other than some former child actors that likely were doing this documentary as a form of a paycheck or get attention. I only was aware of one of them. A lot of these people and the show they were in were on the air well after I was a kid watching Nickeloden, so I'm not really familiar with a lot of them, but I don't think anyone was trying to get attention or money. A lot of the kids who are now grown up and talking about this are not in the industry at all anymore. I don't doubt that anyone speaking out is doing so honestly. And the two female writers who felt disrespected are within reason to feel that way. A lot of what they talked about was fucked up, and maybe crossed some lines into illegality. They can make a good case for sexual harassment and unfair pay and other abuse stuff. But yeah... it all pales in comparison to what is discussed by Drake Bell, and to an extraordinarily lopsided ratio. It's not even in the same ballpark. The problem with this documentary series is that the ratio is lopsided in the opposite direction. It's essentially the 'Dan Schnieder documentary' and they try to make more out of his abuses (and there were abuses) than the much more heinous ones, when really he should have been used more like a framing device. Some of that stuff is significant, but not as significant as the other stuff. I don't necessarily wanna litigate the differences in degrees of horrible abuse, but there is a clear difference here and the more heinous behavior deserves more of the attention. As far as the other rumors and allegations go, they seem a little far fetched, but not impossible. I watched this documentary over the past few days and I feel the same way. Not to belittle everyone's complaints, which are certainly valid, but it just didn't seem to pack the punch that the producers felt it would. If anything, the stuff outside of Drake Bell (which is fucking horrible) is far from ideal, but it doesn't really move the needle and draw the attention that it seeks to with respect to child actors being put in these extraordinary conditions.
|
|