Leaderboard

Great ep. At school everyone's normally saying "Danger, Will Robinson. Danger" but now it will be "Great job, Stefani Robinson. Funny.' Also cool that Zach and Jess nearly know the famous line from the show

The Boys help STEFANI ROBINSON fix her TV show.

(carried over from last weeks forum) in unrelated news; does having lead in your water make you a wonderful person who is a whizz at making stickers and badges? i can't say for sure, but recent evidence points... to yes

i tried to fix the mistake kindagamey showed me and just saw a bunch of my old posts instead and yeesh. learn to stop typing, me

kindagamey, i had no idea that was happening and even less of an idea as to HOW it happened, besides just being dumb, obvi ALSO in unrelated news; does having lead in your water make you a wonderful person who is a whizz at making stickers and badges? i can't say for sure, but recent evidence points... to yes

Hey man, I really liked this joke

You know when Louis C.K. had his second chance? After his first victim. Since he didn't take that chance then, here we are now. I'm not sure why the internet is so puzzled about what he could or should do -- is the mystique of celebrity that powerful? Because here's a couple things common folk do, when they're caught: 1) cooperate with any criminal or civil cases his victims care to bring. 2) apologize to each of his victims personally, and do his best to make up for the harm he did them. 3) commit to long-term, in-patient treatment, in jail or out of jail. And what else could he do, as a celebrity? Since hosting "gee sorry, ladies" women's comedy galas or other show biz mea culpas would be too self-serving, volunteering at a male sex offender's treatment centre or half-way house, and ultimately building or funding one. Because stripped of all the excuses, a sex offender is what he is. And if he can do all that, he can start back with comedy any time he pleases. Because he'll be a different person.

meanwhile, hayes probably knows of a different kind of "league," if you catch my drift.

Made an account just to comment on my disappointment on the discourse around Louis. The second you find yourself talking out loud trying to compare and relativize trauma, I pray an alarm sets off in your brain to let you know you are NOT on the right path. Negin completely minimized and diminished the trauma of the people louis has scarred, essentially with the argument "hey at least you weren't r*ped". There was some discussion around the pitfalls of that but it was done in a way that just didn't feel assertive at all (more of a "oh uh in my opinion you can't tell traumatized people that their trauma isn't that bad because it's not r*pe just saying haha cool!" than a "hey, this is not okay to say"). It's true r*pe is an intensely serious, heinous thing which creates deep trauma. What does that have to do with the issue at hand again? Some things just don't quantify, no matter what mental gymnastics or metric based loopholes you try to apply. Bringing out hypotheticals which strip Louis of the power dynamic at hand is gonna be fruitless too, because guess what it ends up the specific power dynamics and context of Louis's actions are crucial to considering the nature of the trauma he's inflicted, and the possibility for rehabilitation and consideration back into the community (this luckily was caught and discussed). It really bothered me the idea that "rehabilitation" seemed to simply involve spending time away, and the "would any of those things matter?" comment as far as donations, a letter from a therapist, addressing the issue directly, etc. really bothered me as well. The point of actions like those (one would hope) are to attempt to build trust with those who know you as someone who has deeply harmed others, to foster a shared awareness that you feel guilt and remorse for your past actions and that you understand you must do more than the minimum to forge that trust in lieu of your past. So yes, a donation to a non-profit can either be a meaningful step in showing rehabilitation or it can be a callous attempt to buy your way back into the public's graces, it ends up completely dependent on the continued context of future action and conversation stemming from louis (or any "disgraced" public figure). Do I really have to be the one to say life is complicated? and that some situations refuse reduction, and rightfully so? I really needed them to step back and say "look, there is no single penance that can be created in some logical manner and absolve louis", but that didn't happen. The reintroduction of a figure into the public's eye after something like this will always carry with it the reality of their past actions, and forgiveness is a disaggregated, individual experience (I mean, I'd say a majority of Male comedy fans have thought Louis should just keep doing comedy since day 1). Hearing the discussion take the main points of: 1) it wasn't like it was rape or something "worse" and 2) how much time should Louis be only mildly involved (punching up scripts, etc.) in comedy before he's all good? was so frustrating. I wanted the questions "what does louis's future need to look like for us to believe he's aware of his need to atone?" and "What are actions louis could and SHOULD take to rehabilitate and what is the conversation he needs to have with the public?" to center conversation, and that just wasn't the discussion. I hope this doesn't sound too on the offensive, this is an emotional issue and having enjoyed listening to some of the previous I had semi-high expectations for this conversation.

Wes Anderson / Bill Murray

Her situation is different because Meatloaf is basically her guardian and owns the camp so she got put to work. It's like Demi Lovato in Camp Rock (omg we should do that for MM one week lol), her mom is the head chef and is basically using her daughter as an extra set of hands.

I agree. They didn't even take two minutes to explain how they were going to adapt the play to Japan. And then they went ahead and called it Teatro Firenze anyway!

Sorry, I get emotional about these things.

I know it kinda goes without saying but their "kabuki" version of the play has as much to do with real kabuki as nacho Doritos have to do with authentic Mexican cuisine.

Did you link to Just OK instead of your twitter on purpose? Kind of a bait and switch. I followed anyway. And fuck that guy that hates pears and gets hundreds of likes despite saying "FUCK OF" instead of "OFF." If popularity means being a dumb ass then I'm doing really well in this world.

I agree with all of this. I think this movie's biggest crime is it doesn't do anything particularly well. I even called the killer in the first scene (both of them), so the reveal wasn't even all that interesting. I was like, "Well, of course it was..." Another thing that annoyed me was that a plot point seemed to be hinting at financial trouble for the camp, but that camp was pretty nice and filled to capacity. Maybe if it had been a little more run down or there were fewer kids? If you want me to believe that your camp is in financial trouble, I need to see that. And why was Meat Loaf's plan, "I'll get these summer camp kids to do a play and then it will get put on Broadway?" Outside of maybe a Disney Channel movie or Saved by the Bell, when would that plan ever seem reasonable?

Yeah, I hated that song. I'm "gay" for liking musicals? Fuck off. Also hated the constant sexual assault on the lead character. They could've just had one scene instead of a montage!

The camp song "We're Gay" was maybe the worst part of the whole thing. I mean not only just using Gay as a joke *eye roll* but in a musical that seems to let the actual music happen "naturally" within the story this was way too choreographed and stood out tremendously. Also, it's a fucking bad song lol.

Just to clarify my position, two things: One, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm saying the movie leaves a lot open to interpretation. That line stuck out to me, that's all. You can take it or leave it. I'm not trying to "infuse" anything. I'm just trying to look deeper than the text and not just trust everything I'm seeing and hearing. Two, I never once said that going back home and going to school was worse than forced prostitution. That's putting words in my mouth and absolutely ridiculous. I only ever wondered if there was the possibility that she might be being forced to trade one form of abuse for another. We really don't know one way or the other, but I'm thinking about what could be going on in a 12-year-old's life that would make her actually run away, and abuse is at the top of that list. I think that's far more likely than "Mom wouldn't give me an extra scoop of ice cream for dessert so I'm running away forever and I'm never coming back! (Even if I'm given the chance, I want to, and it's clear that I'm in an unhealthy situation)." The thing is, Travis never even stops to consider Iris' needs and desires. He tells her what's best for her. He doesn't allow her a shred of agency. You're right, there's never a "clue" or a line where she explicitly says, "My father was molesting me," but there's also not a line where she says ,"I miss my parents, it was a real mistake to leave. I want to go home." And there's a reason why these lines aren't there: because Travis never asks! He literally knows nothing about her or her past. He never makes the effort. He never asks, "Why would you rather go live on a commune than live with your parents?" I know this isn't your intention, but you almost seem to be saying, "Yeah, she might still be getting abused, but at least she's going to school." It's not like there aren't alternatives. For example, she could go into Foster Care. Maybe that's a better solution. But it's never even brought up. Beyond the fact that it's what Travis thinks is best for her, why is going home to her parents considered the "best" possible solution? Again, we honestly don't know one way or another. However, the whole movie is from Travis' POV, and he is unreliable as fuck. He's narcissistic and toxic. Given his mentality throughout the movie, what's more likely: that - despite everything else in the movie suggesting otherwise - in this one situation he was able to read between the lines, fully connect with another person, and intuit the best course of action for their lives, or that he saw and heard only what he wanted to in order satisfy his own malignant ego and skewed fairy tale logic (i.e. Storming the castle and saving the princess)? If the movie was about redemption, I would probably agree with the former, but since the movie seems to be about a never ending cycle of violence, than I'm leaning toward other interpretations. I'm not saying I'm right, but I'm also not willing to just completely accept the movie at face value.

Me bruvah ordered Feminasty for his fiancee's birthday because of this podcast. He had to use my amazon account since they share one. That is all.

im gunna let this instance of acting like the show lore is real pass cos its you, silvr and greggy and cos no one should not do fun stuff cos im joyless

hayes definitely does, he had a lot of time growing up to goof off and have fun. but i think unfortunately sean's parents probably were pushing him towards the ivy league from the very beginning

hayes and sean should do something on twitch. idk what but theyd make a mint

First time posting, but I must ask, is Amy just a hater? It seems like every episode I've listened to (besides Titanic), she knocks the film and believes it is too "machismo." It is getting to the point where Paul is having to pull some positive notes out of her each and every episode. It is exhausting. Even when she finds an outside critic, she attempts to find the negative one? Why? Why always challenge and put down a film instead of raise it up? Yes, I believe in criticism but not when it constantly comes off as jaded. Let me know what you all think. Still love the show.

Not an official update, BUT: Because of some Facebook conspiracy theorists who doubted the existence of Paul & Amy's 100-sided dice, they put up a clip of them rolling it for a future episode on twitter. They rolled #50, and were like "coming next Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid!" Problem was, they were reading the wrong list, and that movie is not #50 on the 2007 list, so I held off adding it. Amy just put on twitter a correction that they will be doing the actual #50. For our purposes, it's not currently clear if it's following Apocalypse Now or there's something in between. But I figure if anyone wants to watch the first two LOTR films in prep, there's some good lead notice now. EP 18. ET (#24) EP 19. HIGH NOON (#27) EP 20. APOCALYPSE NOW (#30) sometime soon: LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (#50)