Leaderboard

This is not the America the founding fathers envisioned.

The difference in their art style also makes the sole law of "Noids Don't Have Sex With Doodles" feel very weird to me because practically speaking it seems like the law applies to less than 1% of the population. It'd be like if in the US the only law was "360 Dunks Are Not Allowed". Sucks for the people that can and would like to do that. Will never apply to me.

I have a similar nit to pick. First, Pitt meets up with Lonette. They trade some flirty banter, he throws his arm awkwardly around her, and they discuss what they want to do that night. Unfortunately for them, Nails shows up and tells him a Noid has appeared and is with currently with Holli at her club. Pitt apologizes to Lonette and heads off with Nails to confront Deebs. Fine. However, when they get there, as Pitt is telling Deebs that it’s against the law for Noids to have sex with Doodles, the movie cuts to Lonette looking forlorn—at the same club!!! So, what were these plans they were making a minute ago? Lonette is clearly working that night! Not only that, she is working at the same club Nails and Pitt are heading off to! Fuck, guys, at least offer her a ride! Finally, Pitt returns home, and who’s there? Motherfucking Lonette fresh out of a shower! How the Hell is she teleporting all over Cool World? But seriously, these kind of continuity issues have always really bugged me, but especially so when you’re dealing with animation. That shit takes time. At some point someone should have been like, “Wait, this doesn’t make sense. Before I draw another line, maybe we should figure this out.”

I don't think Doodles can slip into our world, otherwise I think we would have made more attempts to do so. I think her knowledge of the real world came from the Noids that passed through and from the movies she somehow got her hands on. I have no idea how she was able to watch "real" movies however. Much less, enough movies to establish a favorite actress in Marilyn Monroe. What doesn't make sense to me is just how clueless she is of the real world when she has seen real world movies. I get movies are a bit heightened, but they should have given her at least a baseline of what to expect. Instead, it's like Plato's "Allegory of the Cave." Everything seems to take her by complete surprise. I mean, I've never seen the movie Let's Make Love, but I'm pretty sure there's more than one dude in it, and Marilyn doesn't just go around sniffing them all.

I believe the reason why she had the picture of him is the same reason we had those posters up in our rooms as teenagers: he was essentially her hero or like how some kids would have posters of Mustangs on their walls, it serves as a reminder of what she wants to achieve. Another question is how did she get the picture or is it just an imagining of what she thinks it all looks like? It is mentioned about noids "slipping" into Cool World, but can doodles "slip" into our world? She had a knowledge of the real world so I guess yes or maybe she learned from the noids who crossed-over?

In the same scene, that rabbit is supposed to represent Roger Rabbit. I wouldn't have thought anything about a rabbit with no obvious visual connections between them. The woman who starts speaking to the rabbit is wearing Jessica Rabbit's signature outfit of a red dress with purple opera gloves with purple eye shadow. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Okay so I finally got to listen to the episode and can easily bring some prison/crime expertise to this thread and what was discussed on the show. In regards to the sentence Byrne received, I'm assuming the term murder is being used generally to describe his crime, which is most likely negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter which carries a sentence of 6 months to a decade on average. I'm guessing it was like in Con Air where a fight broke out between two parties, in this case Byre and the guy sleeping with his wife, and in the course of the fight the other guy died by accident, like he fell and cracked his head on something. But rather than put that time and effort into explaining why he was behind bars. the writer just went with murder which in turn just creates more questions. As for his drawing setup in his cell, that is a non-plausible thing as depending on the state, most prison cells aren't bigger than a small storage unit, usually 6' x 10'. Some newer facilities are going with a dorm style unit, called pods, which house around 6 inmates, and those are much larger in size. But that doesn't mean one guy can prop his shit up and just take over space, that will get his ass kicked in no time flat. Also, an inmate can make money while in prison from a personal business venture, they just can't make money off of their crime. A recent example was when OJ Simpson wrote his book If I Did It a couple years back that was very controversial, but he was able to write it and make money off of it as he was acquitted in his criminal trial. Tex Watson of the Manson family tried to do a similar thing at my facility a few years back with both a manuscript and I think some paintings, and that shit got shut down quickly because it was directly linked to his crimes, he also received some additional charges if I recall because of the back channel ways that he was trying to do it. So for a guy like Byrne to just be writing a comic book series and having it sold, that's completely fine, I mean at my facility there are a few guys who have self published books or have sent art out for sale, and they're able to as it doesn't pertain to their crimes.

I enjoyed listening to the episode - I think it will be one of Unspooled's best. Not because anyone "won" an argument or anthing, but it was an actual discussion about how two people see a film. Amy's ideas about the casting was something I never considered before, and I can kind of see it. Not that I necessarily agree with it. Actually, I'm of two minds. Wasn't it Roger Altman who said that 90% of the director's creative work is in casting? It's a part of the palette the director can use to paint the film how he/she wants to. It *could* have lent something completely different to some of those key scenes. Not only that, but for a film that's meant to be autobiographical and therefore ostensibly more "real," a better air of authenticity such as with age ranges would help. That being said, Scorcese certainly wanted a "performance" on his palette rather than shades of "true to the age range." And we can't argue that the performances aren't great. (Also, this argument wasn't the "hill" Amy wanted to die on anyway, so it's not a key point or anything. I'd just like to add that this is the kind of criticism that is faulting a film for what it it *isn't*, which I never really put too much stock into.) I kept waiting for some more substantial criticism but it never really came. I don't like this movie. I tried a rewatch before the podcast episode, but it still never clicked. I watched it as a young person and didn't get why it was so praised. Rewatched as a more serious film student years later and said "Oh!" but yeah still didn't get it. It's a fine movie, not saying it's bad. Just overrated. For sake of context, I don't like gangster films in general. If that discredits my p.o.v., that's ok. I'll own up to that. I did enjoy Godfather 1 (and 2 even moreso) as those seemed to invoke something larger, more epic or akin to a tale of a dynasty. Goodfellas and others of its ilk are always so mundane, trying to normalize but deify the lifestyle, to delight in it and condemn it at the same time, ultimately rendering it pointless. Goodfellas in particular has no arc for its character. Granted, it's more nonfiction and documentary in its roots, but essentially the character Henry Hill is the same at the beginning and at the end. He and by extention the viewers don't actually learn anything. Noboby is truly challenged or conflicted, or if they are, they don't really do anything/can't do anything about it. I rarely like narration as a device, and here it just feels so random. Take that plus the breaking of the fourth wall at the end and the whole thing basically boils down to your old granduncle trying to tell the same story of his glory days for no reason whether you want to listen or not. Great, thanks, uncle Hill. Got it. Sure, tell me again about cooking sauce in prison, yeah.

Well played. I honestly wish that scene didn't bother me as much as it did

Yes to all of it. What is weirder is Holli has a picture of him in front of his casino in her room. In it he look very doodle like. Also, why does she have a picture of him? When they meet at the end they're like complete strangers. I haven't had a picture that big of somebody I didn't know on my walls since I was a teenager.

Correct me if I'm wrong, (and I do not doubt that I could very, very be wrong), but Vegas Vinnie *is* Doc Whiskers, right? He's the one who traveled to the real world with the spike and set everything up Vegas. If that's the case, then I would have to assume that Doc W was, at least for time, a Noid. I mean, how else would he be able to establish a foothold in the real world without being immediately dissected by the military for being some kind of bizarre, interdimensional oddity? We also know that a Doodle can't just go to the real world. They have to be humanized first. And the only way they can be humanized is through sex with a Noid. So, I guess what I'm asking is: Brad Pitt totally fucked Doc Whiskers, right?

If you want a real marker of of little attention or care was put into this movie look no further than the rabbit losing the dice game. She rolls two twos but the demon baby removes two dots from from the dice making it snake eyes. Fine, classic cartoon gag. Then when we cut back, both the dice are showing two threes. Not only that but one of the other sides of the die that is visible has a four. Anybody that knows anything knows that two opposite sides of a die add up to seven, so how can the three be on top and four on the side. They aren't even trying or paying attention.

You know I thought a lot about this. Lonette and Holli are in a completely different style than the rest of the doodles so when Brad Pitt was turned into a doodle I thought he would be in a similar style to them but is far more cartoony then them.

Amazon also has the first one to buy for $4.99 for HD quality. Vudu has SD, HD and UHD (4k) for $7.99. Amazon has the 2nd in HD for $7.99. Vudu has all three qualities for $14.99. All of them are linked through Movies Anywhere. Buying it in one spot makes it available elsewhere.

I have a nit to pick. Since ABBA is a palindrome, shouldn't the movie's title be a palindrome? (The palindrome for "Mamma Mia" is "Notlob".)

So you're saying "Here you'll go again"?

Frank's girlfriend asks if he was killed by a Doodle. If so, he will become a Doodle. I don't remember this rule being mentioned before but does that mean she was originally a Noid who was killed by a Doodle and that's how she knows this rule?

Maybe it's because I haven't seen this movie since I was 20, maybe younger, (an age when everyone your age is played by someone in their 30s or 40s), so I don't remember the age aspect of it very well. Though watching Mean Streets about a year ago, De Niro to some extent, never really looked young, even when he presumably was. I do wonder how much my pack of interest in the crime films come from not really growing up around the mob, like Scorsese did (something Amy alluded to, but seemed to proclaim more universally). If I get the time to revisit this one (I was more interested in revisiting the Godfather), I'll be curious to see if it aged better for me. Though I wasn't that big on The Irishman (or, a few years ago trying to watch The Sopranos, I went through one season and didn't have that strong of an interest). Not to say someone who didn't grow up in areas affected by the mob couldn't find this stuff interesting, just, I wonder how much not growing up with it plays into the people who aren't interested as much in it (which is to say, if I were to bump a Scorsese off the list, it'd be this one at the moment).

The sequel is amazing and I'm already refusing to acknowledge this opinion

I didn't know that about the art on his recent albums. I get the feeling album covers have never been a big deal to Dylan. If they're using stock photos or whatever, I'm curious what the process is for deciding. But it makes me laugh thinking about people analyzing his old covers when Dylan might have very well thought nothing about it. I'm wondering the same thing about this album. Is it just a collection of unreleased music from old sessions? Is that why Murder Most Foul gets its own disc? Also, RIP Little Richard.