americancrank

When this movie came out, my friend and I got dropped off at the theater by our parents--we were around 15 years old--to watch Cool World. We go to buy tickets, and were then told that the film (or possibly the projector) had broken, and so Cool World was cancelled. Well, this was before cell phones and another movie was starting in like fifteen minutes, so we decided to just go see that instead. That movie was Universal Soldier starring Jean-Claude Van Damme. In retrospect, it was a sort of teenaged Sophie's Choice of Terrible Movies and the only valid choice was to have walked home.

Dying of a heart attack while having sex? Well, that sounds like it's time for Former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller to enter the ring! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller#Speculation_surrounding_death https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nelson-rockefeller-death-spin-truth-article-1.808749 The story is simple--Rocky died having sex with his 25 year old aide Megan Marshack. Allegedly. The official story in him dying in his office fell apart almost immediately but no one, including the family and the authorities, have said anything one way or the other since. So it does happen.

I am a little baffled that people are fixating on how gross the entire situation is concerning the custody battle (and some of the other issues as well). When the judge mentions "he was a good football player" that indicates to me that this is 100% supposed to poke fun at/reinforce the "good ole boys" network. As an audience we aren"t supposed to accept that, we're supposed to immiately get that the system is rigged against her. People seem to think the movie is glorifying or justifying the grossness, but it seems blatantly obvious to me they're leaning in to the unfair aituation she is put in. They may not execute it very well but it seems like this movie is more self-aware than people believe, If anyone has read any Carl Hiaasen this is even more obvious.

When I was in college, I had an economics professor who did...unconventional things. For a final in one of my classes, the week before he gave us a sheet of paper with six questions on it--these were the six questions that would be on the final. We would walk in on final day, he would roll a die, and we had to answer one of them--the die result. So we still had to be prepared to research/learn all six questions, but only had to answer one. (And, as he made a point, he only had to check one as well.) Anyway, one of the questions was discussing the economics presented in the movie For Richer Or Poorer. And yes, that means I had to watch this shitshow of a movie for a final in one of my economics classes. And yes, that meant there was a sudden run on For Richer Or Poorer in all the local video stores, which still existed back then. And yes, it ended up being the question rolled. I don't remember what grade I got, but it wasn't worth it. (Actually, the movie wasn't as bad as it was just unbearably. unfunny and boring.)

I am also shocked, shocked that no one brought up "tough toothpaste." That sounds like something that would be repeated ad nauseam throughout the episode.

Also, is anyone else getting a Berenstain/Shazam vibe off of this episode? My wife and I watched this about two years ago and I will swear up and down on anything holy that we did so because he had just listened to a HDTGM episode about this movie. I can't imagine why we would have watched it otherwise.

Here is my theory about the spaceship at the beginning: They finished the movie. Then, at some point, the MPAA or studio execs thought, "Holy shit, you can't have children drinking, fighting, being horny, etc.!" So they simply added the spaceship in the beginning (which has no relation to the movie and could have simply been inserted in). Then, they could point to it and say "Those weren't children, they were aliens! So we're clear--they can get as drunk and as horny as they want!"

This comment got lost in the shuffle. You are 100% right.

Oh, come on man. In 130+ episodes, have you seen as much negativity as you have in this episode? Statistically speaking, there's a LOT of opposition to this episode. Sure, it's not a random sample, but if it's enough to get that many people to register an opinion it's clearly more than a simple statistical blip. Don't be obtuse. "Statistically insignificant?" If you honestly think this doesn't affect people's enjoyment of the podcast, you're not doing your job. Like I had said in my earlier post, I didn't hate this episode, but I thought her unprofessionalism sucks the humor out of the room, and I think it's pretty clear from the audience reactions they thought so too, at least more so than a normal episode. Is that part of your vaunted statistical analysis? I'm sorry, but your post is just condescending to the fans of the show.

Yeah, I won't lie--this episode was *very* hard to get through. Cameron Esposito was not a good choice. Here's the thing--I actually like that she was able to give a different perspective about a subculture most straight white dudes know nothing about...except this isn't 1992. Exactly what was going down in San Francisco in the late 70's is not exactly a trade secret. I *really* felt like she was handing down some golden knowledge that these sweaty men were in the complete dark about, and then got resentful when they didn't react the way they expected. She managed to screech the entire night to a halt twice with her very unfunny comments. She managed to somehow interject two personal stories with only tenuous links to the discussion on the podcast. Unfunny stories, too. And, again, when no one else reacted the way she wanted them to, she pouted. She somehow shoehorned a "women make less money" comment into a mike-dropping bit. I say "comment" and not "joke' because it, again wasn't funny. She also somehow shoehorned a "woman in the White House" comment into another bit, apropos of nothing. More debatable was a lot of the Caitlyn/Bruce talk. Some of it was genuinely interesting and respectful, but when she shot down the audience member about Bruce saying he was a Gemini, and the audience's nervous, lengthy reaction...I mean come on, we all understood the subtext, and, if nothing else, within the context of 1980 that wouldn't be particularly out of place, let alone now. I'm being generous and saying it was sort of a joke, but it certainly had the feeling of a college kid giving her 80 year old uncle a stern lecture for using an insensitive pronoun. And that whole segment about Bruce not wanting to be naked? Come on. That's an old, tired trope from decades past. That's not some magical subtext-grabbing scene with far-reaching ethical ramifications. Now, I'm a Big Boy. I can listen to things I disagree with--and I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what Cameron said. What totally irritated me about this was how unprofessional she was. Now, let's be clear--Paul and Jason and Pete Holmes interrupt a lot and push a lot of boundaries. They tell unrelated stories and digress into vulgarity. In fact, I would say Pete interrupted more often and was more annoying than Cameron. But at least he was funny most of the time, where even if his behavior was grating it was salvaged by being amusing. Cameron, however...was not. Every time she opened her mouth, it seemed like everyone in the room, hosts included, had the oxygen sucked right out of them. There's nothing wrong with her topics or identity or anything like that--she was just downright unprofessional. In a podcast that regularly brings up jerking it to inanimate objects, to come across as unprofessional takes a particular brand of horribleness.

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned one of the more iconic characters in this movie--the girl dancing at the prom in the red dress, who had what I believe to be the biggest set of tits in a movie from the 80s. She even had the good grace to not wear a bra. I am shocked that this went without comment.