grudlian.

That's totally fair. The show certainly isn't for everyone. I think the show is playing with and subverting conventions of romantic comedies. So, it ultimately doesn't want you to root for her in the way romantic comedies typically want you to. Anyone who can't tolerate uncomfortable comedy probably should avoid it.

I thought we might be taking anot the same episode but, no, it gets worse.

Yep. Not sure how far you got into season 3 but there's one episode where ends very dark with literally no comedy. It's a natural progression but oof, this is uncomfortable to watch.

Yeah. It's maybe the only show that has made me literally gasp at how uncomfortable things get.

While we're waiting on Triple Lindy, I'd like to remind everyone that the musical (so it's tangentially related) television series Crazy Ex-Girlfriend back.

They literally talked longer than the movie itself. So, shouldn't be a problem to do a commentary.

I've only spent maybe three hours of my life in Lockhart but there didn't seem to be anything else of interest in there.

Someone at work is playing the song Heaven on spotify and I'm dying right now.

Are you saying Salt Lick is best barbecue or best sides? Because the best barbecue I've ever had is probably Black's in Lockhart.

Genuine question that I think I know the answer to: There's never been a strip club set up like Heaven right? Where the only dancer at the time just roams around the floor on the same level as the patrons? I know some strip clubs have dancers work the floor while others are on a stage but this set up seems awfully dangerous for the performers.

Yeah. There's a Letterman clip. Even Grizzly Man which was a recent, well known documentary from a well known filmmaker couldn't use its Letterman clip for the DVD release. If Grizzly Man didn't argue for rights for home media, A Night In Heaven definitely didn't.

This this this. I know what we generally consider to be barbecue originated in the Carolinas (although I suggest watching the Ugly Delicious episode on barbecue to help kind of dispel this idea). But I do not like mustard based sauces or vinegar based sauces.

This is subtle foreshadowing that Norman is the real monster in the movie.

I'll say 40% of these pictures are from the second half. I'm not taking it personally. I just think, at least from a visual perspective, people really do remember the second half. It occurs to me people don't remember much of the second half from a narrative perspective though (until the last couple minutes of course). That's kind of interesting to me because the second half is so important to the story and the mythology of the movie. Without the second half, the mother is the killer which is a way different movie. I admit that I can summarize a lot of the first half, then I think "then a guy comes around and solves the crime when he pulls the car from the swamp" before detailing the ending. But visually, I remember the second half just as much. EDIT: I guess a good way to answer this is just ask everyone else here. Am I wrong that people think of the second half? Do people remember up through the shower scene then skip to the reveal? Do people really remember the first half befor the motel?

Weirdly, I remember her in the bra but that's probably due to the fact that her bra changes color. It goes from white in the beginning to black after she steals the money. I don't remember the white bra but I do remember her in the black bra.

This is kind of strange to me because if I asked anyone who hadn't seen it recently to describe the beginning of the movie, I bet few people remember Janet Leigh is having an affair. I certainly forgot it. I knew she stole the money, drives to the motel, shower scene. But I bet a lot of people don't even remember why she's at the hotel. Honestly, the second half has super memorable scenes for me. As stated before, I think the reversal of Norman dressed as his mother is excellent. I think of the sister going upstairs in the house. I think of Norman's crazy face in the final shot.

This was going to be my point. I think everyone who watches Psycho knows Norman Bates is his mother. But everyone is still on board once this movie gets going. That's a good thriller. Even if you know the main beats of the story, this movie stil works whereas a lot of thrillers lose all their power when the is no mystery. Psycho still works every time you watch it even if it's just the main scenes because the reveal of Norman dressed as his mother is so well done. Anthony Perkins looks completely unhinged. Also, check out Black Christmas. It's weird in parts that don't work but the horror stuff really works.

For sure. I'm not trying to discount the racist policies of the city at all and how that's lead to where the city is currently. I was just speculating that it was probably good at one point and that might have been around the time this movie was set. I don't want to discount the fact that wealth and race massively alter perception of how the city is for crime.

Cam Bert's question had me actually curious as to when St. Louis got bad. It's certainly been known as, if not the murder capital of the US, it's always near the top (and crime of other types is usually pretty high up there as well). So, when did that start? According towikipedia, maybe around the time this movie takes place. Obviously newspaper reporting 100+ years ago may not be reliable but it looks like murder rates went way up at the turn of the century. Maybe murder was under reported prior to 1900 though. Obviously, being wealthy white people and written from the perspective of Tootie where a child may not realize how crime ridden their city is may make St. Louis seem less dangerous than it is. But it's possible it was genuinely better at this time than shortly after that. Take, for example, Gary, Indiana. In the Music Man, it's written about favorably. Of course, is a song from a con man and not reliable. But Gary used to be an okay place to live. At least good enough you could convince people being from the is fine. You couldn't write a song about Gary at anytime after the 90s to fool anyone. So, maybe 1903 was the last time you could ever write a movie about how great St. Louis is.

Typically unless the first Friday is very early in the month (like the 1st or something) or sometimes if its a holiday weekend maybe.

This leads me to question if the current boom in board gaming and table top RPGs are because of Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter. If you get a bunch of people in 2001 who are suddenly into fantasy, video games surprisingly have not a ton of fantasy settings and what few the were in 2001 were mostly RPGs. And if you're already checking out console RPGs, jumping to D&D isn't a huge step. Obviously, LOTR had huge influence on the creation of D&D which in turn heavily influenced Final Fantasy. So, LOTR had pushed people into gaming before but I hadn't thought of it being the reason for board gaming culture being so big currently.

Turns out the author, Sally Benson, based Meet Me In St. Louis on her own life. Tootie was based on herself and Sally was called Tootie as a child.

Honestly, everyone made the movie better. This is generally not my type of movie. So, I would have tuned out or gotten on my phone pretty early if it weren't for the group on rabbit. So, I never would have paid any attention to crazy Tootie. This was during the Halloween segment right? The segment started after it was full dark. Let's say it starts at 6:30-7:00pm at the earliest for the central time zone. Then we go through everyone's stories for Halloween. So, a couple hours? So, the dad gives the news and they bring out cake at 8:30 at the earliest and probably later.

I definitely was thinking of Louise Belcher and Tootie as well.

I guess I don't actually know anything about strip clubs. I've only been once. I assume the reasoning is lone women don't spend money? Or a holdover from old timey ideas that "oh dear if a woman sees this she'll be possessed by the devil's sexual trickery!"