Jump to content
đź”’ The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... Ă—

grudlian.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2122

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

Posts posted by grudlian.

  1. Posted

    51 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    He was also the inspiration for Link...

     

    th?id=OIP.Kb8yLWrWwSgbRdxeswgqZAHaE1&pid

     

    th?id=OIP.SA-yz9PJNm156oRUtxsANQHaH7&pid

    I think this is more a coincidence than anything else. The Legend Of Zelda came out February 1986 and Legend came out in Japan in 1987 according to imdb.

    But I'll support the Legend (and Zelda) love. I know Legend has gained some appreciation with the director's cut, but I thought the theatrical version was fine in high school. Maybe not the strongest fantasy movie but definitely worth checking out.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    Was anybody really confused seeing Joe Mantegna show up in court as a DA? Am I alone in this? I thought he was a detective up until that point. I mean maybe I need a lawyer in here to correct me but I'm pretty sure most DAs are far to busy to be showing up at crime scenes before there is even a suspect or before all the evidence has been collected. Not to mention following an investigation through every step of the way with the police and even conducting witness interrogation. Here I thought they sat in their office until a suspect had been arrested and evidence gather. At this point the case would be assigned to them and then they'd begin working on. Who am I to argue with this air tight and thoroughly researched script.

    I'm so glad you said this. I definitely thought he was a detective and assumed I had misremembered him being at the crime scene. I could see a lawyer visiting a crime scene but it seems very unlikely they would visit at the time of discovery. They were still bagging evidence and I'd think a lawyer could easily contaminate everything.

    • Like 2

  5. Posted

    1 hour ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    I've never been to a live showing of The Room but I can't imagine it's the same thing. I think what makes The Room hilarious is sitting with a small group of friends and you can each laugh together, but for Rocky Horror it's a full on production with call outs and not just throwing spoons. Plus the people that actually act it out in front along with the movie are legit putting their all into the production which makes it a lot of fun.

    I have also seen a legit stage production without the movie once and that was also a lot of fun because you get the talent of people actually singing themselves mixed with the ability to call out nonsense at them. That may have been my favorite viewing.

    I'm not entirely sure what they do at live Room showings but I'm kind of against those in general. The Room seems more like its just insulting a bad movie and Rocky Horror is about championing something they love.

    I'm familiar enough with a lot of the Rocky Horror specific bits from knowing people who like it. It's all just not for me personally.

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    44 minutes ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    Who hadn't seen this before? I'm super curious to see if this lands without the shadowcast performance for a first time.

    I saw it for the first time at 13 when my best friend's mom offered to take our little group to he performance in Dallas, and I remember seeing the name pop up on TV and asked my mom if we could watch it since I was going that weekend. She basically was like, "Nope you're not allowed to see that!!" I was so confused because I was like well uh I'm seeing it this weekend I don't understand... But I didn't question it cause I didn't want to jinx not being allowed to go see the actual show. Turns out it's because of how purists take watching it at home for the first time. They absolutely find that as "that doesn't count." So I find myself very lucky to have seen it live for the first time because it totally changed my life after that.

    I've seen this twice and both at home. Once in middle school by myself and didn't like it. I saw it again in college and, again, didn't like it. I've had people, as you've said, insist you need to see it live with audience participation. I've had big fans this week tell me it's just as good at home.

    Personally, I don't think the audience participation or shadowcast sounds like my thing. I've avoided live shows of the The Room for the same reason. So, maybe this just isn't for me.

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Maybe, but that’s why I brought up Drop Dead Fred and Hobbs and Shaw as examples of recent episodes that were 20 minutes longer - extremely popular episodes, too, considering people still identify themselves as Team Fred or not. Paul presents it in the episode as if they were “cut for time,” but that doesn’t really make sense to me. Unless, in just the last month they started using the metric you’re proposing.

    Honestly, I don’t care if there are edits, but they should be as subtle as possible. That’s all I’m saying. 

    Paul is always trying to add value to the Minisodes and that’s awesome. They went from basically ten minute trailers to the Help Line, C&O, Mail bag, Paul’s Pick, Movie Bitches, Would Nic Cage Make it Better, Facebook Q&A thing it’s evolved into. Personally, I love the minis, but since Minisodes probably aren’t listened to as religiously by casual listeners as main episodes, I think he’s trying to provide content that encourages them to check the minis out and not just skip over them (we can perhaps talk about as revenue here, too). And, of course, that’s a good thing. I’m glad he’s always looking for ways to make things feel fresh. That being said, we can’t expect every experiment to work.

    Of course, I’m just speculating here, but if this is the case, I would prefer they keep the episodes more intact and let the minis be their own thing. Or, if they really want to keep putting in deleted scenes, which is fine too, make sure it’s not at the expense of jagged edits in the main episode.

    I admit I did misread the original post that episodes should be uncut versus as uncut as possible.

    I agree with you. I'm really just trying to offer an explanation that I think editing is good for the episodes and speculating why certain things probably get cut (or relegated to a mini). Getting people to listen to minis is probably part of it.

    The runtime is purely guesswork on my part but I'd be surprised if a network as big as Earwolf doesn't take that into consideration For episodes you mentioned specifically, I'll speculate. Hobbs and Shaw is part of a series that HDTGM has done regularly and maybe they expect a bigger built in audience no matter what. For Drop Dead Fred, that was a very unusual episode and maybe they wanted as few cuts as possible to allow both sides time to speak. Or maybe they were experimenting with the idea "Does episode runtime really affect one of our biggest podcasts?" Or maybe the editor thought this episode wasn't as funny as Drop Dead Fred and cut it short then Paul said "you cut my favorite bit... put it in the minisode". Again, just throwing out ideas that may hold no water. 

    • Like 2

  8. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    Not to speak for @DrGuts1003, but I think he gets that edits need to happen - whether for uncomfortable audience questions or whatever. He admits in his post to lulls needing to be cut as Paul gets to places and what not. I think the issue is more, you cut this segment out , but not for any of those reasons, just kind of...because? Like, why make an edit if you’re just going to end up releasing it anyway? It just feels needless, not to mention noticeable. Guts isn’t asking for the audio to be pristine, just not chopped up for no reason.

    I look at it the same way I look at deleted scenes in a movie. Sometimes it just flows better without a scene even if that scene is fine.

    This is pure speculation but ehile podcasts don't have run time limitations, I bet longer episodes get listened less which means less likely to get ads revenue. For some podcasts, I've definitely thought "ugh...I don't have time for this right now." My completionist mentality forces me to listen to every episode but not everyone does. I'm sure someone has done some study that's concluded "If a podcast is 90+ minutes, X% compared to three average don't listen. If it's 89 minutes or less, X% or more will listen."  Obviously, I'm making up the run time and there are plenty of other variables. I could speculate on several similar reasons but I figure the editor of these normally has some basic guidelines they follow to keep the show good.

    I agree that I'd like to keep the episodes as uncut as possible but I also get why they cut stuff.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

     

    5 hours ago, DrGuts1003 said:

    If I’m in the minority, I’ll shut up, but personally, I would prefer the actual episode be left as uncut and whole as possible rather than getting these “deleted scenes” in the minisodes.  I mean, I get cutting dead air during the time when Paul is walking from the balcony (those monsters) back to the stage, but otherwise leave every joke/comment in the actual episode.  Even if it is not fall down hilarious, I would still rather hear it than have an episode hacked all to pieces.  I feel like the StarCrash episode was particularly choppy and difficult to contextualize at times.

    The Starcrash was really choppy but I'm fine with them editing them in general. The live shows have more dead space than you might think and they use jokes multiple times.

    If I'm listening at home, I don't want to hear the unedited several minute long "Raise your hand if you have a Second Opinions theme. Ok. I'll pick you... you... you... you... you... and you. Here's directions to get to the stage." It's necessary to get that audience participation but it's a long, not particularly funny section. I bet it sounds the exact same every line show.  That would get tiring if you hear a 5-10 minute set of instructions every single live episode.

    Plus, a lot of jokes gets reused. While Paul walks around, this clip had "don't look at us." That's made it to an episode before. I attended two live shows in one night and Jason said it at both live shows. So, I assume he does it virtually every show. It lands at the live shows because you haven't heard it 50 times. Imagine hearing that every live episode. I'm sure there are more we don't hear every episode. I'm sure it keeps us sane from not hearing a joke repeatedly and it keeps them sane by having a go to joke that gets a laugh every show instead of filling dead air a new line every show.

    There was also that weird run where guests called in to the minisodes about masturbating to stars of the movie. It was really uncomfortable. I know there was someone here who said an audience member had a really long, uncomfortable question about finding an actress hot at a live show. That never made it to air either and I'm thankful for that.

    I do think it's kind of weird to cut bits that get turned into shirts. So, maybe leave that stuff in. 

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    3D came back with Avatar - I say that seeing part 3 in 3D a few years ago well after 3D came back, as part of a retro-3D festival. The eye popping out was a blast. Admittedly, I haven't really gone to many modern 3D movies, so I'm not someone who would have burnt out on 3D movies.

    I think people got burned out on 3D because filmmakers weren't utilizing it well. Friday the 13th at least did some gimmicky stuff with it which at least fit the movie. So, I don't know if modern audiences would care but I do think the people who would watch a 30 year old slasher in theaters would eat it up. So, idk.

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    25 minutes ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    Nope, the one I'm thinking of was back to being teenagers in a high school. I remember a black nerdy girl who fell asleep during a test and that sequence was pretty dang good.

    IMDB has informed me it was in fact 4: The Dream Master.

    I'll be honest. I don't remember that one at all but, the one time I watched 2-6, was a day long marathon in college. It nearly broke me and my friend.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    54 minutes ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    Yeah I will definitely agree that the first Nightmare is the most successful, and I admit I actually really liked this first Friday the 13th. I obviously knew the twist going in but the way it was done was handled exceptionally well and I understood why this was so scary and even jumped at one point, but once they took out the mother and just created this monster human in the form of Jason I thought it really lost what made it scary and well done. Then it just became a spectacle to see how many people he could kill. At least in the nightmare movies even though they just become more silly there's still the same stuff behind them all that there basically was in the first. I can't remember which number it was (maybe Nightmare 4?) but I think I actually enjoyed that as much as the first one, but I can't say that about any of these Jason sequels. 

    I agree. The first of any slasher series is the best. I bet the other Nightmare movie you're thinking of is the one in the mental institution. I don't know which number it was, but it's definitely the best of the sequels.

    I also really like New Nightmare in concept. It kind of sucks from being too bland and 90s in execution but it's such an awesome idea.

    • Like 2

  13. Posted

    37 minutes ago, tay-loe anne photo said:

    Hopelessly devoted to Jason

    Also I have to say I think I'm a bigger fan of the Nightmare franchise. Having a villain that can actually quip and be the joke makes it a lot more fun than just sight gags. Although the 3D "effects" in Friday Part 3 had me laughing so fucking hard.

    I would have to rewatch the newest one now that I've seen the originals. From what I remember it wasn't even a remake but a continuation, and there was actual acknowledgement of the previous murders. But it was definitely humorless and instead of poking fun at the archetypes like Cabin in the Woods does it instead relies on them and exploits them instead.

    I found the Nightmare series went way downhill once Freddy started joking a lot. I generally dislike when horror movies have you rooting for the killer though which is what his jokes kind of turned into. It worked in the first one and, of all the slasher movie series, I remember the first Nightmare being the scariest.

    The 3D effects in Friday The 13th Part 3 are really fun in a theater. I saw a midnight show of it a few years ago before 3D came back. Maybe it wouldn't be as much fun now that people hate 3D again but the audience was going crazy for most of the 3D gags.

    • Like 3

  14. Posted

    8 hours ago, Cam Bert said:

    Maybe it's the just because the actor looks much older but I have a hard time believing that in 6 years Corey Feldman went from the kid in Part IV and start of Part V to this guy. That means him and Horshack are suppose to be like 18 or so? What weird casting.

    Corey Feldman was 13 passing a 12 year old. The guy playing Tommy in Part V was 25 playing a 17 year old. The guy playing Tommy in Part VI was 27.

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    40 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Having just watched 1-8 (Braaaaag), I can say that in 5 there’s a throw away line that they renamed the town (possibly the lake, too) to cover up its bloody past. That being said, everyone who lives there is still hyper aware of the murders.

    Also, to help clarify, or perhaps muddy the waters further, according to IMDb Trivia, this movie takes place in 1990. So, for the time it was released it was like the “not too distant future.” How that affects the sliding timeline of the series, I’m not sure. 7 seems to happen a considerable amount of time after 6. Likewise with 8. If I were to guess, I’d say 8 (which came out in 1989) is supposed to be, like, 1995 or something.

    https://fridaythe13th.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Friday_the_13th_series

    Here's a timeline from a Friday the 13th fan wiki. This movie does take place in 1990 which really is mind blowing.

    Even with a name change, I think people would probably remember. Parts 2-4 take place over a long weekend and Jason killed 34 people. That's international news. Especially when it's only 5 years after a mass murder by the same killer's mother in the original movie. Then there's the copycat killer in part 5. There's the benefit of being pre-internet where it's harder to research this but you'd think locals would get something in place to prevent the camp from opening after all this. 

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    8 hours ago, Kothel said:

    Also, I didn't catch this at the live show, but Paul said if they had focused on the whacky kids more, it would have been like Salute Your Shorts with a killer. Salute Your Shorts DID have an episode with a murderer. His name was Zeke the Plumber. I don't remember the legend behind him; but he's like a combo of Freddie and Jason. He has a creepy mask, but makes wisecracks and I think visits the campers in his dreams. Correct me if I'm wrong fellow SOS fans. 

    Just an FYI, I won't link it but this episode can easily be found online with a Google search.

    Zeke got his nose bit off. He became a plumber because he didn't mind the smell. There was a gas leak that caused an explosion killing Zeke. Now he wears a mask to cover his face and wanders the camp looking for his cursed plunger. If you have the plunger, he'll suck out your brains.

    • Like 5

  17. Posted

    I think the movie is basically a Lovecraftian horror movie (based on my limited knowledge of Lovecraft). It's just a person, or possibly two people, going mad from exposure to isolation and seeing an otherworldly monster.

    I didn't care much for the movie. I appreciated the look of it. I think the acting was top notch. I'm really glad Robert Pattinson is shedding Twilight and I hope he starts getting the recognition he deserves. But I was bored for a lot of the movie and nothing really came to anything I found compelling.

    • Like 2

  19. Posted

    46 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Kind of true, but the idea of even making more MCU movies was entirely dependent on Iron Man being a hit. At the time, Iron Man was not household name even among comics fans, and Robert Downey Jr.'s career was . . . fine, but not really superstar-level.

    I don't think it was entirely dependent on Iron Man's success since Incredible Hulk came out the next month.

    It was another two years until the next one which was Iron Man 2. So, it was definitely relying on Iron Man's success. I don't know if we would have gotten Thor and Captain America so quickly if there hadn't been a tease of an Avengers Initiative and the conversation that sparked.

  20. Posted

    I think Paul's take on the Marvel movies that Jon Favreau found the special formula ignores the biggest thing in that, starting with Iron Man, Marvel decided to make an interconnected universe. Iron Man is fine but it wasn't until Avengers brought them together that the truly separated themselves from other superhero movies.

    As for Godfather II, I really hope the Solo thing isn't a nod to it. The scene was bad enough on its own but doing that as an homage is oof, not good.

  21. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Elektra Boogaloo said:

    Does anyone else think a lot of perfumes smell the same? Like they used to have samples in magazines and it was always nasty and I think they smell like that? I don't like it. I like something fruity or whatever or maybe maybe floral. Something that smells like a thing from nature? Not like, "oh you smell like chemicals"?

    For sure this. I think virtually all perfumes and colognes smell the same or 95% the same. Unless they have a very specific, singular scent they are replicating (say vanilla or something), they might as well all be the same to me. I assume I just don't have a sensitive smell palette (idk what this is called for your nose).

    Also, why can't the be perfume that smells like freshly baked bread? If you want to get my attention, that will do it. Everyone likes bakeries.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    2 hours ago, tomspanks said:

    What do you mean, "pot" a ball?

    Re: powers, so was he or was he not a vampire?  Do vampires have telekinesis?  Why did he "freeze" during his interview?  What the heck is this movie?  

    "Potting" a ball means getting it in the pocket.

    I assumed he was an actual vampire but, only now, do I realize how weird that is. I thought the telekinesis was strange but we've seen vampires have a range of powers that aren't consistent. So, the weirdest thing about it is that he's seemingly never used it before.

    • Like 3

  24. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    I'm not sure if everybody knows the rules of snooker or looked them up. Admittedly you don't really need to know them to watch the movie but what the Vampire did was actually super impressive. 147 is the perfect snooker score. See, you have to pot a red ball which is worth one point. If you pot one you are allowed to take a shot at any colour ball next. The colours go up in value (yellow, green, brown, blue, pink) with black being worth the most at seven points. If you pot any ball before it's turn (you sink all the reds and then move down the colours accordingly) that ball is replaced on the table in its starting position. The Vampire did this with every red ball, alternating red and black, and didn't miss to achieve the perfect score of 147. It is also implied he did this more than once before the mid match break, which makes it even more impressive. Maybe he did have powers after all.

    The is technically a way to score higher than a standard 147 maximum break. It requires your opponent to go first without pocketing any balls and make a mistake (I want to say a specific mistake but I don't remember). This can mean the official can award another ball on the table giving another scoring opportunity but you then have to do a full maximum break including the extra ball. This makesthe highest possible score 155. This has never happened in an official snooker game by has been accomplished a couple times in non-regulation play.

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    It turns out the characters in this are inspired by real life snooker players. The green baize vampire is based on Ray "Dracula" Reardon and Jimmy "The Whirlwind" Webb. I don't know how The Whirlwind ties into an American western hero but, I guess so?

    I couldn't find any information about them wagering their careers or even notable matches against each other. So, I not sure why these two other than they were big figures in snooker in their day.

    • Like 6
×