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

The_Triple_Lindy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    661

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Posts posted by The_Triple_Lindy

  1. Posted

     

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    I still see that as being an argument about quality versus enjoyability. Which, again, no one is arguing that the movie is flawless. June and Jason both agreed to that.

    However, knowing that it was the filmmakers’ original intention that Fred was a manifestation of Liz, and that that message still came through loud and clear for some of the viewers, means that it at least did an adequate job conveying that message, it just didn’t maybe universally convey that message. And for our purposes, that’s the problem.

    Both sides seem to accusing the other side of either ignoring (perhaps willfully) the quality of the film or its message, but I don’t feel like that’s the case, and it’s just creating false equivalencies. Team Fred gets that it isn’t the best made film ever. Team Sanity gets what the film was trying to do.

    However, that’s why I’m hesitant to accept “it sucks because it failed to do A, B, C well,” as a valid argument, because for some people, it absolutely DID do those things well. How can one group tell another group that they’re wrong when they’re the group that successfully got out of the movie what the filmmaker intended? 

    Or, to put it another way:

    (Team Fred and Team Sanity are sitting with the person who wrote “Roses are Red.”)

    Team Fred: “I like the poem because it takes three self-evident statements to convey its strong, favorable  opinion about another person.”

    Team Sanity: “The poem actually sucks. The imagery is juvenile, the meter is simplistic, violets aren’t actually blue, and I don’t think it adequately conveys the emotion the writer intended.”

    The poet: “I’m sorry you feel that way, Team Sanity, but I wrote it with the intention Team Fred understood it to have.”

    Team Fred: “I mean, Team Sanity isn’t totally wrong, it could have been better. Still, I think it’s sweet and I will accept it for what it is.”

    Team Sanity: “I get what the poem is trying to do, and I get what Team Fred is saying, but it didn’t work for me so it must not work at all.”

    Team Fred: “But it DID work...”

    Team Sanity: “Bup, bup, bup - it doesn’t work at all.”

    Three things:

    1. I was under the impression that Team Sanity's position is that Fred is a real, independent entity, not just that the movie sucks. 

    2. Since you brought poetry into this ... true literary criticism holds that an author's intentions for the work is irrelevant (that's called the Intentional Fallacy). Ergo, if 95% of the work is delivering the author's intention, but the remaining 5% undermines that reading, then the work is flawed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the work isn't flawed, but for critics, judging how near or far a work comes to achieving "organic unity" is the whole point, not to assess the enjoyability. 

    Perhaps the distinction between the teams is that Team Sanity is taking a critical approach while Team Fred is just taking a personal response where being overly critical is a detriment?

    Personally, I can be incredibly critical of things I totally enjoy. I just didn't enjoy Drop Dead Fred nearly as much as I've enjoyed coming to this board and mixing it up with everyone. 

    3. People who experience something as a child can enjoy and defend their enjoyment as adults, but it would be remiss not to point out that the same thing can be said about cults.

    Is it time for tuxedo football yet?

    anigif_enhanced-buzz-4245-1388161148-5.g

    • Like 3

  2. Posted

    14 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    If we go with the option of Fred being real think how cruel that is. He KNOWS how much she wants to get back together with Charles and I feel like he knows about her abandonment issues as well. So to do that it's not a silly prank, it's activity hurting her and it's awful. There's no payoff for anyone but him.

    Most practical jokes are cruel. But either Fred is being cruel to Lizzie because he's a dick, or Lizzie dissociated in order to be cruel to herself because she's severely mentally unwell. 

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    11 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I saw this on IMDb, and I’m not sure if Team Sanity was trying to suppress to this to strengthen their argument (especially considering some IMDb Trivia was read during the episode), but I think it’s worth posting this:

    “There's an alternate ending where Lizzie is at Mickey's house reading his daughter Natalie a bedtime story. And after a few minutes, Natalie comes out of her room where she tells both Lizzie and Mickey that her "imaginary friend" ripped up her teddy bear. Lizzie asks Natalie the name of her imaginary friend. Natalie reveals that her imaginary friend's name is Drop Dead Fred. The scene ends with a shot of a pop-up book opening revealing a pop-up illustration of Drop Dead Fred with a voice over of Fred saying "Playtime". When the film was screened for a test audience, the audience hated the ending because they hated the idea of Fred disappearing forever. This prompted New Line Cinema to cut the ending and reshoot it where Fred is seen with Natalie pulling a prank on Natalie's babysitter. The original ending was included as an extra on the 25th anniversary Blu-ray.”

    So, really we can blame test audiences for the muddled ending - which is something everyone has agreed was poorly handled. It seems clear to me that Drop Dead Fred was always written and meant to be a manifestation of Liz’s psyche. Had the movie ended as originally intended, not only would it have explicitly shown Liz’s he was always a part of her, it would also reveal that Drop Dead Fred to be a storybook character! This would have totally explained how she and the little girl could share the same imaginary friend.

    However, as a proud Team Fred member, I agree that not everything is perfectly done, but I think it does an adequate job of conveying its message.

    I would like to clarify though, in the up skirt scenes, Liz is 100% projecting Fred. Those two moments are meant to tell us something about how Liz is feeling and convey two different messages. In the first instance, as Jason said, it was a way of taking her mother down a peg. She knows her mother is being uptight and is essentially thinking, “Relax. You really need to get laid.”

    In the second scene, Liz is struggling against feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. She sees Fonda standing there looking beautiful, and projects Fred as a way to imply a degree of promiscuity. It’s a way of helping her cope with an awkward situation. It’s not that she’s any better or worse looking than Fonda, but she certainly feels like Fonda is more desirable than her, and this is her way of taking her down a peg and explaining why that might be.

    Interesting enough about the alternate ending.

    Everything you say is 100% accurate, but it doesn't discount that the movie goes out of its way to show other imaginary friends like Fred. Lizzie cannot see them -- this is a moment where we are completely in Fred's perspective. And in order for Fred to have a perspective, he must exist.

    Cogito ergo sum. 

    Again, this movie is trying to have its cake and eat it, too. I think everything you describe is what someone, somewhere wanted this movie to be, but then someone else decided to make it a kids' movie and the mental health allegory got ruined. Nevertheless, this is the final product that Hollywood presented us with, and it's ... it's just a mess. 

    43 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Finished the episode. Still 100% Team Fred.

    Yes, I think she wrote the letter herself. I don’t think she’s completely insane, but after losing her car, job, and philandering husband in one day - plus being forced move back home with her domineering mother - I think she’s definitely suffered a psychotic break. And I think this break is primarily due to the repression she’s suffered since childhood. It’s left her ill-equipped to deal with the turmoil in her life.

    The letter scene is a pivotal moment in this debate, because the interpretations of both sides to fit their arguments may equally be valid.

    If Fred is real, he wrote the letter and tricked Lizzie.

    If Fred is Lizzie, then Lizzie wrote the letter and sealed it in an envelope, opened and read it at a later time, responded to it as though she didn't write it, gets excited by it and shows it to others, then rushes over to meet the person who she tricked herself into thinking wrote it, and was heartbroken when he wasn't there because the person who wrote the letter was really herself. 

    Now, I'm not saying the second option isn't valid. But the work it takes to rationalize this is considerable. This is the behavior of someone who is completely untethered. She's not the kind of character to build a kids' movie around. 

    • Like 3

  5. Posted

    46 minutes ago, gigi-tastic said:

    Ok so outside the Team Sanity vs Team Fred discourse did this movie give anyone else anxiety? If you just simply watched it and were a experiencing this never ending deluge of destruction and gleeful  violence... It made me very uncomfortable. I don't like watching someone break something just because they can and upset someone or pull mean pranks for the same reason or because they think they are funny. I don't mind a gleeful prankster vibe. I love Jason and he plays that role a lot in stuff and I adore it every time. None of Fred's "games" were fun to me. For the most part it felt like they punched down not up. I understand why they did things to the mother but he hurts people Elizabeth likes and are kind to her.

    I think the thing that bothered me the most was he didn't listen, even when it mattered to her. When she said no or stop he kept going and pushing the joke. Like her date with Mickey. She really likes him, and thankfully ( I guess) he's a fucked up person who gets off on public outbursts. I was horrified by that scene. He took away her agency and control in a physical way vs what we had seen her mother do psychologically. 

    As an adult it felt like he only wanted to cause chaos. In her childhood I could see him showing her care and affection. If felt like he lacked that once he was freed. 

    I don't know.

    To quote Miss Coco Peru " It BOTHERED me! "

    It was the chaos and also the humiliation that gave me anxiety. The fact that so much of the humor was based on Lizzie being put into embarrassing or humiliating situations by the daemon limey monkey god.

    For me, it's why I don't like The Office. All the humor is Michael Scott debasing himself with cringe-worthy lack of self-awareness. Actually, I think DDF and The Office are a shared universe, where all of Michael Scott's bad behavior is being caused by his own Drop Dead Fred.

    • Like 2

  6. Posted

    7 minutes ago, Mattrix said:

    I truly believe the poll should be black and white.  “Is the movie good? Yes or No” 

    Team Fred has made some compelling points, but they also have seemed to align themselves with this movie being good. I cant allow myself to be on a team that is seemingly synonymous with enjoying the movie 

    Fully Team Fuck This Movie. It's tearing us apart!!!!

    tenor.gif

    • Like 9

  7. Posted

    1 hour ago, PollyDarton said:

    Fully Team Sanity. Fully Team mom is a monster.

    I think one problem we've run into here is that the *teams* (teams are stupid, btw ... in this board and in most IRL cases) have become cemented by what the cast have said. Specifically, Team Sanity has become the de facto mom apologists just because Paul and Casey defended her, which is dumb. Fred is real, and the mom sucks ... more than one thing can be true.

    Buuuuuuuut ... I'm going to go out on a limb and defend Polly, the mom. Not to say she's great -- she sucks as a person, generally -- but she is also presented to us as a more complex figure that anyone here gives her credit. She's snobby, materialistic, and generally unpleasant. 

    But then, she has a child who, regardless of Fred's real/figment status, is bringing down large amounts of emotional turmoil and property damage. And let's not forget that, when Fred suggests that they cut the mother's head off, Lizzie is ALL FOR IT. This is, for my money, 100 degrees of magnitude worse if Fred is a figment because that means it's really all just Lizzie wrecking her life and calling for her mom's murder. Plus, if Fred isn't real, it must be Lizzie shouting "Yeah, cut mom's head off" while Polly is in the next fucking room.

    This is a nightmare scenario for any parent, and if you're already prone to being shitty, then it is really easy to let yourself say something awful to your child, purely out of frustration. Parents are human. My own child has had stints of sleepless nights and bad behavior, and as much as I love my child, there are a few times where I've said to myself, "This kid is ruining my fucking life right now." Selfish? Perhaps, but human. And my child is, generally speaking, the absolute jackpot of kids, so if an angel can bring a generally even-tempered person to curse their existence, imagine what a maniac child like Lizzie could do to a generally contemptible person like her mom. 

    What is really killing me about the Team Fred folks is that, since Team Fred posits that all of Fred's behavior is really Lizzie's, they seem to accept that Lizzie behaves like a complete asshole the entire film, because she's acting this way due to the trauma that she's endured, while being generally unforgiving of anyone else. Assholes like Polly aren't created out of thin air -- she's expressing her own past trauma in her own way. We just don't forgive her for it because her trauma isn't being expressed by a sexy British avatar. That ending, where she tells Lizzie that she'll be lonely if Lizzie leaves -- that's some emotional, heartbreaking stuff if you're willing to see it from a parent's point of view. It doesn't excuse her behavior, but it mitigates her awfulness ever-so slightly, IMHO.

    ***At this very moment, my child is throwing a tantrum because we're trying to get out the door to go on vacation, and my frustration with her is growing because she's not letting me type a silly post. If she were breaking windows or sinking my house, I might let my tongue run away with me, too. 

     
    On 8/2/2019 at 11:32 AM, ChunkStyle said:

    The villain of this movie is without question Lizzie's father.  He thinks Marsha Mason is being a terrible mother so his response is to walk out of Lizzie's life forever?  Dude is trash.

    This is the most true statement made on the board so far. The father sees the mother treating Lizzie badly and, rather than removing Lizzie from the situation, he just leaves so that he doesn't have to witness it? Bullshit.

    If you want to blame anyone for adult Lizzie's regression into childishness, blame the dad. 

    • Like 4

  9. Posted

    4 hours ago, joel_rosenbaum said:

    Did anyone else notice that this is the sole writing credit ever attributed to Elizabeth Livingston? 

    Apparently here is (some) of the story behind that.

     

     

    YES! Actually, Livingston gets a "Story by" credit, whereas the writers were Carlos Davis and Tony Fingleton. And it blows me away that June would go to bat so hard for a movie that tries to represent the coming-of-age of a young girl which was written by two hack men, one of whom is known more for being a swimmer, and the other who never did anything else of note (EDIT: Aside from Hurricane Heist, I guess). 

    I tried to find out more about Livingston and came up with bupkis. She's written a few other short stories, all having some supernatural elements to them, but never made another splash as big as this. I would just hate to think that she had a real bildungsroman that got crapped on by this movie. 

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    3 hours ago, Larcen26 said:

    The same thing happens with Drop Dead Fred.  If you see Fred as nothing more than a visual manifestation of Lizzie’s Id, and she is ultimately the one with all of those thoughts and impulses, it is a nuanced tale of growth and ultimately female empowerment.

    If you see it as a world where Imaginary friends truly exist and are there to be friends for the friendless (this would be a world similar to Pete’s Dragon) and can only be seen by the children they accompany, it’s an odd, disjointed and almost bipolar film with unsettling sexual undertones between Fred and Lizzie.

     

    I am firmly Team Who Gives A Shit.

    What Larcen says above was essentially my whole thesis about why this movie is a trainwreck. Fred is treated as both an absolute independent entity and an abstract representation, and he simply cannot be both. 

    Fred clearly exists in certain scenes, especially in the scene where we see other imaginary friends. I also read online that one deleted scene took place at a bar where all the imaginary friends hung out while they were off work.

    But in other scenes, things that are perceived as Fred are either meant to represent Lizzie doing these things (the mud pies and property damage) or they are explained away, such as when Lizzie and her husband are in the bedroom and we hear what we think is Fred trying to open the door but then it ends up being the nurse, who gets accidentally bonked on the head. 

    This movie is trying very hard to be a clumsy metaphor for growing up and Fred is treated as representation of that, but he is also treated as a real entity, one imaginary friend in a world full of them, in order I suppose to make it more kid-friendly and less deeply metaphorical. 

    • Like 9

  12. Posted

    Can't make it tomorrow, but could probably do next week. Of course, that's assuming that Rabbit is still up then, so carry on tomorrow if you need to. I hate that it's going away ... 

    Speed 2 was dumb, but I remember viscerally disliking Tiptoes. 

  14. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    You are partially right that the names are part of the con but they are also cons in themselves when done separately.  The Two Jethros are two hicks (the Mormon twins in this instance).  The Ella Fitzgerald refers to them broadcasting a tape of the vault to disguise what was really happening (and/or the staged explosion which was also taped).  The Leon Spinks refers to the boxing match.  I think the Boesky refers to Carl Reiner's part of the big roller to distract the casino boss.  I'm not totally familiar with the Ivan Boesky story although I remember it happening.

    Boesky was busted for insider trading, which is sort of a con, I guess.

  15. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    Where did you pull Ypsilanti from? I suspect I know.  just curious.

    I needed a funny city name and, having just drove to upstate Michigan recently, Ypsilanti was fresh on the mind.

    I kinda think Ypsilanti is one of those cities that I first heard mentioned on Looney Tunes, like Cucamonga or Walla Walla or Albuquerque.

    (And just to harken back to a previous board discussion about whether or not Bugs Bunny et al were still relevant -- see previous sentence for QED)

    21 minutes ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    Honestly I thought Deadfall was the name based on it requiring a major character to play dead as part of the scam.  (Although that's part of The Sting as well so I suspect Uncle Lou isn't really dead.)

    If that's true, then that's part of the movie's whole problem right there ... "Deadfall" isn't zippy enough. Maybe if it were "the Des Moines Deadfall" ... 

    19 minutes ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    I also thought of something like the remake Ocean's Eleven where they list a bunch of cons, each one telling part of how the heist is going to go.

    "Off the top of my head, I'd say you're looking at a Boesky, a Jim Brown, a Miss Daisy, two Jethros and a Leon Spinks, not to mention the biggest Ella Fitzgerald ever."

    That felt like they were describing the roles to be played in the con, not the con itself. I could be wrong.

    But even the title Ocean's Eleven proves my previous point. The formula is simple, Hollywood, jeez ... Proper noun + abstract noun = successful heist movie. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  16. Posted

    4 hours ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    The con is also similar, where they are trying to take the mark's money without him knowing he was taken.  (They were trying to break Dr. Lyme and drive him out of business.)  The people busting in and creating a shootout were the distraction this time.  All the stuff between the brothers was just to keep Michael Biehn on track.  The cake jewelry box was "the cake" initially to throw off Michael Biehn.  That was simply a red herring of sorts.  The real cake was the $2 million from the heist.

    All cons have a flashy name, so what is this -- the Philly Fake-cake? The Caribbean Cakewalk? The Ypsilanti Icebox?

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, SideofMcG said:

    YESSS!!!! Thought that was hilarious. 

    I wonder if Cage saw the shirt and decided to shout it out or if they put the guy with the shirt there on purpose to mirror the line.

    Probably the former!

    I'd be awesome if Nick Cage just never learned his lines, so he's just reading his lines off the extras' clothes. Like, if one of those people were wearing a "what are you looking at, maaaan?" t-shirt that we just can't see. Or another one that just says "[throws drink]."

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    11 minutes ago, PollyDarton said:

    Ok - So help me out guys...

    Who is Sam Peckinpah? That's the beardy guy? Eddie is mumbling something about "Sam Peckinpah" before he talks to the large man he refers to as "Baby" in the strip club (right before the beardy guy tries to garret him in the alley.)
    I know they brought him up in the episode, but did anybody catch what that was all about?

    They hypothesize on the podcast that he was paid by the uncle (or maybe the father, as it works out) to do ... something something. As far as I could tell, his role is never really clarified.

    Sam Peckinpah is a director. He made westerns, like The Wild Bunch, so that was not actually that guys name. Eddie was talking about Sam Peckinpah in the bar, beard guy heard him, and then told Eddie that was his name as a little "go fuck yourself" line to go out on, I guess.

  20. Posted

    On 7/19/2019 at 10:43 PM, doxrus said:

    During the showdown with Lou, why does Joe turn on the carousel? He does it quite deftly, barely looking at the power switch, as if he'd been planning it all along, and knows exactly where the switch is located. Is it really that simple and easy to turn a carousel on and off? And if he had wanted to shoot Lou, it would have been much easier when he was standing still, right in front of him, not on a turning carousel surrounded by moving horses.

    My daughter rides the carousel at our local zoo all the time, and the guy there just turns it on with a foot switch. Seems that lever might just be a case of typical Hollywood over-dramatization.

    19 hours ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    Watching the movie now I get the strong impression that Christoper watched Wild At Heart and wanted to do the same thing, but noir.

    He should've added the line, "This ill-fitting toupee is a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom to look completely foolish."

    19 hours ago, theworstbuddhist said:

    Oh, one cool thing about this movie is seeing Sarah Trigger. She was in PCU with Jeremy Piven, which is not aging well as you can probably imagine, and she was in one of the greatest TV crime dramas of all time, the short-lived EZ Streets by Paul Haggis, starring Ken Olin, Joey Pants, and Jason Gedrick. Hey Netflix, there's a show that should be revived and resolved!

    I love PCU. Sarah Trigger was also one of the Princesses from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey.

    MV5BNzI3YjMwYjQtOTA3Yy00ZThlLWE4ZGQtYjdh

    • Like 3

  21. Posted

    I'm blown away that the Movie Bitches thought they'd go to Detective Pikachu and get Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which is easily a top 5 all-time fav, but I'm also blown away that they think WFRR? is a kids' movie? Murder, alcoholism, a truly frightening main villain, tons of sexual innuendo and Jessica goddamn Rabbit? It seems more like a nostalgia movie for boomers who grew up with Looney Tunes and Disney and wanted to see them in a more mature setting.

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit -- a kid's movie: Yeah or nah?

    EDIT to add: Not that kids can't enjoy it, because I surely did, but I just don't think Zemeckis really had kids in mind when he made it.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    10 hours ago, PollyDarton said:

    This might explain why when his girlfriend brings Mike his belongings (because she's kicking him out of her place - he does not have his own place to live) she brings a SINGLE dufflebag that really didn't seem that full.

    Only one counter argument:

    72899-9840.jpg

    Them sweet abs.

    I bet those abs looked amazing in 3D.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1

  23. Posted

    On 7/5/2019 at 10:32 AM, pscudese said:

    So Paul mentioned how strange it was that Michael Brody (ie. Dennis Quaid) didn't call out that he's had issues with sharks in the past. No reference to Amnity, etc. But taking that a step further, I now have major annoyances with this character's reaction to a great white in Jaws 4. 

    In the 4th film, Michael is pumped to follow and study a great white shark that is known to these waters. So you're telling me, after witnessing a man being eaten alive in front of you as a child (thus causing you to go into shock)... to then a great white killing co-workers and almost eating you multiple times... that when you find a 3rd GWS, you want to study it?!

    Fuuuuuhhhhhccckkkk You!!! Get eaten. 

     

    11 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    It’s worth pointing out that Quaid’s character does in fact refer to Great White Sharks as “murderers” - which is an absolutely insane thing to call an animal. They’re just animals. It’s not their fault. Peter Benchley himself has famously become an ardent defender of sharks in response to this kind of thinking, feeling that his book and the original movie gave people the false impression that all sharks were dangerous and should therefore be killed indiscriminately. At least, his was an accident based on ignorance. This movie is straight up like, “Great Whites? Oh yeah, they’re fucking psychos, bro. They need to die!”

    But, yeah, I agree. Based on his personal history, Quaid’s career trajectory - and just his overall area of interest - is freaking bizarre. At least his brother moved to Colorado. That makes at least makes some sense. (That is, until he moves back to Amity Island, gets a job on the water, and is subsequently eaten by ANOTHER Great White shark...)

    I don't feel it's that uncommon for people to take past trauma and turn it into career ambitions ... kids with infirmities becoming doctors, kids suffering abuse becoming counselors, kids whose parents were murdered becoming Batman, etc. 

    • Like 5

  24. Posted

    This movie and the way Dennis Quaid and others tend to throw caution playfully to the wind and jump into the water fully clothed makes me nostalgic for a time when one might hurl oneself wantonly into a pool or body of water without regards for things like cellphones. Such whimsy tends to be expensive these days. 

    • Like 6

  25. Posted

    Personally, I think everything in this movie pretty much holds up, except the stunt skiing, which I was confused and underwhelmed by.

    First of all, the girls that climb up the pyramid are wearing skis at first, but then just kick them off when they start to climb, so ... how do they get their skis back? Do skis just float? I legitimately don't know.

    Secondly, what's the end game of the pyramid stunt ... they form this impressive visual and then, what, just ski around like that for a while? Do they not do any other tricks, or do they jump off a ramp or anything? Seems like kind of a one-trick pony show, if you ask me, although a few minutes on YouTube seem to reveal that the group stunt skiing world hasn't really evolved beyond this one trick, so maybe it holds up better than I think. This video was from 2006 and people are losing their shit over it:

    Although, if you notice, the folks on top start out on top, thus risking no lost skis, so I guess the industry has learned a few tricks since the 80s.

    • Like 5
×