Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

WatchOutForSnakes

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    414

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by WatchOutForSnakes

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cinco DeNio said:

    I think Terrence Howard was saying to pay him the 25 grand if Rooster wanted out of the business.  I think Rooster thought he was done when he paid back the $1100.

    Did Rooster want out of the business? I suppose he was wanting to spend more time with his wife and kids, but I didn't get the sense that there was something else he was planning on doing after leaving the speakeasy? Again, maybe I just missed this whole part of the plot? 

    • Like 2

  5. Posted

    10 hours ago, tomspanks said:

     

    Sorry guys, I had only watched the first half of the movie at the time of my comment. In the second half, Rooster pays back the $1100, but Terrence Howard says the deal was for “25 large.”  I think that’s 25 grand?

      

    The 25 grand was what Spats was asking to buy him out so he could retire. Why Terrence Howard thinks he is owed that money is unclear to me. 

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I knew this would be a mixed bag in reaction when I picked it -- some of us will just be in the right mood and enjoy the hell out of it, and others will be confounded.  Maybe that's true for every movie, but I think melodramatic hiphop musicals set in the '30s can feel like there are way too many angles going on.

    I can see the low energy critique but for me, but I think, for Dre at least, that was a character choice.  Also thinking about it, the romance brings me in: I liked Dre and Paula together and felt their story.  If it wasn't there, I would've certainly felt more cut off from the story.

    First off, I liked this this movie. I watched it a second time over the weekend and thought it was pretty enjoyable. You can tell the director's main work is music videos. The musical numbers and the flourishes like the animated flask and the cuckoo clocks over Dre's bed show a real familiarity with creating a scene and mood. As for the plot ... well, that was kind of sparse. One thing that bugged me was that I didn't really get why the club was so important. Why it was so important for Rooster to take it over, and exactly how much in debt he was. I thought Terrance Howard taking out Spats and Ace kind of came out of nowhere, and I never really got a sense of him as a villain. I'm also not real sure why this was set in the prohibition era, aside from just a stylistic choice. Sure, they were smuggling hooch into the club, but I didn't think there was ever any real concern about the cops busting them up. Overall, basically, the stakes felt pretty low.

    To me, Dre seemed not so much low energy, as just sad and emotionally burdened. I liked his performance, and his chemistry with Angel/Sally. Their story was probably my favorite part of the movie. And the end with Busby Berkeley-esque musical number at the end and through the credits. I also felt the song Dre does while dressing Angel/Sally's body for burial was the weakest, but the rest of the music was really fun. Very Outkast. 

    And final thought - what is with prohibition-era musicals and scoundrels named Rooster? (ahem, Annie). 

    • Like 3

  8. Posted

    10 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    mini-update:

    11/22 Ep. 28 - Sophie's Choice

    11/29 Ep. 29 - A Clockwork Orange

    12/6 Ep. 30 - Rocky

    sometime in December: It's A Wonderful Life

     

    Mr. Smith Goes to Washington at the midterms, and It's A Wonderful Life in December? Call me a die skeptic. 😉

  9. Posted

    2 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    My understanding is the girl scouts were in response to, but are not in association with the Boy Scouts.  The friend who informed me of this brought this up with the topic the GS are generally progressive (though I suspect that's always a very decentralized thing/depends on chapter). But it hasn't had associations with the LDS church at a national level that prevented them from having gay scout leaders (friend informing me of this is gay, so of general concern to them in a broader sense).

     

    I don't know a ton about GS history, I know the Boy Scouts had problems with gay and trans scout leaders. Some of my college friends who have gone into politics have also have gone on to be GS Leaders and seem to be doing some great things for girls, Some of these stats came on my radar after the midterms, so I thought it'd be fun to look into how it promotes leadership and civics in young girls. 

    I was never a Girl Scout, I was a Brownie when I was really young for a couple years but didn't stick it through and moved to an area where there weren't any chapters. I have two older brothers who were Boy Scouts and my mom was their troop leader, so I got to go along with some activities, and grew up scout-adjacent, so I'm semi-familiar with at least what kinds of stuff Boy Scouts were doing in the 80's. 

    On a wider note, I'm glad Amy didn't spend too much time on the fact that this was very much a male-centered movie, but so were politics back then. I didn't feel the gender politics were too bad in this one, for the time. Saunders was a great character, and Jean Arthur gave her some real life. I loved her. 

  10. Posted

    Amy made a point about the lack of Girl Scouts in this movie. Girl Scouts are actually a great path toward public office. Here are some fun stats from their policy group (not updated with 2018 elections info):

    • 55% of women in the 115th Congress are Girl Scout alums
    • 73% of current female senators are Girl Scout alums
    • 51% of women in the House of Representatives are Girl Scout alums
    • 4 of 6 current female governors are Girl Scout alums
    • Every female Secretary of State has been a Girl Scout Alum

     

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    4 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

     

    I think if we dropped this whole Taylor/Payne corruption plot and just focused and the realities of passing Senator Smith's bill.  How his good intentions had consequences that, which may have been justified, would have made his wholesome, simple Americana idea actually more complex that have to be figured out and reckoned with - I think I would have liked this movie more.

    I think one of the main points of the movie was the Taylor/Payne corruption because it gets at how government (as seen with earmarks) can be used for good like idyllic parks for boys' enrichment, or for personal enrichment. And also whether certain corrupt actions can work toward the ultimate public good, like other achievements of Payne. As it is, the movie not only gets at the legislative sausage-making, but also the corruption and personal dealings that go one, and whether the ends can justify the means. 

    On a completely different note on the wild circumstances of Jefferson Smith's appointment - I think that was necessary to find someone who goes in with zero idea about politics and legislation, zero political ambitions, zero policy preferences, and positive public regard. I think Capra was playing with the idea of dropping an absolute stranger or alien, one with the most honest civic-minded intentions and ideals, and just drop him straight into the middle of things for a fresh criticism of government. 

    • Like 4

  14. Posted

    13 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    States can definitely set up something like that, but if Congress wants to legislate in this area, the Supremacy Clause allows their legislation to have precedence and to be the minimum threshold for the States to follow.

    And a national boys program would be allowable under the Constitution which gives Congress power to legislate the "general welfare" of the country, which certainly this is.  They may also have to claim the land as federal property first, which I can't remember if they were trying to do in the film?  Probably. 

    Generally the film was pretty accurate about the law, which, believe me, is rare.

     

    I got a nerdy glee out of the scene when Saunders goes on about Committees and Conferences. 

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    I'm currently ruminating on whether this whole camp is feasible. To walk through some of this out loud: 

    The land/fixtures - apparently the land was privately owned, so this would effectively be a taking and the government would have to reimburse the land owners. I assume the cost of purchase would be part of this "loan" to the kids. (Of course that's where the scandal for Mr. Smith comes in saying the purchase price ultimately comes from the coins of little boys). Then, the government would have to pay the contractors for the labor to put it in, and it would need continued funding for the people who will run it. That brings up a question - do the boys have to pay for this in perpetuity? 

    The "loan" itself - what are the terms of this "loan?" How many boys are contributing? What if there isn't a critical mass of boys who CAN contribute? Are we binding these kids into a certain base-level contribution? Do you go after their scout leaders if there's not enough money? Do you require some kind of contribution based on income? Are these to be one-time contributions? Or are they recurring? And, for how long? Like above, this isn't just some monument that you can leave alone, we're talking about an ongoing public program. Will these boys, and all boys thereafter have to continue to pay for running the camp? And these are minors! I'm not up on contract law at the time, but I don't think minors can enter into contracts. 

    But yes, this needs legislation because no federal money can be moved without a law providing for it, and because they're not just forking up cash, they will be responsible for oversight as well. (or will they? That's another problem with this bill). 

    Also, as an aside, this whole movie deals with those dreaded earmarks that became such a public pariah after the "bridge to nowhere" that I think has played a role in the breakdown of bipartisanship. Legislators used to bargain with each other over money going to their home districts, i.e. "you vote for my bill and I'll support funding for your park/bridge/dam." Since the banishing of earmarks, there are fewer incentives to work across the aisle, and the cost-benefit calculation changes. 

    • Like 3

  16. Posted

    16 hours ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Wouldn't it be, Jacob's Ladder is just one big Mr. Smith's Yield (of the floor)?

    ETA: that doesn't work as well as I wanted to, since he doesn't yield. Or technically, does he?  Does collapsing during a filibuster technically end it?

    Collapsing would definitely end it since you have to stay on your feet the whole time. 

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    49 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Well I sort of think the whole thing is a fantasy montage haha

    Is this a Jacob's Ladder scenario ahead of it's time? Say, Jefferson gets bitten by a snake out on a hike with the boys and it's a all a fever dream and when he collapses on the Senate floor, he finally dies. Maybe?

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    Another message board I post on that's a lot more political than this one has someone from Wisconsin, so I've been hearing him complain about Walker for the past 8+ years.  His hatred ran deep (and it also sounded like him and Reince Priebus either made Wisconsin ground zero or one of the most extreme cases of gerrymandering from the past census/decade).  On that last part, throw in we have a new census coming up in two years (and thus new redistricting), that's a big deal.  The structural problems in the math in the representative system is a big issue in my mind.  This in turn, well, at least Florida is getting a recount.  I don't know if I should get my hopes up on that or get prepared to get my hopes stomped on that one again.

    At least the number of voter enfranchisement laws and a few anti-gerrymandering (i.e. redistricting by non-partisan commission) bills passed in a number of purple states (more than I was aware of when I heard someone start to list them off).

    That said, I should probably go back to refrain talking politics.  I frequent a small corner of the internet that has a long streak of despair in it and I'd probably just start parroting points and topics that other people there say (e.g. Yay! Scott Walker is gone.... and now Wisconsin state legislators are working to gut the amount of power the governorship has before the Democrat can take office, like North Carolina).  And that's not what I came to these forums for.

    At least Walker is gone.

    Agree 100% on all of this. 

  21. Posted

    22 hours ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Both sides of Congress do have investigatory powers.  Obviously, the Senate won't do anything about Trump or any of this.  But the House now, it might.  At the very least, we can bring his crimes to light. Impeachment begins in the House too.

    Also want to note-- Tuesday was especially great for different state legislatures, governorships, etc. We need federal level to fight Trump, but it's on those other statte and local levels where we can counter the GOP.

    Tony Evers's defeat of Scott Walker in WI was huge! WI doesn't particularly like 3-term governors, but Dems have a real problem finding candidates with any form of charisma. I really wasn't expecting Evers to win, so that was a nice surprise. 

    Also, hooray for Amendment 4 in Florida (the rest though...)

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, bleary said:

    A full list means I can compute more similarity scores!

    Your list's similarity to, from more similar to least similar:

    • Cam Bert - 836
    • Amy - 870
    • sycasey - 958
    • Paul - 990
    • Cameron H. - 1300
    • me - 1672
    • AlmostAGhost - 1964

    I think you're the first list I've seen that's closer to Amy's than to Paul's!

    Interesting!  I would definitely say that I think I line up with Amy more than Paul, but I often find that my tastes differ quite a bit from both of them. 

  23. Posted

    Here's my updated list, though some of it is pure enjoyment over spectacle and technical achievement. I'd still move things around based on my mood. 

    1. Citizen Kane
    2. Wizard of Oz
    3. All About Eve
    4. Singin' in the Rain
    5. Double Indemnity
    6. Psycho
    7. 2001: A Space Odyssey
    8. Bonnie and Clyde
    9. The French Connection
    10. Taxi Driver
    11. E. T.
    12. The General
    13. Raiders of the Lost Ark
    14. High Noon
    15. The African Queen
    16. King Kong
    17. Titanic
    18. Apocalypse Now
    19. Lord of the Rings
    20. Shawshank Redemption
    21. Platoon
    22. Swing Time
    23. Duck Soup
    24. Ben-Hur
    25. Sixth Sense
    • Like 5

  24. Posted

    21 hours ago, Cameron H. said:

    I think my tastes have changed...

    My son loves the New Ghostbusters - a lot. He is 6 (oddly enough), and like you, he will watch it, and then put it on again immediately. So this Halloween, I thought I’d show him the original movie and he didn’t like it. He asked that we put on *the real* Ghostbusters.

    Anyway, maybe it’s because I’ve seen it too much, but the original wasn’t doing anything for me. It was kind of boring and Bill Murray just came off like a smarmy asshole. 

    I just saw the new Ghostbusters this weekend... twice - the extended cut, and the theatrical release. It was sooooooo good! I'm entirely in love with Holtzmann. She was unbelievably charming. 😍

    • Like 1
×