rcavanah

I didn't think it was offensive or inappropriate... I just thought it was embarrassing. None of the twerking was as offensive as those faces she was making.

Hey, I appreciate the appreciation! Heheh, that's not the standard response in most corners of the internet. And I totally get that I'm probably not the standard listener in this respect, but I only point it out because I'm sure these are all things Paul, June, and Jason have thought about more and more over the course of the show, and though everybody lands in a different spot on the matter, I doubt anyone would deny that there's a bit of a wearing-down and changing of perspective that naturally occurs as the show marches on. Heh, I'm sure we can all agree it's better that they consider their steps than turn into a mindless content steamroller (even just for the sake of of keeping the quality of their commentary fresh, which they totally have).

I can appreciate that. Heh, as long as we're thinking twice about it and all putting ourselves in each others' shoes, using some degree of basic human decency, then I can't say there's anything wrong. It's really just the entitlement to critique without that sort of consideration, particularly of the overblown hateful internet commenter variety, that gets under my skin these days. And of course, having never really put anything out there myself, I'd also concede that perhaps I'd feel suitably vindicated by the minority who did appreciate what I made, enough to ignore the negative responses. But in this case, I guess I'd just find it hard to make this movie a priority if there was any sort of on-the-nose "Yeah, please don't do that" kinda conversation. On the other hand, if it's just an assumption that somebody would tell somebody, then yeah, F that noise. But that's the whole thing; we don't know precisely what kinda interaction lead to this choice.

I do get what you're saying, but I guess it just strikes me as a bit old-fashioned to demand entertainment at all costs. Yes, the movie was just a failure in entertainment, which doesn't seem like a big deal to us. However, you also have to put yourself in their shoes and figure, well, for us it's just entertainment, but for them it's life, and it is personal (no matter how many times you say it's not malicious and that it shouldn't be taken personally). I mean, for all we know, it's not Zooey Deschanel who can't let it go... maybe she just thinks that M. Night Shyamalan is a nice, sincere guy, and maybe she knows something about the way he's reacted to all the criticism of his work over the years, and she doesn't wanna be party to that if at all possible. It's pretty complex. I mean, say you had a friend who made an attempt at a creative project that was received really badly, and they went into a deep depression. Maybe it even made money, but they wound up hurt by the response regardless. Sure, you'd try to help that friend learn to laugh about the experience and lighten up, but what if your friend couldn't do that? If you knew that was the case, you'd probably feel pretty icky if you saw someone making a further spectacle out of it, and you'd probably say something. You'd also probably think they were major dickwads if they ignored you. And if you didn't feel that way, wouldn't you at least feel a little guilty that it didn't make you feel bad? I dunno. Not saying that's the situation, but just saying there's a lot we don't know. But I guess the thing I'm hearing here that I really don't like is the attitude that there's some virtue in making fun of stuff. From any remotely reasonable standpoint: Come on. There's not. To me, getting to make fun of stuff made by other human beings is a privilege, not a right, and episodes should primarily be directed at movies that are either (1) made by fundamentally flawed people with too much ego to see that they've made a piece of crap, (2) poorly-produced money grabs, (3) massacred by the studio, or (4) technically bad, but celebrated for their insanity. In a way, I actually disagree with the fact that After Earth was used for an episode as well. Seeing M. Night Shyamalan get crucified for his past few movies and then keep coming back, no longer putting his name on stuff but still getting up and trying to make movies... it just makes me feel gross, because the guy loves movies. He's not just some floater director who gets offered a pile of money to make a remake of an adaptation of a remake and says, "Hell yeah dog, sign me up!" I think there's a line there, determined by basic human sincerity. Let me just say this: All I know is, if I were famous and made a critical failure that was met with the same kind of vitriol that M. Night is met with, I'd kill myself immediately. Even if something like HDTGM came along, which isn't as malicious as the internet in general and can be quite celebratory, it wouldn't really matter at that point.

From what I've read, for anyone curious, it could be left at this: Remember that the hosts are actors poking fun at other actors, which can be tenuous territory. Sometimes somebody knows somebody and that means this movie or that movie is a no-go. I know I'd be self-conscious if I were in either position, so I'm all for that policy. It's funny that this general issue came up today; for some reason, I had the urge to watch Zodiac on Netflix last night, and had totally forgotten that June played Mark Ruffalo's wife. It made me start wondering whether Mark Ruffalo had ever been in a HDTGM movie...

Eh, the whole "Skyfail" thing (I loved that movie and thought it did a good job at providing a nostalgic retrospective on the whole series), and some of the tiny, tiny reasons Doug picks on stuff.... like complaining about the fact that in the Muppets, the talent the new Muppet discovers is that he can whistle... I mean, that's neither a joke nor a legitimate complaint... it's just a description of a thing that happens. I just don't watch movies for the same reasons as most comics, I suppose. It's probably cheesy, but I'm a big-picture guy, and I tend to walk out of movies going, "It wasn't the best movie of all time, but hey! I sure am glad movies exist." Don't get me wrong, I've talked to Doug several times and I love the guy, especially when he's talking about anything but movies, but it's just something about the way many comics practice their passions, and are in patterns of making cynical observations (a necessary evil, at worst) that gets me frustrated/depressed sometimes. It's a big part of why I quit after a short go at doing standup, myself.

Oh, Wild at Heart! It's a truly GREAT movie, but so weird. Same with Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, and really any Lynch film of the era. I'd say Inland Empire, but they'd probably scoff at it for being too arty, which I'd get bummed out by because it's actually one of my favorites.

Yeah, it's actually a really great movie. My wife and I watched it after a very sad day when we had to have our sick puppy put to sleep, and pretty much bawled. If they watched it, though, I think the episode would wind up a little bit like the Odd Life of Timothy Green episode did. Dunno whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but with Jesse Thorn as a guest, it could work.

Well, my main argument is: there's a hell of a lot of other movies that should be covered before dipping into the pool of films that are just derivative or mediocre or flawed with some redeeming qualities... or I guess more accurately, films that lack the insanity that other HDTGM movies exhibit. And if we're talking about the value of covering a film in terms of general audience satisfaction, then the fact that there's such a dispute about this one kinda closes the book on it, IMO. There's lots of badly-ADR'd fish in the sea, as it were. I mean, I'd like an episode about Kick-Ass 2, but I can accept that there are lots of graphic novel loyalists or people who aren't as put off by the tasteless stuff that I might not get that episode. And Isaiah, on the idea that it simply needs to be discussed... don't get me wrong, I got no problems with the fact that you feel that way, but for me, taking on that ideal elevates the value of criticism a bit too high for my personal tastes. I don't see a major correlation between creative visionaries and their critics; I think most critics feel that it's a symbiotic relationship, but the creatives seem to see it as a parasitic relationship (albeit one that they tolerate, because they're the ones who get to do what they wanna do and make movies). Anyway, I digress... point was, I know we can agree that the main thrust of the show is for humor, and though the issues you have with the film are definitely topics for critical discussion, I don't see them as such a viable goldmine for jokes. Having done standup for a bit and spent some time with comics, I guess this is just personal preference. I don't like having actual conversations about movies with 99% of comics. We just don't see eye to eye in critical terms, because I'm an extreme sincerist, and most comics are extreme cynics. I stopped listening to Doug Loves Movies for that reason. So, when an episode of HDTGM becomes more about legit criticism than jokes, I'm out. I might just seem like an outlier or somebody who shouldn't be listening, but personally, I see a pretty solid line between criticism and jokes, and I'm here for the jokes.

It's easy to go overboard with this culture of amateur criticism, and I think having the proper approach is an important aspect of HDTGM. I mean, it's built into the theme song: "Not just being a hater..." But with a film where so many technical things are done well, I think there's a line where it could just become hipstery bullying. Personally, it's strange, because I love the podcast, but I can't listen to it if I'm in the middle of any sort of creative project. I worry that whatever I'm working on will get the same treatment by someone somewhere. Sure, that may just be a self-esteem issue, but I also know that I can't be the only person who feels that way... so the premise of the show is already a bit shaky as to what value it really has in terms of basic worthwhile human interaction, and there's a certain need to choose movies responsibly.

I liked this movie unironically. It's pretty beautiful, and I don't think it tried to be much more, which would mean it's no fun to make fun of (regardless of whether you liked it or not). And I'm sorry, but saying Oblivion is the stupidest movie you've ever seen while you're right in the middle of discussing After Earth is some next-level hyperbole that makes words lose all meaning and the human brain cave in on itself because it can no longer grasp basic concepts of relativity.

Re: Gallo, isn't it funny how we'd rather him be a lefty troll than a Republican, even though trolling with that much commitment indicates waaaaay more ego problems than simply... yunno... being a Republican? Ha. Buffalo '66 is one of the best movies ever, though. There's something so much softer and more cohesive about it than you'd ever have expected Gallo to be able to produce if you know his persona going in. Even the source of all the misogyny winds up being explained by the end. Also, Kevin Corrigan.

But... this is the thread where it was suggested before! YOU'VE CREATED A TIME PARADOX! (wait, maybe a mod just merged it... but I prefer my theory...) Anyway, yes, this movie is fantastic. There was a question earlier in the thread over whether it was intentionally the way it is, but I get the sense that it's Nic Cage and the director (a Brit) just kind of getting in on the tail end of the New York culture of that era, since it has something of a No Wave feel to it. In that light, there's really no way to look at it as something black-and-white knowingly or unknowingly bad, but just a few people messing around and making something as exaggerated as possible. It's not Lynch-esque, but seems to have a similar anti-self-consciousness approach.

Before I saw it, I would have thought there was no chance in hell that this movie would be so bad that it could be a candidate for HDTGM... that anyone who suggested otherwise would just a nitpicky amateur critic hipster... but now that I've seen it, I'd say this movie is in desperate need of the HDTGM treatment. It seems like it was written by someone who doesn't speak English, and has only seen a couple movies, and is 14 with ADHD. People try to say weirdly-worded inspiring things to each other, completely unrelated to the scene at hand, almost as nonsequiturs... there's the most unnecessary narration voiceover I've ever heard... there's a jokey cop-killing scene... there's a jokey rape scene (and I'm not automatically opposed to rape jokes, if they're legitimately funny and have the right tone, but this was just waaaay off)... there are total bummer deaths... there's a remote that causes vomiting and diarrhea... and there's a whole teenage girl coming-of-age/trying-to-fit-in plotline with no superhero stuff whatsoever. It's no fun at all. Again, I know it doesn't seem like it would be that bad, but... just watch it. Jim Carrey tried to have his name taken off the movie, and I have a feeling it wasn't just because of the violence... part of me actually thinks he might have used school violence as an excuse to get himself removed from this movie's weirdness as a whole.

Yeah, there are better ways to make you hate the villain. Even Tarantino figured out that the only real hate-worthy villains are those based in real life (slavers, nazis)... every other decent villain is actually kinda likable (Loki, Joker). I find that when I genuinely want revenge against a character, it's most often because that character was simply a weasel or a coward or an asshole. Anything more than that, and there has to be an entire premise formed around the revenge, a revenge-porn kinda thing like the two Tarantino films where you've set up the entire thing like dominoes. You can't just put McLovin' in a rape scene and expect me to laugh and hate the villain. Anyway, I think we've just killed any chance for this to be covered on the show. But seriously, almost every line, I heard Mantzoukas saying "Are you KIDDING me?!"

Go for Wild At Heart (bonkers, but amazing, and a good intro to David Lynch), Adaptation (straight up unironically good), Raising Arizona (overrated but good), Matchstick Men (instead of trying to be cool, he's appropriately twitchy and weird), Bad Lieutenant: PoCNola (self-aware insanity)... and Vampire's Kiss also might be the best dark comedy ever made, and it's more than a source of memes. Nic Cage is just incredible in it. Legitimately funny and insane, and not on accident. He's a pro. He doesn't bash the crap that he's been in, but I'm quite certain he knows it's crap. I think he's just a sincerist who likes experiencing the whole gamut of acting opportunities. It's almost like he's got an OCD checklist filled with things like "Superhero, Witchhunter, Redneck, Archaeologist, Greaser, Actual Guy" and he takes whatever movie lets him check one of those off his list.

Yeah, it was excised, and in a meta way where they call attention to it. Heh, not unlike the Jim Carrey thing, it was almost as if the writer/director was trying to distance himself from those parts of the source material, but completely clueless to the fact that he was still totally complicit in that mess. But that said, the objectionable stuff isn't so much of a downer that it would make the movie impossible to cover on the podcast in an entertaining way. The weird, vague, meandering dialogue is way more pervasive.

I love that my Sark meme took off. Keep 'em comin, man. It makes scathing criticisms into humor, because there's no room left on the internet for regular complaints. EDIT: Oh my word... you've been busy.

Ha, guys, I feel the sentiment... but saying that this group takes a painfully long time to get stuff done has nothing to do with knowing the technical bits of the rules. Don't get me wrong though; not complaining about the group so much. I just didn't think Sark really needed to roll encounter probability for EVERY floor! But of course, now that I've said something negative on the internet, it's impossible that I could ever be considered a fan of the show despite my one little not-even-complaint-just-funny-comment post. Y'all know I hate everything passionately, right? That's what I'm saying when I comment on things.

This: http://qkme.me/3tcv7d And also this: http://qkme.me/3tcv9e

Just for the record, I'mma +1 the support for Precious Moments. But spending an entire session on an elevator? That's fine too, I guess... I mean... I'm having a hard time figuring out how to say it, since negativity on the internet usually just results in anger for everybody and snide comments on subsequent podcasts, so all I can think to do is this, and know that I mean every word: I'm a huge fan I love it it's great I love it I love you I promise I'll never hurt you I love you Sark I love everyone I really do, but... it's... just... I... you... you've spent 4 hours of this game in an elevator... 2 going up, 2 going down. I mean, strides have been made in roleplaying systems to streamline things so that doesn't have to happen! I know old school D&D is great and all, but then just, yunno... play 2nd edition or something. But really... I think all this butthurt is just because I want Gerry back.

Just that.