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

taylor anne photo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3661

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    108

Posts posted by taylor anne photo

  1. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    I agree. I hate when movies try to sell us on couples who, like, never laugh or have a good time. I felt like Esther and Norman were in love. Aly and Jackson felt like they cared for each other, but I didn’t get that “Ooh, they’re meant to be” feeling. If anything, if feel like Aly should be like, “Thank you for the opportunity, but I think we should just be friends.”

    I mean, look at this mess:

    giphy.gif

    I appreciate you like my nose, but seriously, no, thank you.

    Man I could not feel more opposite y'all!!

    I am legit Team Bradley & Gaga Must Have Fucked IRL because I felt that chemistry from one end to the other. But when I watched the two in the 37 version I literally felt nothing until the very end of the movie. That first "date" scene with him driving her home just read way more like a drunk dude trying to get laid with his classic line and yeah I could see on Ester's face that she ate that shit up, but then when they decide to get married I didn't believe it at all! I had no sense that they were truly in love with each other until Ester and Oliver are talking about how she's going to quit acting to stay with him. That was the one moment on both those lead's faces that I genuinely believed they were in love.

    • Like 1

  2. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    That’s right. I forgot about that. 

    I mean, I agree that Gaga is the best part of the new one, but I just don’t think it’s as good as the world has been trying to convince me it is. ‘37 is a fine movie; 2018 feels like it’s trying too hard. And aside from “Shallow,” none of the songs really did anything for me. Also, I found it incredibly hard to believe that this gross, sweaty dude singing crunchy country-rock is such a big deal that EVERYONE knows who he is. He would have his niche, but I’m sure he can buy peas without being harassed.

    I'm trying to think of a real counterpart for him because I've definitely seen acts like him at festivals (which is what I'm assuming that first concert we see him play at is, just based on the flags and shit that you see in the crowd) and the only thing I could really come up with is Father John Misty which has a huge ass following in the folk/rock/country genre, but obvs I think we're supposed to assume that like Norman he's more of a nostalgia piece by this point than at his peak. He doesn't seem pure country so it doesn't make as much sense that his crowds would be as large as they are at that point (it truly seems like country fans will be ride or die with people they love), but that could be part of it for sure. I really loved that first song he sang solo, but I think after that we never hear anything from him that he doesn't then sing with Aly, maybe possibly echoing how Norman never acts again without Ester by his side?

    And truly, without Gaga I don't think the 2018 version would hold nearly the same weight as it does currently.

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    This is very true. We get that it’s her father’s dream, but we never see Aly actually pursue it the way Esther does. We’re just supposed to understand that’s what Aly wants but that she’s given up on it (I guess).

    I believe that at the point where we meet Aly she had just been beaten by insecurities, because she makes a comment that she keeps getting told that she'll make it big if it weren't for how ugly she was. So I don't think she ever really gives it up because she's still performing, but I don't think she's been told "No," the same way that Ester has. In the 37 version we just see that Ester gets told no because there are 100,000 other girls going out for the same jobs, but Aly gets told no because of her nose.

  4. Posted

    1 minute ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I think there were contractual issues that had to be ironed out re: Scarlett Johansson actually headlining a movie as Black Widow (you'd have to pay her more if she's the lead in one movie versus being a key supporting character across several movies). On some level that makes sense and on another level it seems like a lame cop-out when the MCU is raking in gobs of cash anyway, even for movies with talking raccoons and stuff. Just pay her; you'll make that money back and then some.

    It literally reeks of a giant cop-out. They had NO idea any of those men were headlining (literally no one had even heard of Chris Hemsworth or Tom Hiddleston in America before Thor premiered), and while RDJ was a known name he still had so much tied to him from his past that this was a huge gamble to start an entire franchise on his back. One wrong move and they would've lost everything. At least with Scarlett she already had a reputable name and many many great movies under her belt by that time and was maybe the only one out of any of those in the original six you could've banked at the time to lead her own movie of that scale. Plus after we've seen that DC can literally just throw Wonder Woman into a handful of scenes in a terrible movie like BvS and then knock it out of the park with her own solo movie then there's literally noooo argument that Marvel can throw out that holds any weight.

  6. Posted

    Just now, sycasey 2.0 said:

    To add to the above, I think that's how the movie comes across to me, like it's just getting at the idea of having a strong woman hero (with montages and iconography and stuff) and not actually giving us the full character. I really wanted more of those smaller character moments to help flesh her out.

    I will admit that I do feel like they were relying on "HEY LOOK A WOMAN!!!" to get them through a lot which is why I can't give them a perfect score for this at all, especially when Marvel is literally only doing this because of Wonder Woman's success and not for any of their own merit. I mean we're just now getting a Black Widow movie when we all would've been better served with one in 2011 after her introduction in 2010 with Iron Man 2.

  7. Posted

    4 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Though the issue with that is that the explanation for the Tethered's existence is that they were CREATED by humans, so it's not a case where humans were the invading force like Europeans coming to America. This is why I think the class critique is muddy. Peele might have been better off not explaining their origins at all, just leaving it as some kind of vague supernatural thing. Or if he is going to do that, I would have liked to see a bit more of how the Tethered lived, what kind of society they had below the surface, etc.

    For me, the reading that works best is on a personal level: it's about our personal demons, the "shadow person" you don't want to let anyone else see but that sometimes shows up anyway. I also think the sci-fi origins make that reading difficult, but if I had to pinpoint a core idea then I think that's it.

    She never says that they were created by humans though, and that goes back to a lot of questions I have about it, because it sounds like humans and their tethers were created by "something" else as an experiment that didn't pan out. I do agree though that the more he started to explain things the more questions I had which definitely took me out of the story a bit because I kept questioning things they had just said, and this is why I couldn't give it a full 5 stars.

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Anyway, I think in many cases people are emotionally connecting with the very idea of a woman superhero becoming powerful, so I don't want to rain on people's parades there. I do like that idea. I just wish it had been done better this time.

    I think you're chalking a lot of feelings up to one very broad sentiment, and if some people have found connection with her (no matter what the reasoning may be) then has the movie not succeeded? If you don't feel the same, then it really points out that the movie isn't for you, and that's fine, but it's not like you're raining on anyone's parade... And that kinda makes me think like there's really one way to feel about this movie and if anyone feels differently it's automatically because she's a woman... And that's messed up, man.

    • Like 1

  9. Posted

    7 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I have trouble with this, because of how the Tethered are presented. It seems to me that they are essentially the monsters in the story, the remorseless killing machines. If the movie is about class struggle, is that how Peele views the American underclass? I kind of doubt that's the point he was trying to make.

    The only one of the Tethered who can actively speak and communicate is one who was actually from the surface. Now, it is interesting that both versions of Adelaide are clearly capable of speech, so that does suggest the movie is making some distinction of nature vs. nurture, showing that it's possible for one of the Tethered to learn to act like a surface person. I'm still not comfortable with how the rest of the Tethered are characterized, though, which is why I don't think the movie's class critique holds up all that well.

    That's a very interesting take on it, because I think they are viewed as monstrous to those above ground, but to them this are just how they are, and they are literally pushed to murder. In my opinion, that's the way the pilgrims and "New World" settlers viewed the indigenous population of the Americas. They were viewed as savages who were considered dangerous. Just because the tethered do murder doesn't mean they are monsters automatically. I really do find them terrifying but that's because of the movements and smiles and it's totally tied to other terrifying imagery (mainly you can totally see Jordan's inspiration from Japanese horror) that I've seen previously, but they are the victims of their story. No matter how those of us above ground may view them, this is more like a rebellion than anything else.

  10. Posted

    6 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    So thematically, what do people think this movie is actually ABOUT? Do you buy the idea that it's a class critique? That it's about America's underclass (be it racial, socioeconomic, whatever) giving the privileged a little what-for?

    I ask, because that seems to be the most common critical interpretation, but I think the reveals at the end kind of hurt that reading (when you learn that the only reason anything went wrong was because Shadow Adelaide got out in the first place).

    Yes, I do. But I also don't think it gets hurt by that reveal, albeit because of what was mentioned above about someone climbing the ladder and being terrified of falling back down, or because she herself is owing reparations for what she did to Adelaide #1. She caused pain and torture to her double by switching them and so Adelaide #2 could be the stand in for those that directly harm someone they view as lesser than.

    I don't think it necessarily has as much to do with race as some think (I've legit seen people being like wow look at this statement on race, when it's never actually mentioned the way it is in Get Out), but I do think that underlying it also covers the issues with slavery and the descendants of slaves deserving their reparations as well. I personally think it has a lot more to do with the well ignored class system in this country. So much poverty right under our noses that gets swept up under the rug and truly ignored. In my own city alone there is one of the WORST cases of poverty in our country, and it literally never gets acknowledged by the city. I remember once my cousin asking me what was the worst poverty I had seen and my first reaction was San Francisco because of the amount of homeless population they have, and he had responded with the population surrounding the Appalachian mountains when he went on a mission trip in high school, but neither one of us even thought about the literal just a couple miles away from where we literally were standing, and I regret that conversation so much because of it.

    Anyway, that's what I think Jordan was commenting on if I'm being honest.

  11. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    This was the line specifically:

    "You know? I knew a couple of guys could sing Sinatra under the table. But Frank, he'd come on stage with the blue eyes, the sharkskin suit, the patent leather shoes... he becomes Frank Sinatra. And everybody else, all these other guys... that really got it, that really have it inside... just a bunch of nobodies." 

    Her father does say later that some other singer, I want to say Frankie Avalon or Frankie Vallie but the script I'm looking at doesn't mention them, says that they told him that he could also out sing Sinatra.

    Like I said, it's not a big deal, but would have made more sense in maybe the 70's version. In 2018, it just felt weird and lazy. ("Oh, New York Italian guys? They all love Sinatra! It doesn't matter that he was a teenager in the early 70's.")

    (I had no idea that was Dice)

    You're right. I had really forgotten the exact lines for sure, but I could have sworn that he had said himself at one point too so that must have been the Frankie whoever part and I thought that had shed a huge light on how he was effected by the industry before Aly was born and why she was so afraid to do anything about her dreams.

    (My mom and I saw it together and saw the name "Andrew Dice Clay" and both at the same time went, "WHO WAS HE???" and I had to pull my phone out during the credits to look it up. It was a huge surprise.)

    • Like 2

  12. Posted

    2 hours ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    For me, I see flashes of that in the movie, but it doesn't gel into a fully-coherent arc. Like, I'm not sure why they can't just tell Carol's backstory as a linear plot. I was interested in the brief scenes of her as a child at the racetrack, her in boot camp, etc., but they were just too brief. For most of the movie she's in that "held back" mode (but already basically established as a super-powered being), which IMO hurts the emotional connection.

    I would compare this to the first Captain America: in that movie we first get Steve Rogers as a scrawny weakling, but the core of the character is there. We see him standing up to a bully, taking a beating because he's physically weak, but continuing to stand up just the same. Trying over and over to enlist so he can stop the Nazis. That human core carries through after he becomes super-strong, but you connected to him as a regular guy before he became the powered guy. I'd say that Wonder Woman pulls the same trick, only in a different way: she is always superhuman, but the movie begins with her among the other Amazons, so by comparison she's just like the rest . . . you can connect with her as a real character before she has to fight the big bad guy. I was missing that in Captain Marvel. It feels to me like this movie is trying to do a whole lot more (showing us what SHIELD was like in the 90s, connecting to the other Marvel cosmic characters, setting up the next Avengers movie, etc.) and loses track of the core character arc.

    I'm glad it did well (I mean, all the Marvel movies do well so I wasn't that worried), but I hope for the next one they course-correct like they did with Thor: Ragnarok and give us a better showcase for Carol.

    I think the problem with what you've laid out is that they probably thought "well that's all been done before." So they wanted to do something new. The non-linear story telling bothered me a bit at first, because I also wanted to see more, but I felt the "get back up" montage at the ending was a really nice cherry on top for all those moments, because as she is gaining back her own memories we are also gaining parts of who she is. It may not have been totally in tune with the way story telling is typically done, especially in these superhero movies, but I really felt I was learning who Carol was at the same time she was, and that connected with me personally.

    Honestly, I think this comes down to personal tastes. I connected emotionally with Carol hardcore, but I know others didn't, but I think it's a shame that those who didn't pretty much paint a broad brush about it. Just the other day I finally listened to Comedy Film Nerds' review of it and Chris Mancini said he thought it was the worst Marvel Movie ever (he then corrected himself and said that probably Incredible Hulk still beats it as worst) and it was all because of that lack of emotional connection for him. Neither Graham Elwood nor Jackie Kashian agreed with him, but it was still a bit jarring to hear.

  13. Posted

    12 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    Captain America is much better as a pure character introduction, IMO. They nail the character's ethos and give him a real human backstory that you can feel. I think this one gets the "ethos" okay, but the human character remains muddy. I would say this is similar to Thor in that respect, but also IMO they didn't really nail that character until Ragnarok.

    I also think Guardians of the Galaxy is an amazing introduction to a whole host of characters. I think this has actually been Marvel's strength throughout their current run (doing good introductions to the primary characters), which is why I found this one disappointing. I'm not disappointed that it did well at the box office, but I am disappointed that I didn't "feel" it like the other ones . . . and believe me, I wanted to.

    I think the problem a lot of people have is that when this movie starts she's not the Carol the fans all know and love because she's being held back and continuously told how to act and be. The parts of her that are HER are when she's cracking jokes and I think when she's fighting she's truly herself, because that's the only way she knows how to let go, which is why Jude Law tells her so many times to control her emotions. But at the end the quippy girl that doesn't hold anything back IS Carol from the comics and I think many feel like that didn't come soon enough.

  14. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Okay, I promise I'll get to the '37 version soon, but one thing that annoyed the crap out of me in the 2018 version (and I know this is a bit nitpicky) was how obsessed her father was with Frank Sinatra. I mean, I like Sinatra fine, but he kept telling these stories like, "I knew a this guy who was better than Sinatra, but Sinatra was the one who got famous." Like, her father couldn't have been older than 65? 70? In 2018, he would have been a child during the Sixties, what is he talking about having buddies who were better than Sinatra? Sinatra would have been in his 50's and was well-established by that point. I don't even care if it's just because he likes Sinatra. Hell, I like Sinatra. But if I'm going to make a point about how people I knew were just as good as someone else, I would use someone contemporary to me. He should have been like, "I knew this blues-rock band who were better than Zeppelin, but they just didn't get the recognition.

    It's just another weird thing about the new movie. It was like, in some ways, they didn't even really try to update it for the times. 

    I assumed it was actually him that he was considering was better than Sinatra. I didn't remember him saying it was a buddy so to me it was like he was a jazz singer and he had talent but he didn't get famous and now he holds a major grudge about it for the rest of his life. But it still doesn't hold much weight if you hold his age that much for sure. Dice was born in 57 and totally by that point Sinatra was already on the scene and famous AF. Which, I didn't recognize it to be Dice at all so maybe we are supposed to imagine that he's 20 years older than he actually is or whatever.

    ETA: Also maybe the Sinatra thing is a major NY Italian thing??? I didn't bat my eye at it at first simply because I grew up with my grandfather loving that music since he was a contemporary of that time, but it seemed in line for that character specifically. Like I bet he was super into Jazz and probably totally skipped over the Rock era because he couldn't let go of his own dream of being Sinatra.

    • Like 3

  15. Posted

    12 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    Hm sorry yea, there were like 4 new posts as I was writing mine.

    But what I mean, I don't think the waitressing bits were supposed to be 'poor.'  She was impressing people with her impressions. It does feel a little dated though since I don't know who she was supposed to be imitating...

    You're right he never saw it though. Still, his elevation of her worked and she won an Oscar. His instinct was right, on her at least. That doesn't bother me. And it implies the bit that luck does play in becoming a success, which is pretty fair for a movie like this.

    I thought the only one that was really well done was the Mae West impression, maybe because it was the only I got like that dude did lol, but the German accent and the British accent were so bad I was like lord no honey pls what is you doin'.

    Oh I didn't say that it bothered me that he never saw her. It actually played really true to how I bet a lot of this goes in Hollywood, although I will admit that Jackson getting to hear Aly and see her writing a song before he makes that decision made a lot more sense for me personally.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    4 minutes ago, AlmostAGhost said:

    I think we do a little - there's that scene when she's waitressing and doing all those accents/impersonations. I think that was supposed to be a glimpse of her talent.

    That's why I said besides that part. I didn't see that part as genuine acting as much as we may have been supposed to. It was way too cringe worthy for me knowing how much of a no-no that is to take any of it seriously.

    Also, Norman never saw her act in that scene whatsoever. He arrived after the fact and just is entranced by her to the point where he just "knows" (I did love how his studio boss was like "uh huh sure just like all the others" to point out that this was not the first time he had boosted some random girl's career because of lust).

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    Just now, AlmostAGhost said:

    Oh, one interesting thing I noticed. In the 1937 version, we see the work -- take her name change, for instance. We see a bunch of studio folk trying to figure out the best sounding name, and an (albeit, tame) struggle to try to get it right and figure it out.

    In the 1954 version, Judy Garland just shows up to get her paycheck and they tell her she has a new name. It's just thrust right on her, done. 

    Streisand didn't change her name at all, if I recall.

    Maybe it's a minor nitpick but I think it really shows off the differences between the movies. 

    (I really should watch the 2018 version.)

    Aly doesn't change her name either but definitely just goes by "Aly" which is a major pop star move. I think it's very accurate to the times that in 37 and 54 they would totally change their names, but by the 70s they wouldn't, and by 2018 they would just drop her last name or adopt a stage persona (a la Lady Gaga, Lizzo, Halsey, Beyonce, etc.)

  18. Posted

    6 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

    That said, Lady Gaga was the best thing about the newest remake, which I felt was more of a Cooper vanity project. The two of them had excellent chemistry, but I didn't find any redeeming qualities in his character. The movie opened with a scene of Jackson on stage, then drinking and struggling with tinnitus. We don't see Ally's struggles, or really anything of her life aside from her dad and her friend. It was all just Jackson's story and how he struggled with losing fame and his family, and it's clear to see that Cooper made an effort to make that role more substantive, but I felt like it was at Ally's expense. And I feel it's fair to say the movie's second half just really struggles. I don't mean to dump on the 2018 version (I cried basically any time Lady Gaga sang a ballad), I just really prefer the 1937 version. 

    I could say this about the 37 version as well though. I think we see a lot of how Norman Maine deals with the loss of his career and how Ester is gaining more track than him, but we don't see anything about how she is actually beloved by everyone now. They just seem to jump in time to her premiere to winning an Oscar in a flash.

    A thing I also thought was extremely interesting was besides her poor attempt at acting while she was a waitress and then that one tiny scene from their movie premiere, we never actually get to see her act. I compared it a lot to All About Eve and how we never actually got to see any of those actresses act, and I wonder if it's either just a product of it's time in that's not really a conscious decision they made, or if it was and they wanted to hide how well everyone thought she was doing so that we would fill in those gaps.

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    8 minutes ago, WatchOutForSnakes said:

    One more thing about the t-shirt, when she grabs it, little Adelaide's mom says something to her dad about how the video had terrified Adelaide and kept her up at night. I'm guessing she always knew she was a tether. Or its more evidence that her mom knew she was/had a tether. 

    But that was before the switch.

    And I meant to comment on your post about this earlier but totally spaced on it.

    I think that's a very classic line a lot of parents use after their child goes through any kind of change. I feel like I hear it a lot in terms of a kid becoming that rebellious teenager going through puberty lol. But of course once we know then it's a big glaring oh shit this isn't the same little girl and that's why she's like saying that, however, I still don't believe she ever actually knew. Cause you can hear her and the dad fighting and he is saying "it was just 15 minutes," and she yells, "And now she's not talking so what happened in that 15 minutes," or something like that (I can't remember her exact quote now). So I think she ALWAYS knew something happened down there but probably her mind went to molestation unfortunately.

  21. Posted

    I saw a few of you have realized you're just not "A Star is Born" people on Letterboxd, and that's fine... you're all wrong, but that's fine :P

    I really enjoyed this version a lot more than I anticipated and while I didn't get to see the Judy nor the Babs version over the weekend, I can totally see what Bradley Cooper was so inspired by and what he took from this original version, and it made me appreciate the one from last year a hell of a lot more.

    • Like 2

  22. Posted

    On 4/5/2019 at 3:28 PM, gigi-tastic said:

    So sad news. I just got home from a vet checkup for my darling cat Albus and sadly I had to put him down today. He had two emergency urinary tract blockage surgeries two weeks ago and a new one formed . They were going to keep forming . The vet said I did everything I could and after crying for nearly two hours it's over. I only had him for two years but Ioved him enough for two lifetimes.

    I still have his dad Godric and maybe in the fall  I might go back to his breeder because she has another cat that needs to be placed and gets picked on like Godric did.

    I'm actually feeling better now ( it might be the migraine meds) but I was wondering what you guys turn to that lifts your spirits besides this podcast? 

    Albus in case anyone wanted to see him being silly:

    P1VijcAKRxmbxVAlCUnj9w?viewBox=591,1044&fTAzM5lERDeiB2PyaMjcVA?viewBox=800,600&o

    Oh gigi-tastic, I am so incredibly sorry for your loss. I lost my main dude, Tiger, in 2015 and it still hurts so I totally understand how you're feeling right now. I'm terrible at taking my own advice but something that I wish I had done that I didn't do was actually take the time I needed because mourning is hard and it's even harder when you don't allow yourself time to do it. I always seem to put my life responsibilities over my mental state and that's definitely not the thing to do lol.

    As far as other podcasts that ALWAYS delight me I recommend: Why Won't You Date Me with Nicole Byer, Never Seen It with Kyle Ayers, Dumb People Town, Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend (Matt Gourley is the producer and pops up a lot and it's amazing), 2 Dope Queens (no longer releasing new stuff but their archive is all there and highly recommended), and Sooo Many White Guys.

    If you're into spooky stuff then I also recommend (if not then ignore all this): Alice Isn't Dead, Tanis, Bizarre States, Ghosted! By Roz Drezfalez, Lore (pretty heavy but if you love true stories reported throughout the ages this is a fucking amazing podcast), and My Favorite Murder.

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    On 4/5/2019 at 5:05 PM, Elektra Boogaloo said:

    But, like, was the cat cast? Because I want to see Goose. I am very worried she got Snapped.

    If I don't get to see Rocket try and kill Goose then I'm going to be very disappointed! I was already slightly disappointed that he wasn't the one who got to point out that he was not a cat but indeed a Flerken like he did in the comics. It's truly one of my favorite panels!

    not%20a%20raccoon.png

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    I just can't get in line with the Jason and Pluto also switched places because that doesn't explain the lack of scarring on his face at the end. We for sure saw Pluto's face when Jason forced him to take the mask off and from his nose down was completely scarred over from being born into the fire, as Red had put it. So I can't seem to wrap my head around the theory that they've switched otherwise.

    23 hours ago, IMAHUGEHDTGMFAN said:

    But I did saw the movie opening day and again the next day... It's a really good movie made with lots of care for detail, unfortunately 1 thing did bother me... If we consider that original Lupita is actually living underground all these years cuz tethered Lupita chocked her and switched places with her then the scenes where she tells what happened to her husband and Red (along with tethred family) introduces herself and monologues/expositions her backstory don't hold up because they are talking as if there was no switch explaining some situations that didn't happen to them but to their doppelgangers. I know it's nitpicking but I'm more concerned with the scene in the bedroom where Lupita 2 posing as real tells her husband what happened the day at the beach and we see the abridged version of the intro stopping short before she choked Lupita 1 and at that point I do care but if/when I know she is NOT who she says she is then my sympathy is slim to none... She did tell her story looking out the window and facing away from her husband, giving him the back, maybe that was early tell (probably 'cuz she was actually lying/withholding the most important part of the story) I appreciated the twist in the horror movie level, that it's not really over, the family is alive with at least 1 tethered in toe...

    This part of that exposition drop actually didn't bother me because I think always Adelaide knew that the real version of her would someday come back. So she's painting the situation as if she is the real one who "saw herself" and it traumatized her so that's why she's afraid of the area. In reality now we know she was always afraid of going near Santa Monica because deep down she knew that Red would find her and take revenge for the switch. It made sense to me that she would tell the story from that angle in that scene because she's telling a character that has zero context for any of it, so the exposition drop was warranted in that moment. I still just can't seem to wrap my brain around the one between the two Adelaide's because they both know everything.

×