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

    27 minutes ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

    I seem to recall Roger Ebert asking a very similar question ("if people keep getting killed at this lake, why do people keep sending their kids there?") in a review when I was a tween.  Probably for part 6 or part 7.  Which makes me think the answer is probably the time-honored, worst-answer, "because we need the 'plot' to happen."

    It's been 9 years since I've seen part 2.  I vaguely remember there being a line in there about them ret-conning him actually not dying - the whole jumping out of the lake in the first one was always a confusing bit of narrative.  But so many later movies in the series still work with the assumption that he died in that lake (e.g. part 8, Freddy vs Jason both coming to mind).  It's been decades since I've seen Part 9.  If you make it to that point though, I think that one will make the coherency of the series somehow even more confusing.ï»żÂ  Though maybe it actually does tie everything together.  Probably not though.  The only one I don't know if I've ever seen is part 7 (and I haven't seen Jason X, which doesn't seem... canonical.  Though that's a weird phrase to use with this series).

    Unfortunately, AMC only has up till 8 on their roster so I am still not going to be complete in my viewing.

    Also, I did just remember that I saw the 2009 Friday movie before all of this. I did not enjoy it.

    • Like 3

  2. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    Yes you're right. Admittedly I haven't re-watched these movies in years and I just remember the time jump at the start leading to the death of the original final girl. I forget that there was yet another time jump after that. When you put this in the context of 1995 I guess Crystal Lake is one of those small backwoods type towns that's so far removed from the big city and big city life that time just is a little slower there and they don't keep up on trends.

    Also I'm glad this movie has created some new Friday the 13th fans.ï»ż

    They also do a terrible job of setting it up. In the first one they tell you each time there is a time jump, so in the beginning it says "1958" and then when it jumps it says "Present Day," which is also why I believed it was set in 1980 since that's when it was released.

    But in Part 2 they don't do that at all!

    Also... "fan" is a strong word for me 😂

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

    On 10/28/2019 at 6:51 AM, Cam Bert said:

    Also when you think about the timeline of the movie it makes less sense because this film doesn't take place in 1986! Part 2 is set two months after the first film, and Parts 3 and 4 follow the day after the previous films. So when Tommy appears as a child in Part 4 that's 1980. In parts 5 and 6 Tommy has now grown up which means this film is suppose to be taking place in 1990! So somehow a kid in a summer camp in 1990 is reading a comic book from 1983? Why? It just doesn't make any sense. Why would that be at the camp? Why would he bring a quarter bin comic to camp if it was his? Why bring or have the second part of a three part story arc? There has to be a secret meaning behind this issue!

    I didn't see this before I made my timeline comment, but Cam Bert, you are wrong! 

    They say while around the campfire in Part 2 that the original killings in the first movie were 5 years prior! I know because I was heavily watching to see if they ever date this because I was like okay what the fuck this was only a year ago and they're acting like people weren't legit just murdered here! And if the last remaining survivor suddenly was also murdered then I would think they would never open the camp! But then the main dude starts telling "the legend" and he mentions that Alice goes missing after 2 months and that all happened 5 years ago so no one really knows what actually happened to her.

    Plus the "Jason Expert" got it wrong because it was that same campfire story that sets up that Jason never actually died in that lake and he lived on his own for those ~25 years turning into "some kind of creature." 

    But this all makes your timeline theory all the more confounding cause that would set Part 6 in 1995 at least and literally none of this makes any kind of sense if this is supposed to be set in the same year as Clueless lol. I mean the clothes and hairstyles and music alone!

    • Like 3

  4. Posted

    This was my very first Friday the 13th movie, and boy howdy was I fucking confused all the way through.

    I decided immediately after to go ahead and marathon as many as I could for the rest of the night and I made it to Part 3.

    I was really confused about the timeline from the get go, but from what I gather (and from what Ryan says on page 1) the original movie wasn't actually set in 1980, the year it was released, but rather 79? And then in Part 2 they mention it being "5 years later" to justify why they would reopen the camp and make it seem like everything happened in a "legend" or what the fuck ever lol. Then Part 3 is literally set the next day after Part 2 but like around the corner on private land called Higgins Haven still on Crystal Lake.

    So because I have not seen 4 or 5 I have literally no idea about what year 6 is supposed to be set, but due to the clothes I have to assume it's still the late 80s, which begs the question - how the fuck has no one heard about the Voorhees or the mass amount of murders that has taken place in this ONE TINY area? All of these counselors would seemingly have been alive when the first murders in 1979 took place and they're acting like it's all just some spooky stories that their parents told them. That seems bonkers to me especially considering for a fact that 4, 5, and 6 center around Tommy which means at least the first two groupings of murders happened in these counselor's lifetimes.

    I'm hoping to catch 4 and 5 within the next two days because AMC still has them on demand as part of their Fear Fest for Halloween.

    • Like 4

  9. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cameron H. said:

    I don’t think you have to be completely scentless, just don’t be overpowering with it. I like what @taylorannephoto brought up, where the scent is almost hidden. I’m also of  @Elektra Boogaloo’s mind in that the scent is for me more than anything - especially when it comes to shampoos and body washes. No one is going to smell my honey scented body wash but me, you know?

    As far as colognes and perfumes go, I personally don’t wear any (sometimes aftershave), but a subtle scent can be very attractive in moderation. 

    I'm definitely a perfume kinda girl. I'm also bougie with my perfume choices cause my favorite smell is Givenchy Dahlia Divin lololol.

    • Like 3

  10. Posted

    12 minutes ago, CaptainAmazing said:

    I got chosen on this one (asked to pet the kitty). It was my first attempt, but I did indeed sound terrible.

    They cut out a part of me excitedly cooing over the cat, and that's fine.

    I probably did something only Paul would've enjoyed and he wasn't even there for that portion so I honestly get it

    (I said the only thing I wanted on this the day of their daughter's wedding was for How Did This Get Made to cover Queen of the Damned lololol)

    • Like 1

  11. Posted

    Jessica Chastain taught me in one of her instagram posts about a new way to properly perfume yourself where someone isn't doused and they still get a whiff - you spray the back of your neck ONLY and so when someone hugs you they get the smell. She did this while promoting Dark Phoenix and sprayed the back of her neck, and then when she met up with Sophie Turner they hugged and you can hear Sophie going, "Oh wow you smell nice!" 

    • Like 4

  18. Posted

    44 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

    Now this movie doesn't broach this issue like Star Wars does, but we are in a Galaxy with multiple languages. What if "Elle" has a serial number but it is written in an alien alphabet and number system. When Chief Thor acquirers him, he sees the serial number but can't read it. However, if the lighting is right and you are squinting at the right angle it looks like "Elle". So he just calls him "Elle."

    What if we're misgendering Elle and she identifies as a female and the name Elle refers to her gender because that's the French way of saying a female pronoun?

    EDIT: Did not realize that was the first literal thing Paul mentioned about this robot lol.

    • Like 3

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I mean, it's pretty common that actors don't know what's going to happen in the final cut of a movie. They only film their own scenes and aren't privy to everything else.

    I guess I have a different idea of what the tone of this movie is. To me it always felt more elegiac than purely celebratory, as the scene with Wolfman suggests. It's not as obvious about it as the black & white frame in Last Picture Show, but to me the undercurrent is always there.

    But this doesn't feel like one of those situations, and even if it was that points more to how much of an after thought this seemed to be.

    Idk if I would say I felt this was a celebratory feeling that I got from the movie, but definitely I felt like we were supposed to be looking on everything very fondly, especially since it's painted as a nostalgia piece.

  20. Posted

    20 minutes ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

    I found Paul and Amy's reading really ungenerous this time. On the one hand, they say it's just a superficial nostalgia trip, but on the other hand they complain about the downer ending. But the downer ending is exactly why it's not just a nostalgia trip! The movie is about the nature of nostalgia and the fact that such things are always fleeting. The Wolfman Jack scene and Ron Howard/Cindy Williams scenes (among others) definitely speak to this idea. Lucas added those title cards because he wanted to remind people of that.

    I get what they were saying, because the "downer ending" wasn't actually part of the movie per se. It comes off like an after thought and so you get this entire nostalgia trip that comes off really clean and then the movie technically ends, but then he puts this unnecessary extra shit at the end to be like lol jk the world sucks. It completely doesn't match the tone of the entire movie, including the music it's paired with. And it's very telling to me that none of the actors knew that was going to happen.

    In my opinion the plane flight at the end is the only way this movie should have ended. It's a hope and a fear at the same time. Leaving everything you know behind is terrifying and exciting and you don't know what's going to happen after that even in your own life. That's a good ending.

    • Like 2

  21. Posted

    1 minute ago, Cameron H. said:

    No, I totally get that. The only reason I watched it again was for Unspooled, and I was super apathetic about the prospect. :) I really wouldn’t recommend watching it again if you don’t have the mind to. In my mind, a “good” movie shouldn’t require multiple rewatches. I mean, sometimes it helps, but in my opinion, if it’s truly good, it should grab you the first time.

    I couldn't agree more.

    And I bet in 20 years when the next gen of kids finally all start seeing Dazed & Confused I bet they would say the same thing and just be like, "Seriously? That's it?"

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

    Had you seen it before? I only ask because I was thoroughly unimpressed the first time I watched it, but for some reason I was really into it this time. I’m not sure what clicked for me, but I was far more receptive to it on this watch through. On Letterboxd I bumped it from something like two stars up to four.

    But, yeah, I totally hear you, and I get it.

    I've only seen it the once, and it was definitely so hyped up that I was expecting something amazing. Even my mom was like, "Oh my god you've never seen it before!?" And so when I watched it I kinda had the thought of, "That's it?"

    I give it a solid 3 out of 5. There are parts I like, and parts I don't like which makes it solidly okay lol. But tbh I'm not sure if I want to sit through it again lol.

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    3 minutes ago, The_Triple_Lindy said:

    Okay, I got curious so I looked it up. It was the Freejack episode that I was thinking of:

    We had this exchange, and then a caller during "Explanation Hopeline" hypothesized that while Anthony Hopkins' brain was dying, his Jacob's Ladder death dream was about how he was Odin, etc.

    This may not have been the one that you were referring to. Meanwhile, I had forgotten what a fucked up movie Freejack was.

    Omg, I totally 100% forgot about this! I'm amazed at how funny and smart we are lol! But yeah this wasn't the one I was specifically thinking of but I do remember now thinking the same thing about that caller lol!

    • Like 3
    • Haha 2
×